pfife

Well I guess our talk about Manchin voting based on his constituents was totally irrelevant. Of course the reason for Manchins vote is.... wait for it..... Manchins feefees!!!!! I can't imagine why ppl wouldnt rush to elect more of this shit

No

Seeing a number of ppl tweeting things of this nature So there's a nytimes report, and this dude pushed it further than the nytimes report. This is all the Jan6 committee, so in addition to NYAG who Trump apparently sued today to stop an investigation. NY times report, which of course leaves trumps name out of the headline because of long standing conservative bias that has been repeatedly demonstrated in threads here and the old board. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/20/us/politics/jan-6-committee-criminal-referrals.html

Did we lose Yoda? Also this mtf account will now be a proco RAT pedal stan account

Seems like Nate is saying "don't believe that empiricism here's my opinion instead". Nate's org rated Data for Progress as a B. So should I believe Nate's opinion or Nate's org's ratings? They seem contradictory.

I'll take the W. You agree with the tweet. Capitalism was ill-equipped without government help. You're arguing the same thing.

no, the discussion since yesterday morning has been critical of progressives not voting for democrats - there hasn't been any discussion of Democrats voting for progressives.

but isn't it the Democrats trying to get the progressives to vote for them, not vice versa?

they don't. They think progs owe them their votes b/c they're "not as bad as the fascist Republicans". It will only get worse if the GOP keeps going to the left of them on some of these key economic issues (at least rhetorically). I think this board is full of people that have socioeconomic status that enables us to vote based on things like "stopping fascism". And that's totally fine. But I also think there are a lot of ppl out there that are voting based on things like "my job" and, right or wrong it doesn't matter, "stopping fascism" isn't on their radar. The Democrats need to either get "stopping fascism" on people's radar (and do so in a way that isn't terrible and "you don't know what's best for you-ish"), or adapt in some other way to get the "my job" votes. "My job" is just one example.

I think you can make a more concrete argument, Tater does all the time. Trumpism does have a lure for progressives based on things like NAFTA.

That seems to suggest then that Machin's electoral fate is not tied to his vote on an economic bill.

I think it's not vs conservatives now, it's vs. populists, and unfortunately the populist message does appeal to these folks. That's the Bernie -> Trump vote. Or maybe the Obama -> Trump vote.

I've always thought this board has a very strong technocratic/high education bias. It's never been more apparent than in this thread. A bunch of engineers and data scientists arguing about the world with predictable results.

Also now they don't only apparently disagree on policy, they also now feel like the moderates screwed them bad. I totally don't think the way out of this predicament is to substitute your voting priorities for theirs and criticize them for not voting how you think they should vote. Again, as always, YMMV.

Yessir! Furthermore, message board posters aren't entitled to progressives' voting priorities.

If anything, you're the one pretending something doesn't exist - you're quoted above arguing two different ways, but alas, you do seem to be arguing that the constituent parts of the bill don't matter... sometimes... which is actually to me very pretend-y. I think they matter to a lot of people. A lot.

Again, you're arguing both sides. If the popularity of a bill isn't based on it's constituent parts, as quoted above, why did you argue that giving people stuff for 2-3 years and then taking it away isn't politically wise: Either the constituent parts matter or they don't. Also, Why do you keep posting as if I'm just pretending something obvious like negative partisanship doesn't exist? I'm quite literally talking with you how to measure it accurately in polling, not pretending it doesn't exist.

I read that this morning too. It's sad that it's come to that for that doctor. Hopefully he can catch on somewhere- I work for a medically adjacent company like he mentioned and we hire clinicians all the time.

No. I was discussing question text in polling. Just like you were. There's really no ambiguity in what I was discussing. You quoted it.

You are arguing two things at the same time: 1) Question text is ridiculously important in empiricially measuring public opinion, slight changes to how question is asked will have huge implications in the polling results. 2) Question text is so important, You're using a totally different question that didn't ask about the bill whatsoever to draw conclusions about the public opinion of the bill. So if question text is important, why are you using a question not about the bill to determine the popularity of the bill?

538 grades Data for Progress as a B with a 3.3 dem bias:

#1 is probably true, although not sure if that means what was published isn't true. #2 is speculative. We already know people aren't answering polls from all sorts of organizations, we don't know if it is impacting Data for progress anymore than any other polling organization, nor do we know how it is impacting data for progress specifically. Have there been studies on polling non-response in West Virgina?

I think it's better than not giving them the benefits at all. Since the democrats failed to re-up a bunch of stuff last week maybe we will be able to answer your question empirically soon.

Listening to Manchin on FNS.... dude says that business funds stuff for ten years, not 1, 3, 5 year increments. Lmao spoken like a senator not in business . Nope no 3 year contracts in business lol!!!!

I think it repells people from democrats whether it's their campaign effort or not