pfife

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

I couldn't help but notice from reading the link that they didn't use polling data in the study

saying they're butthurt and blaming them for fascism instead of the fascists doesn't strike me as a way to get them to vote how you want them to vote.

it's the fascists at fault if the country goes to the fascists I'm not onboard with whitewashing fascism to bash progressives, ymmv

Honest question - how many more democrats are needed to be elected to pass this bill as it is right now? Does anyone here thing Manchin was the only that was against it? Do we assume Sinema is too, and thus we'd need to elect *at least* two more Democrats? Is it more realistic to think they need more like 4 or 5 more democratic senators to pass this bill? What if a portion of the 4 or 5 elected are not actually in support if it, so even more are needed? I personally think there are others out there that are very very glad to have let Manchin take the heat for sinking that bill b/c they wanted to vote against it. At some point, it seems fair to me to think, well maybe the Democratic party doesn't actually want to pass BBB. If I'm a voter that then wants things that are in BBB, why would I vote for the Democrats? Why is this unreasonable?

I agree with electing more Democrats for sure. I totally don't think that criticizing voters for potentially not voting for Democrats is the way to get people to elect more Democrats.

I think the midterms are all an enthusiasm match. And enthusiasm is high on the other side. You got mf's going to freaking school board meetings where they don't even have freakin kids right now on that side. Who's ever that motivated? meanwhile the Democrats are basically just not-republican'ing. I mean I know they're doing judges but they need to do the things that motivate their voters too. in a lot of ways the midterms after the election remind me of the championship team, the following season, just doesn't have the hunger for winning and it makes it difficult to repeat. I hear commentators say that stuff on sports all the time and it seems similar, they need to keep their side motivated.

well we'll see if they're going to do the smart thing and try to pass the stuff that will actually have the votes. Just take all of the crap out he objects to and pass the rest. being not trump isn't going to win the election this time unfortunately

planning to redouble my fortitude to fulfill my moral responsibility to vote for democrats because joe manchin votes to the left of his constituency except when he doesn't because negative partisanship is a thing

not sure why you're being so condescending with me still after this performance you just had, but whatever you already wasted your time bro I didn't have anything to do with it. Sadly, by quoting me, you also wasted my time with it. You seem to have no concern about wasting my time so I'm not feeling so compelled to provide a corresponding evaluation.

So yeah, it's a fair question to ask what you're trying to discuss with me since you literally started a discussion with me and then argued both sides of the discussion.