pfife

Little late but good move. Hopefully this can keep the capitalists from destroying tests

yeah I'm pretty much convinced that his vote has little to do with what his constituents think is popular. We already saw writeups that his Fox News Sunday performance was based on meanies hurting his fee fees and we've established in many instances he doesn't vote Trumpily, and like MB said, actually voted to remove Trump from office. Not to mention we do have empiricism that says that these programs are popular in WV and he's voting against them. That's more evidence his vote has little to do with what his constituents like.

or maybe the bayesian reasoning isn't about D4P but for the whole BBB situation to which I would ask again, what new evidence came out about BBB or Manchin or the presidential election that lead to hypothesis readjustment associated with Bayes reasoning? The evidence around these is not new. It was almost 1 year ago that Trump won WV by >40. It's been even longer that everyone knew Trump would roll in WV. That's not new evidence, it's the oldest evidence of any component. Was his hypothesis pre-adjustment via Bayesian reasoning that...... BBB was popular in WV? Then the NEW evidence that trump won by 40 entered the chat?

What new evidence came out after I screenshotted his website grading data for progress as a B?

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.