RugbyRebels

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:58 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am

Stom wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:26 pm

Well, policy wise, when there's no label, left leaning policies consistently poll better across the board.

It's just that they see what they want to see, and that is that Trump is the big powerful daddy who is going to save them from all the nasty brown people and women who want to take away their freedoms.

It's just that those freedoms look different to different people.

I'm amused there are still people resorting to polling to say that a left leaning platform is popular when election after election it gets a shellacking and polling is shown to be fundamentally flawed.

Well, we cannot compare the US to elsewhere, due to the extremely high levels of tribalism. But if we look elsewhere, we see that manifestos that include elements of what we would consider socialism tend to do better.

And I was careful to say left leaning and not full on crack smoking borderline communism here.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:17 am

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:46 pm Zero % chance of deporting 11M immigrants, might get to 2% of that number

I think this is endearingly naive. Firstly, actually deporting them isn't the point. The point is giving authority for police or ICE to pick up and detain any brown person. Secondly you're assuming a level of decency in there execution that just won't exist. You're assuming they won't just pick people up and drive them across the border.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:28 am

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:58 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:07 am
I'm amused there are still people resorting to polling to say that a left leaning platform is popular when election after election it gets a shellacking and polling is shown to be fundamentally flawed.

Well, we cannot compare the US to elsewhere, due to the extremely high levels of tribalism. But if we look elsewhere, we see that manifestos that include elements of what we would consider socialism tend to do better.

And I was careful to say left leaning and not full on crack smoking borderline communism here.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I was talking about the US. Obviously some feeling for one's fellow citizen exists elsewhere.

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:01 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:49 am

Well quite.

The problem is the difference between platform and policy. In isolation, every policy polls better. As a whole, there are cries of "how will we fund it" in the UK, or "socialism!" in the US, and it all falls apart.

And there is a very big difference between left leaning and left wing.

Government should not be "big" on our lives, but it needs to be big government when it comes to regulations on things that can actively harm its populace. This Trump concept is absolutely the opposite. The completely wrong way to govern.

well quite, again.... polling is not the same as voting, obviously.Tho the UK has just voted for huge government, but I suspect didn't realise it as govt was already big by UK standards.

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:44 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:10 am

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:01 am

The problem is the difference between platform and policy. In isolation, every policy polls better. As a whole, there are cries of "how will we fund it" in the UK, or "socialism!" in the US, and it all falls apart.

And there is a very big difference between left leaning and left wing.

Government should not be "big" on our lives, but it needs to be big government when it comes to regulations on things that can actively harm its populace. This Trump concept is absolutely the opposite. The completely wrong way to govern.

well quite, again.... polling is not the same as voting, obviously.Tho the UK has just voted for huge government, but I suspect didn't realise it as govt was already big by UK standards.

I agree on the first point. But considering I did say polling...

However, I feel like the idea of "huge" government is a narrative shift, much in the same way the right/left spectrum has shifted. And it all comes back to the shifts that happened under Thatcherism/Reaganomics. Before the 80s, government was routinely multiples larger than the largest it's going to get under this current government.

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:20 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:49 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:25 am Kin ell. Polls pretty significantly wrong in a bad way so far.

Margin of error. It looked like Trump was leading since the last month or so

Edge of margins, none had him winning all the swing states or significantly winning popular vote if that’s what happens

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:15 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:20 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 7:49 am

Margin of error. It looked like Trump was leading since the last month or so

Edge of margins, none had him winning all the swing states or significantly winning popular vote if that’s what happens

Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:38 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 9:17 am

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 1:46 pm Zero % chance of deporting 11M immigrants, might get to 2% of that number

I think this is endearingly naive. Firstly, actually deporting them isn't the point. The point is giving authority for police or ICE to pick up and detain any brown person. Secondly you're assuming a level of decency in there execution that just won't exist. You're assuming they won't just pick people up and drive them across the border.

I think it's endearingly naive that you think one of the big 3 couldn't become an authoritarian state....leave this off please

Trump didn't even build the wall he promised 1st time around, not everything he says is followed through on, this is one reason why it won't happen, logistics being no 2.

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:16 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:15 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:20 am

Edge of margins, none had him winning all the swing states or significantly winning popular vote if that’s what happens

Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

aye. Suspect quiet Trump voter effect or summat like that.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:38 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:16 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:15 am
Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

aye. Suspect quiet Trump voter effect or summat like that.

There was a pollster on C4, JL Partners I think, who were also more accurate - they claimed this was because they used a wider range of methods for reaching people eg having pop-up polls in computer games (which seems like a criminal act IMO) . . . and actually getting out and talking to people. Of course, maybe they were just pro-Trump and skewed their results that way, accidentally making them more accurate . Anyway, the pollsters in general got it wrong and need to review their methods.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:15 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:09 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 4:27 pm

Is it really that simple? There's still a ton of people that simply didn't vote this time, and it seems like many who will simply vote for whoever promises the lowest cost of gas, groceries, healthcare etc. Harris didn't really seem to address the economy, not in a way that reached most people anyway.

Discussing the pros and cons of the Dems going left is obviously totally moot - it isn't going to happen.

But that doesn't mean it's necessarily stupid. Trump speaks to a lot of the working class who feel left out (because they are). He tells them lies because he only means to make life better for the rich but that doesn't mean there aren't votes to be had offering the working class a left wing deal eg better employment rights, better healthcare, pensions, benefits etc.

They were literally just offered that.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:38 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:16 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:15 am
Most of the pollsters were systematically wrong, ie they consistently showed a lead for Harris that wasn't actually there, presumably by over or underestimating the vote from certain demographics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwid ... l_election

Atlasintel seemed to be more accurate whereas most pollsters consistently gave Harris a slight lead.

aye. Suspect quiet Trump voter effect or summat like that.

There was a pollster on C4, JL Partners I think, who were also more accurate - they claimed this was because they used a wider range of methods for reaching people eg having pop-up polls in computer games (which seems like a criminal act IMO) . . . and actually getting out and talking to people. Of course, maybe they were just pro-Trump and skewed their results that way, accidentally making them more accurate . Anyway, the pollsters in general got it wrong and need to review their methods.

Since we’ll hear a lot, again, about “populism”, let’s remember, again, that 19th-century US populism had a healthy strain of leftwing politics. Defending workers, riling up bankers, decrying the “cross of gold” and economic conservatism: look past his Bible-bashing, and William Jennings Bryan was a precursor to Franklin Roosevelt. Yet for much of this election year, the populists’ modern-day successors in the Democrats have served up an anti-populism: telling voters they were wrong.

...

For reasons I’ll explain in a moment, I’m no fan of explanations that begin and end with the bogeyman of “populism”. They almost always wind up with well-lunched commentators ventriloquising the opinions of people they’ve never talked to and in whose worlds they’ve never set foot. Look at the exit polls and you see a materialist explanation for what’s just happened: two out of three US voters report their economy is bad. And they have an excellent point.

...For the vast majority of US employees – whether middle class or working class, teacher or shop assistant – wages have flatlined. Not for four or even 20 years – but for most of the past half century. Strip out inflation, and average hourly earnings for seven out of 10 employees have barely risen since Richard Nixon was in the White House.

I can’t think of a more flammable political economy than a country with a few very rich people where most workers only get by because of low gas and food prices. Then what happens? A second blow. Covid peters out, the world comes out of lockdown and low-wage America is doused in that most combustible of economic substances: inflation. The entire system goes up – and Donald Trump spots his chance.

Faced with the flames, what would be a left-populist response? It wouldn’t be to resort to pedantry, to correct angry voters by showing them the aggregate figures – but that’s what many Democrat supporters did. Nor would it be to roll back all the benefits extended over the pandemic: the improved child tax credit, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. But that’s what Joe Biden did, even as he shovelled billions into infrastructure. The electoral result was that working- and middle-class voters peeled away from the Democrats. Kamala Harris won the most affluent voters, while Trump took those earning between $50,000 (£39,000) and $100,000 (£77,000). The two tied for those on $50,000 and below. So much for Harris being part of the most pro-worker government since the 1960s.

Just as the electorate professed fury with the entire political and economic system, she and the Democrats made themselves the system’s defenders. They weren’t change but more of the same. They worried about the future of “democracy”; they warned about disrupting free trade. Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” said it all: a campaign defined by being anti-Trump rather than for anything. A strategy intended to woo “moderates” left nearly everyone cold.

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 2:00 pm Really interesting article in the Guardian about how lazy and reductive it is to blame "populism".

Since we’ll hear a lot, again, about “populism”, let’s remember, again, that 19th-century US populism had a healthy strain of leftwing politics. Defending workers, riling up bankers, decrying the “cross of gold” and economic conservatism: look past his Bible-bashing, and William Jennings Bryan was a precursor to Franklin Roosevelt. Yet for much of this election year, the populists’ modern-day successors in the Democrats have served up an anti-populism: telling voters they were wrong.

...

For reasons I’ll explain in a moment, I’m no fan of explanations that begin and end with the bogeyman of “populism”. They almost always wind up with well-lunched commentators ventriloquising the opinions of people they’ve never talked to and in whose worlds they’ve never set foot. Look at the exit polls and you see a materialist explanation for what’s just happened: two out of three US voters report their economy is bad. And they have an excellent point.

...For the vast majority of US employees – whether middle class or working class, teacher or shop assistant – wages have flatlined. Not for four or even 20 years – but for most of the past half century. Strip out inflation, and average hourly earnings for seven out of 10 employees have barely risen since Richard Nixon was in the White House.

I can’t think of a more flammable political economy than a country with a few very rich people where most workers only get by because of low gas and food prices. Then what happens? A second blow. Covid peters out, the world comes out of lockdown and low-wage America is doused in that most combustible of economic substances: inflation. The entire system goes up – and Donald Trump spots his chance.

Faced with the flames, what would be a left-populist response? It wouldn’t be to resort to pedantry, to correct angry voters by showing them the aggregate figures – but that’s what many Democrat supporters did. Nor would it be to roll back all the benefits extended over the pandemic: the improved child tax credit, Medicaid and unemployment insurance. But that’s what Joe Biden did, even as he shovelled billions into infrastructure. The electoral result was that working- and middle-class voters peeled away from the Democrats. Kamala Harris won the most affluent voters, while Trump took those earning between $50,000 (£39,000) and $100,000 (£77,000). The two tied for those on $50,000 and below. So much for Harris being part of the most pro-worker government since the 1960s.

Just as the electorate professed fury with the entire political and economic system, she and the Democrats made themselves the system’s defenders. They weren’t change but more of the same. They worried about the future of “democracy”; they warned about disrupting free trade. Harris’s slogan of “we’re not going back” said it all: a campaign defined by being anti-Trump rather than for anything. A strategy intended to woo “moderates” left nearly everyone cold.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... mp-victory

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:39 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:15 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 5:09 pm
Discussing the pros and cons of the Dems going left is obviously totally moot - it isn't going to happen.

But that doesn't mean it's necessarily stupid. Trump speaks to a lot of the working class who feel left out (because they are). He tells them lies because he only means to make life better for the rich but that doesn't mean there aren't votes to be had offering the working class a left wing deal eg better employment rights, better healthcare, pensions, benefits etc.

They were literally just offered that.

No, they were offered more of what they were already getting from Biden/Harris.

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:59 am Well, the polls on voting intention have been skewing further and further from the reality in recent years, often very much over-egging the non-right wing votes.

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:23 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:39 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 10:15 am
They were literally just offered that.

No, they were offered more of what they were already getting from Biden/Harris.

Which was better employment rights, better healthcare, but also housing

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 7:44 am I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

cashead wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 6:08 am

Stom wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2024 11:59 am Well, the polls on voting intention have been skewing further and further from the reality in recent years, often very much over-egging the non-right wing votes.

This only seems to be significantly an issue in American elections. Most other elections have more or less gone as expected based on opinion polls - case in point the Japanese general elections late last month, where, if anything, the LDP's popularity - which was hitting historic lows under the previous prime minister Kishida - was overestimated and the government's ruling majority just got wiped out in a 76-seat swing.

Or shit, the UK elections, where the polls predicted a bloodbath for the Tories, and welp. Maybe there was a surprise in Truss losing her safe Tory seat and effectively having her parliamentary career ended, but considering how much of a dedicated failure turtle she is, that couldn't have been that big a surprise.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 7:44 am I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 7:44 am I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 8:41 am

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2024 7:44 am I wouldn't claim to know shit about American society or politics, but I saw this and wondered if it's possibly as accurate as anything else....

Our side lost because of the intolerance of the tolerant left. If you don’t see that, then we will keep losing.
People didn’t vote for Trump, they voted against you.
They voted against your “if you don’t agree with me then you’re my enemy” mentality.
They voted against your need to have an echo chamber or risk being canceled.
They voted against being attacked for a difference in opinion.
They voted against being called pedos, racists, homophobes, Nazis simply for disagreeing with you.
They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children.
They voted against having to walk on eggshells for fear of offending someone.

I don’t care who I piss off by saying this, step out of the tunnel vision and have a civil conversation with folks and take responsibility for your part in pushing people, who are on the fence, to vote against you.

I always find it amazing that the left is attacked for incivility. Yes, there are absolutely obnoxious people on every fringe who drive people away, but it's not the left who use the epithet of "pedos" to describe marginalised groups and those who advocate for them - that's a mainstream right thing, endorsed and promoted by mainstream right leaders. Nor was it the "left" leader or "left" spokespeople who made constant streams of personal attacks about "DEI hire", "Slept her way to the top", "low IQ", etc.

The key bit of that diatribe is "They voted for the right to keep YOU out of decisions for their children." What decisions do they want to make that they feel the intolerant left would stop them from?

Puja