Biden's presidency

[pfife]

38 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

On the discussion of length of time, will people acknowledge that giving the population a benefit for 2-3 years and having them taken away once they sunset may not exactly be a political gold mine?

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.

Edited December 20, 2021 by pfife

[pfife]

18 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

 

One poll from a thinktank does not a public opinion make.

1. Publication bias. "Data for progress" isn't going to publish something that doesn't fit their narrative.

2. Response bias. The bulk of West Virginians aren't going to answer a poll from "Data for progress."

#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?

Edited December 20, 2021 by pfife

[pfife]

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

 

[mtutiger]

There was a poll conducted of West Virginia on 3 November last year. And Joe Biden lost it by nearly 45 points.

If one really believes that if the question were framed as being Joe Biden's bill (as it inevitably would be should a bill pass) and that West Virginians would subsequently approve 65-35, I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe, just maybe, Joe Manchin understands his state better than social media and message board randos?

[pfife]

7 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

There was a poll conducted of West Virginia on 3 November last year. And Joe Biden lost it by nearly 45 points.

If one really believes that if the question were framed as being Joe Biden's bill (as it inevitably would be should a bill pass) and that West Virginians would subsequently approve 65-35, I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe, just maybe, Joe Manchin understands his state better than social media and message board randos?

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?

[mtutiger]

8 minutes ago, pfife said:

So if question text is important, why are you using a question not about the bill to determine the popularity of the bill?

Are you really arguing that Joe Biden's standing in a particular state is irrelevant to a discussion about the popularity of his agenda in that state?

Again, don't know what to tell you. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by mtutiger

[pfife]

10 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Are you really arguing that Joe Biden's standing in a particular state is irrelevant to a discussion about the popularity of his agenda in that state?

Again, don't know what to tell you. 

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.

Edited December 20, 2021 by pfife

[mtutiger]

19 minutes ago, pfife said:

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.

Question text is important. And the reality is, for the majority of Americans who don't focus on this stuff as much as we do, should a bill eventually pass, it isn't gonna be thought of for each of its constituent parts complete with a rosy narrative as it is framed by DFP, it'll be thought of as "Joe Biden's BBB bill"

And when you are talking about a state like West Virginia, where the President lost by almost 45 points, it seems important to take that into account instead of just saying "ackshully, the bill is popular, because DFP poll"

I dont like it anymore than you do, but pretending that negative partisanship doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

[pfife]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Question text is important. And the reality is, for the majority of Americans who don't focus on this stuff as much as we do, should a bill eventually pass, it isn't gonna be thought of for each of its constituent parts complete with a rosy narrative as it is framed by DFP, it'll be thought of as "Joe Biden's BBB bill"

And when you are talking about a state like West Virginia, where the President lost by almost 45 points, it seems important to take that into account instead of just saying "ackshully, the bill is popular, because DFP poll"

I dont like it anymore than you do, but pretending that negative partisanship doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

 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.  

[pfife]

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.

 

[Tiger337]

Progressives are desperately worried about issues like climate change, wealth disparity, racial equity and wealthy disparity.  They probably don't think the moderates care about those issues, so they aren't supporting them.  Maybe they'll vote and maybe they won't, but Democrats are not entitled to the progressive vote.  

[pfife]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

Progressives are desperately worried about issues like climate change, wealth disparity, racial equity and wealthy disparity.  They probably don't think the moderates care about those issues, so they aren't supporting them.  Maybe they'll vote and maybe they won't, but Democrats are not entitled to the progressive vote.  

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

[pfife]

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.

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Progressives are desperately worried about issues like climate change, wealth disparity, racial equity and wealthy disparity.  They probably don't think the moderates care about those issues, so they aren't supporting them.  Maybe they'll vote and maybe they won't, but Democrats are not entitled to the progressive vote.  

but as always, you have to crawl before you can walk. If Progs won't support moderates over conservatives, they will never move the center close enough to where they are to get anything they want. That's just reality. If we had a three party system where a block could swing it's support to a second moderate party they could have more leverage, but unfortunately (or not, YMMV on that) the US system doesn't and never has worked that way. It has *always* been incumbent on the left and right to persuade the middle before they can get what they want. The left did it in the 30's and 60's, with the social net and civil rights, the right did it in the 80's with Reaganomics. That is just how it works. Party Politics is the US can only be done from the inside out. If you can't persuade your own side, you never get an opportunity to persuade anyone else.

Edited December 20, 2021 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

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.   

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

but as always, you have to crawl before you can walk. If Progs won't support moderates over conservatives, they will never move the center close enough to where they are to get anything they want. That's just reality. If we had a three party system where a block could swing it's support to a second moderate party they could have more leverage, but unfortunately (or not, YMMV on that) the US system and doesn't and never has worked that way. It has *always* been incumbent on the left and right to persuade the middle before they can get what they want. The left did it in the 30's and 60's, with the social net and civil rights, the right did it in the 80's with Reaganomics.

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.  

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

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.   

engineers do chaos theory also my friend.....

[Tiger337]

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

but as always, you have to crawl before you can walk. If Progs won't support moderates over conservatives, they will never move the center close enough to where they are to get anything they want. That's just reality. If we had a three party system where a block could swing it's support to a second moderate party they could have more leverage, but unfortunately (or not, YMMV on that) the US system doesn't and never has worked that way. It has *always* been incumbent on the left and right to persuade the middle before they can get what they want. The left did it in the 30's and 60's, with the social net and civil rights, the right did it in the 80's with Reaganomics. That is just how it works. Party Politics is the US can only be done from the inside out. If you can't persuade your own side, you never get an opportunity to persuade anyone else.

I agree with you, but the progressives are so concerned about climate change, in particular, that they feel as is we are doomed either way if we don't address it in a revolutionary way.  They don't necessarily see the moderates as a significantly better option than the Republuicans.  

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, pfife said:

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.  

could be. I've tended to interpret populist movements as what happens when policy politics have lost direction. As what you might call the fall-back position that a party falls into when it doesn't have or know what else to sell. In the 30's and 60' and 80's as I noted above, you had clear understandable policy arguments that interested enough people that it sort of drove populism down to minimalist existence. Plus the periods where clear foreign policy issues dominated. Today, the nation's foreign policy confidence is gone, and (as I have oft argued) domestically no one is presenting a politics that looks like any kind of answer. To too many moderates, the left's program just looks like the kind of warmed over 60's Euro socialism that even Europe had to largely move away from. And we know the right's is still gnawing the bones of failed Reaganism. That becomes the opportunity for petty grievance politics to dominate. And other big overlay is the drift in US Christianity from enlightenment theology back to a more superstitious mind set. This is the movement that supplies the GOP's hard base of support today and its issues are fundamentally non-political - which presents a big problem to political governance.

[Tiger337]

15 minutes ago, pfife said:

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.  

It don't know if the current populism has appeal substantivelty, but it may appeal to the revolutionary sentiments.  Leave the moderates in power and nothing will happen.  Put a populist nut job like Trump in power and there is an outside shot you can get him interested.  

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

I agree with you, but the progressives are so concerned about climate change, in particular, that they feel as is we are doomed either way if we don't address it in a revolutionary way.  They don't necessarily see the moderates as a significantly better option than the Republuicans.  

Yes- and that perception is a big problem. And I take it back to persuasion. The problem for progs is that they are always too much the 'Brave new Worlders.' Intellectually they are in love with solutions that upend everything, so when they talk about things like climate change they tend to project a vision of the future that is all hair-shirts and birkenstocks instead of how we get to clean energy with the *least* dislocation to our present order of living. That's were you need to be to get the people in the middle. Most people don't want the lives they live upset. And of course the progs are wrong about the way progress works. We will not have less energy when we get to clean energy, anymore than we ended up with less horsepower when we stopped using horses. Progs understand the threat, but most don't really understand technology as a principle.

Edited December 20, 2021 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It don't know if the current populism has appeal substantivelty, but it may appeal to the revolutionary sentiments.  Leave the moderates in power and nothing will happen.  Put a populist nut job like Trump in power and there is an outside shot you can get him interested.  

IDK... I just think cultural issues have a lot more salience now than economic ones. And unfortunately, that disadvantages the Dems in a lot of the country.

[pfife]

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

[gehringer_2]

Climate change is a hard issue because it's invisible and requires people to believe experts and as we see with COVID, as a culture our system for validating publicly accepted truth is totally dysfunctional. But I do think climate is the one thing that could galvanize a new political coalition --  if severe weather continues to intensify everywhere. That is something tangible enough for people to see for themselves so it might be the one thing that finally makes the issue too obvious to ignore.....maybe

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

IDK... I just think cultural issues have a lot more salience now than economic ones. And unfortunately, that disadvantages the Dems in a lot of the country.

They speak intellectually about social issues, but I think the issue that scares the hell out of them is climate change.  Many of them feel as if we are doomed if that is not addressed in a huge way and fast.