Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Raptorpat

Administrator
  • Content Count

    7937
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Raptorpat last won the day on December 20 2019

Raptorpat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6466 Excellent

6 Followers

About Raptorpat

  • Rank
    waj

Recent Profile Visitors

4053 profile views
  1. Raptorpat

    Pokémon Go

    I minimize out at just the right time to catch it
  2. Say it does become a permanent fixture and we see a permanent political split in social media. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I feel like, on one hand, putting all the crazy fringe people in one bucket diminishes their influence outside of their own bubble, but on the other hand I feel like it would push radicalization further. And we're already seeing crazies show up threatening to kidnap governors and stuff.
  3. It was largely popularized by conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh, purely to get under Democrats' skin. Now that you know, you'll start to notice it everywhere.
  4. There's nothing to engage with in regards to this very specific subset of people - because it's not substantive, it's social resentment. https://thedispatch.com/p/trumpism-is-more-about-culture-than
  5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
  6. And I'm not valuing the conservative voters over the progressives who also voted for him. But they were a relevant component of this specific electoral coalition.
  7. The process for picking candidates is irrelevant to the issue of conflating progressive incumbents winning in safe seats and moderate incumbents losing in conservative districts as a sign that progressives would win in those same conservative districts. Which is what my complaint is about. None of this is relevant to my main point, and I'm not casting positive or negative judgement on the process. I'm explaining literally and legally how it works. Political parties are private clubs, and if you want input on a private club's nomination, your remedy is to join that club. Some states have opened them up, or done away with partisan primaries entirely, but they are diverging from the default principle. If you're trying to tie this back to the main point I raised about progressive voices highlighting where progressives won and moderates lost (without regard to the competitiveness of the races), I hate to break it to you but Joe Biden won the general election. And now that the election is over, we know that he did it by being a milquetoast/placeholder establishment candidate who could in part win affluent conservative voters opposed to Trump but who would have opposed a more progressive candidate instead.
  8. That has no bearing on the argument that progressive incumbents won and moderate incumbents lost in the general election. Primaries largely have lower turnout because they are largely private affairs by private organizations to determine their candidates. Unless a state grants independents the privilege of participating in party primaries, their opinion is irrelevant until the general election. But again, success in a primary is irrelevant. Based on political demographics, the primary in AOC's Queens district is the real election. It literally does not matter how left or right she is once she has the Dem nomination in an 8:1 district like that, the general election is pro forma at that point. So suggesting there's some discernable lesson about progressive versus moderate candidates, because she won her general election while moderate Max Rose lost his general reelection in a conservative district a few miles away, makes literally zero sense because they aren't comparable in any way.
  9. It also translates into negative turnout, which is more powerful. Joe Biden didn't stand for anything extreme, so the attacks claiming he was a socialist fell flat and the Republican-leaning, upperclass suburbanites were willing to split tickets for him, which combined with the anti-Trump enthusiasm on the other side was enough to flip AZ, GA, NE-2 etc. This whole line of conversation makes no sense at all. The most frustrating aspect of folks who trot out the argument that progressives won and moderates lost is that no one who does makes any effort to distinguish races in safe D seats from those in toss-up or red-leaning seats. That AOC won her general election as a progressive in Queens is irrelevant to Max Rose losing his general as a moderate on Staten Island. And whether or not she had a competitive primary (she didn't) in her safe D district is also irrelevant to how political ideology impacts the actual competitive, partisan general elections. It's frustrating because it's made by people I'd like to agree with, but the consistent omission by thought leaders is either disingenuous or demonstrates a lack of electoral knowledge.
×
×
  • Create New...