A conservative court has found that there is no right to privacy in the constitution and affirmed that stare decisis is dead while opining that the court went too far not only in affirming abortion rights but in protecting gay and even interracial marriage laws, and even gay sex. This means that basically any prior case that was decided in a way that deviates from present conservative thinking is on the menu. Before it was merely abhorrent that a minority among the supreme court believes Texas has a right to criminalize gay sex in Lawrence v Texas. Now they can if they choose merely redo that one.
So that's whats going on with the red team now please do explicate how the left has undergone a more radical swing. I don't see an idea more radical than tax the rich and give everyone health care with more than single digit support.
If you compare a Democrat from 40 years ago to one today you would see a 20% uptick in support for gay rights and a substantial uptick in the desire to spend tax money on healthcare, and a smaller uptick in support to raise taxes to support the former.
If you compare a republican from the same era you would find 10% of them now want a white supremacist christian ethnostate and 40% of them are supportive of the idea of killing their wrong thinking neighbors in order to live in Republican Town and even more would gladly part ways with the US of A if they could do it at the ballot box.
It may be challenging to assign weights to these dissimilar changes in positions but one of them is pretty clearly more extreme than the other.
There were plenty of anti-abortion democrats 40 years ago, though you’d hardly find many now. Same with anti-immigration democrats; etc etc. It seems like both parties have polarized quite a bit on the issues and moderates got left without a voice in either one.
Yes, during the historical aberration of the long 1930s-1990s realignment, on even the most salient political issues polarizing the public, neither major party was particularly coherent.
That's...not a normal, stable, or desirable condition.
I don’t think party purity tests are a net good for our republic.
This sounds completely insane. Can you point to a source that actually backs this up?
"39% of Republicans, agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.""
"two out of three Republicans saying President Biden was not legitimately elected"
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2022/06/01/poll-finds-support...
"70% of Republicans believe in the great replacement theory"
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-q...
"A Quarter of Republicans Believe Central Views of QAnon Conspiracy Movement"
Both sides have a substantial portion that believes that there could be a need for violence. Unfortunately the Republican side believes this because they think liberals are replacing them with brown people, qanon, and election lies.
Meanwhile liberals like myself believe it because we have relatives who are talking about cleaning their guns to make ready to kill Democrats. Personally I have directly followed alt-right communication on publicly available social media platforms including gab and parler and the videos they share. It's not really a secret that the crazies want to whack us.
Also, Of all the people I know, one person fell into the QAnon conspiracy hole, but promptly climbed out. I just don’t buy all of this baloney that Republicans are huge extremists now. It doesn’t track with my experience and reality at all.
A VERY substantial minority on the order of 1/4 of those who self identify as Republicans believe in the core tenets of the qanon conspiracy and most think the election was stolen. These are facts that you cannot reasonable refute by telling me you a reasonable fellow associate with other reasonable people.
You may believe that a core tenant of qanon is someone believing leftist politicians are “evil”, and you might get 25% of republicans agree with that. Does that mean all of that 25% who believe leftists are evil also believe that leftist politicians are reptilian shapeshifting pedophiles that eat baby brains on sundays in a pizza restaurant basement?
Doubtful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32129721
To address more directly the point you referenced directly.
The study is discussed here
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-02-24/a-q...
But if you want to skip the analysis and go to the meat of it, it's here.
https://www.prri.org/research/the-persistence-of-qanon-in-th...
16% of Republicans completely or mostly agree the government media and financial worlds are controlled by a global network of Satan worshiping pedos who run a global sex trafficking operation
22% completely or mostly agree that a storm is coming that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.
18% completely or mostly agree that things are so far off track that American patriots may need to use violence to save our country.
From the second source
> To assess overall belief in QAnon, PRRI created a composite measure from these three questions and identified the following three groups:
QAnon believers: Respondents who completely or mostly agreed with these statements.
QAnon doubters: Respondents who mostly disagreed with these statements.
QAnon rejecters: Respondents who completely disagreed with all three statements.
Tell me, have you been polled?
If so, have you given feedback beyond a yes or no to a misleadingly framed question?
Asking if I have gotten a poll is a non sequitur. It's not a meaningful question so I see no reason to answer. The plural of anecdote isn't data.
Have you been polled?
Have you not?
I am tired of people hiding behind pollsters imagined legitimacy, particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think.
And yet... Never do I seem to run into anyone who responded to one of these polls.
Have you?
Easy answer. Yes or no.
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.
Your question "Have you been polled?" Is an example of sealioning. You don't actually want to know if I have been polled. You don't think any possible answer would illuminate the discussion. You don't intend to make any actually arguments to the validity of polling other than a casual dismissal. You have no intention on engaging in any actually substantial debate or discussion.
I started this subthread with substantial points with sources. Answering a manipulative insincere question with a reason why the question made no difference isn't itself sealioning.
Also you would still get less than 100% response rate even on your initial poll. After you got in the habit of burning billions of dollars to harass literally every citizen in the US constantly you would find your sample size dropping precipitously as people found ways to block your calls.
To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy. It makes sense therefore that the chance of a single poll actually calling you personally is very low. In fact 100 polls reaching 100,000 distinct individuals still has only 1 in 3000 chance of someone personally calling you. Small wonder if your phone isn't ringing off the hook.
Despite dodging those and every sort of automated asshole calling my phone and being on the do not call registry I have still received a call. The answer is yes. This still proves nothing. I haven't refuted your position by saying yes as I'm sure you will now agree.
Legislation is literally the parcelling up and selling off of the liberties of everyone around you. This is not a task that should be undertaken haphazardly. To really do it, you should be grappling with questions of "Does this policy make sense across the board, rather than localized to where I am?"
Polls never drill into that level of detail. Ever. At best they provide a passing narrative confirmation that makes a nice sound byte. Case and point:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32141104
If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample, then don't come back and try to justify the legitimacy of one policy over another based on the fact that a bunch of people with nothing better to do than respond to cold called political polls (who may or may not even be voters) is truly representative of the will of the people. I'm sorry. When it comes to writing off liberties, I'm in the school of thought that the extra work is necessary, because this isn't something that should be streamlined, especially given there is precious little track record of any streamlining be applied to rectify bad law..
I write my Congressional representatives on issues that weigh heavily on my conscience. Multiple times if I don't feel the point is getting across enough. I've got a couple more letters to get written in light of current events, in fact.
Your polls, don't reflect that. Or for that matter, any of the streams of communication that actually end up in a Representative or Senator's mailbox, which to be quite frank, are far more indicative of what the People want, than any Call Center with a script is ever going to get. I don't even care if the Rep/Senator is of the opposing political party than the issue I'm concerned with. Reigning in extreme right/leftness can only happen under the pressure of reminding said individual they are still representing a hefty constituency that differs on platform, and if they like that seat, they'd best pay attention.
Polls are not grounds for policy.
You said
>--------------------------------------------
particularly when we have the technology today to literally ask everyone what they think.
>--------------------------------------------
In turn I said
>--------------------------------------------
To get a statistically valid sample of 338M people you need as little as a few thousand respondents depending on desired accuracy.
>--------------------------------------------
Now you say
>--------------------------------------------
If you're sitting here, telling me it's too much work to talk to everyone to actually get a representative sample
>--------------------------------------------
You know what I said and you knew what I said.
The broader context is the parent poster, rather than you, attempted to dismiss legitimate sources by asserting without evidence that polls are worthless.
He made the statement thus
>--------------------------------------------
You put too much stock in polls. The average (or even intelligent) person does not have time for polls. Trusting these numbers is to believe in FUD.
>--------------------------------------------
To which you answered
>--------------------------------------------
They are right...
>--------------------------------------------
They aren't right and you aren't right. Polling is an imperfect tool. Changing how you phrase a question can change the answer. Getting a representative sample is an imperfect science. This is good cause to ask how it was used vs misused lest a manipulative author come to the preordained conclusion. It is not however good cause to dismiss the entire notion of polling and ask no-one nor that we somehow as you said ask "literally everyone". Nor is it reasonable to determine what the people want by looking at the contents of your legislators mailbox.
They will no doubt be full of letters from a passionate self selected minority rather than representing in any way shape or form a representative sample.
You can say polls aren't grounds for policy but they are a damn fine tool to find out on average what the potentially millions of constituents think as opposed to the 12 people that wrote letters and if you want a substantial portion of those millions to vote for you then you had better at least understand what they think even if you intend to defy them because you know better.