David Shor's Unified Theory of American Politics.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

This is the guy who got fired from his job for saying that non-violent protest was more effective than violent ones.

Apparently criticizing BLM is Verboten in today's Woke world of "Social Justice".

Anyways, it's a long but detailed and accurate look at how various American demographics vote.

He has a slight, Left of center bias but he gets about everything right.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/david-shor-cancel-culture-2020-election-theory-polls.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=p2&utm_campaign=Sub%20|%20Content%20Campaign%20(Low%20Funnel)%20|%20Aug%20|%20DYN%20|%20At%20Paywall,%20Mixed%20+%20Other%20Intent%20Signals%20|%208.5.20&utm_id=fb_cmp-{{campaign.id}}_adg-{{adset.id}}_ad-{{ad.id}}&k_cca=PleaseAssignTagToAd&fbclid=IwAR3l-S4e3fTVnd2I57x99zFvTXNcBPDqHXMlbMjALea71qWncmyqveu369U

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I've read stuff by David Shor before, I think including this article.

Shor's analysis is good from his perspective as a data analyst and campaign strategist. I'd say he misses some of the broader systemic issues in the process.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

"Systemic" has become the newspeak equivalent of "demonic"

It's an omnipresent evil that exists everywhere and yet only Woke people can see it.

Modern lefties are the new religious fundamentalists.

[Dirty Big Yoke]

 

[Jack]

That was a good article, Scrap. Appreciated the views on issue salience, because it's true many people support specific issues on both political sides, though generally have believed party choice is a matter of how individuals rank the importance of those issues based on current state of affairs.  It's interesting to consider it's not necessarily how voters might personally rank issues, but rather how important the politicians themselves present issues to be for the sake of an election.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Shor apparently thinks in terms of campaign strategy. What issues are important to the voters that that politician is trying to target? Build a campaign around at least pretending to care about those issues, and supposedly people will vote for you.

And this strategy does work for a lot of voters. Because a lot of voters have the concentration span of a goldfish (yes, I know the 3 second memory of a goldfish is a myth).

Many people, though, will also think in terms of a politician's track record. What legislation did they actually support, who do they schmooze with. Do they have a track record of following through or at least trying to follow through on their promises once elected? Or do their promises have a track record of going out the window once the election is over? Do they have a coherent strategy to follow through with once elected, or is it just a bunch of feel good rhetoric without much substance?

[Jack]

Tend to believe people who are conscientious enough to vote do try to be informed about the candidates. It was just interesting to consider; have said before if democrats would simply give up on the issue of gun control then they would never lose an election. Though Shore seems to be implying they might only need to stop talking about it as much. People do vote base on issues. It's not only about the issues politicians make the most notable, but also the ones they simply don't.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Many people, though, will also think in terms of a politician's track record. What legislation did they actually support, who do they schmooze with. Do they have a track record of following through or at least trying to follow through on their promises once elected? Or do their promises have a track record of going out the window once the election is over? Do they have a coherent strategy to follow through with once elected, or is it just a bunch of feel good rhetoric without much substance?

I'm going to have to do some digging but there's a study done by a major university that found a 0% relationship between popular opinion and the laws that get passed. The only time there was a correlation between the two was when they polled the richest .1% of people and then there was a strong correlation between their opinions and the laws that get passed.

There's a few videos on this along with a graph showing the results.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

That was a good article, Scrap. Appreciated the views on issue salience, because it's true many people support specific issues on both political sides, though generally have believed party choice is a matter of how individuals rank the importance of those issues based on current state of affairs.  It's interesting to consider it's not necessarily how voters might personally rank issues, but rather how important the politicians themselves present issues to be for the sake of an election.

I actually got this from Calandale on FB.

We disagree on many issues but still enjoy debating each other.

[Jack]

He should come back.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Republicans have captured a lot of votes by pretending to be anti-abortion and pro-gun. Gun owners and evangelicals and religious fundies are a big chunk of the voting public. I tend to think that conservatives don't care all that much about whether people have guns and unwanted babies, both sides of politics primarily pay lip service to caring about the issues affecting most voters and care a lot more about supporting those who fund them.

In my experience most people are not well informed about politics. That's why it's not polite to talk about it.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Many people, though, will also think in terms of a politician's track record. What legislation did they actually support, who do they schmooze with. Do they have a track record of following through or at least trying to follow through on their promises once elected? Or do their promises have a track record of going out the window once the election is over? Do they have a coherent strategy to follow through with once elected, or is it just a bunch of feel good rhetoric without much substance?

I'm going to have to do some digging but there's a study done by a major university that found a 0% relationship between popular opinion and the laws that get passed. The only time there was a correlation between the two was when they polled the richest .1% of people and then there was a strong correlation between their opinions and the laws that get passed.

There's a few videos on this along with a graph showing the results.

I find that wholly unsurprising.

[Jack]

Republicans have captured a lot of votes by pretending to be anti-abortion and pro-gun. Gun owners and evangelicals and religious fundies are a big chunk of the voting public. I tend to think that conservatives don't care all that much about whether people have guns and unwanted babies, both sides of politics primarily pay lip service to caring about the issues affecting most voters and care a lot more about supporting those who fund them.

In my experience most people are not well informed about politics. That's why it's not polite to talk about it.

In my experience people are too emotionally invested in politics, and that's why it's not polite to talk about it.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Republicans have captured a lot of votes by pretending to be anti-abortion and pro-gun. Gun owners and evangelicals and religious fundies are a big chunk of the voting public. I tend to think that conservatives don't care all that much about whether people have guns and unwanted babies, both sides of politics primarily pay lip service to caring about the issues affecting most voters and care a lot more about supporting those who fund them.

In my experience most people are not well informed about politics. That's why it's not polite to talk about it.

In my experience people are too emotionally invested in politics, and that's why it's not polite to talk about it.

Well yeah, that's the point, they choose who they vote for at an emotional level. Not a lot of critical thought or research goes into it. So when asked to explain why they vote the way they do... people get butthurt.

[Jack]

Republicans have captured a lot of votes by pretending to be anti-abortion and pro-gun. Gun owners and evangelicals and religious fundies are a big chunk of the voting public. I tend to think that conservatives don't care all that much about whether people have guns and unwanted babies, both sides of politics primarily pay lip service to caring about the issues affecting most voters and care a lot more about supporting those who fund them.

In my experience most people are not well informed about politics. That's why it's not polite to talk about it.

In my experience people are too emotionally invested in politics, and that's why it's not polite to talk about it.

Well yeah, that's the point, they choose who they vote for at an emotional level. Not a lot of critical thought or research goes into it. So when asked to explain why they vote the way they do... people get butthurt.

No, talking about intelligent informed people. It's as if people generally feel it's their civic duty to change people's minds or something. When they can't change someone's mind, then they simply can't accept someone else might also have an informed opinion, and the only conclusion is those who disagree are stupid, uninformed, passive thinkers, or have the brains of goldfish or whatever, get so angry it leads to personal attacks. It's never been a polite topic.