President Kamala Harris.

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I am still very worried about RFK jr. possibly polling at 10% of higher on average and/or getting on the ballot in enough states to become a spoiler like Gary Johnson was in 2016.

Gary was taking more votes from Trump, same with RFK. What should worry you is RFK drops out and most of his voters go to trump.

[Hardkill]

Just now, Raze said:

Gary was taking more votes from Trump, same with RFK. What should worry you is RFK drops out and most of his voters go to trump.

I used to think that, but I actually came to realize that those viewpoints are common misconceptions.

The truth of the matter is that it was never clear that Gary Johnson took more votes from Trump than from Hillary Clinton in 2016. He actually got some voters who were socially liberal, but also got some voters those who were fiscally conservative.

There's no clear evidence that RFK jr. is pulling more votes from Trump than from Harris. The pundits have kept going back and forth between saying "it seem like RFK jr. is taking more votes from Biden" and "it seem like RFK jr. is taking more votes from Trump" and "you know, we thought that RFK jr. is taking more vote from Trump but now it's looking like he's taking more votes from Biden."

What most people misunderstand is that you usually cannot parse out which kind of votes or voters a third party candidate is taking more votes from unless there is an absolute clear split from either major party. For example, because Jill Stein and Cornel West are left-wingers they obviously are taking votes only from Harris/Walz. Another example, would be if say Matt Gaetz, who is a hard-right Republican, decided to run for president as another third party presidential candidate in the 2024 presidential election. In that case, Gaetz who categorically be taking votes only from Trump.

 

[Leo Gura]

It's possible RFK makes a deal with Trump. Trump will soon be cornered like a rat and he will stoop to any level.

Edited August 10 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

21 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

I used to think that, but I actually came to realize that those viewpoints are common misconceptions.

The truth of the matter is that it was never clear that Gary Johnson took more votes from Trump than from Hillary Clinton in 2016. He actually got some voters who were socially liberal, but also got some voters those who were fiscally conservative.

There's no clear evidence that RFK jr. is pulling more votes from Trump than from Harris. The pundits have kept going back and forth between saying "it seem like RFK jr. is taking more votes from Biden" and "it seem like RFK jr. is taking more votes from Trump" and "you know, we thought that RFK jr. is taking more vote from Trump but now it's looking like he's taking more votes from Biden."

What most people misunderstand is that you usually cannot parse out which kind of votes or voters a third party candidate is taking more votes from unless there is an absolute clear split from either major party. For example, because Jill Stein and Cornel West are left-wingers they obviously are taking votes only from Harris/Walz. Another example, would be if say Matt Gaetz, who is a hard-right Republican, decided to run for president as another third party presidential candidate in the 2024 presidential election. In that case, Gaetz who categorically be taking votes only from Trump.

 

This study finds this

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2021-0011/html?lang=en

Quote

 We estimate that most Johnson and Stein voters would have abstained from voting if denied the choice to vote for their preferred candidate, and that most of Johnson’s remaining voters would have supported Trump.

Analysis of RFK finds that he was taking roughly equal from Biden and Trump, but slightly leaning to taking more from Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-candidacy-hurts-trump-biden-nbc-news-poll-finds-rcna148536

but now that Biden dropped out that will likely change as many of his voters who lean left will switch to Kamala who is more popular 

19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's possible RFK makes a deal with Trump. Trump will soon be cornered like a rat and he will stoop to any level.

That’s not stooping to any level, that is smart politics. Democrats need to realize that rather than just whining about people spoiling the election for them. Democrats ruined Ralph Nader’s reputation by insisting he spoiled the election for them but never mention that Ralph offered to drop out and endorse the democratic candidate if they adopted just one of his proposals.

”spoilers” aren’t a real thing, legally other people are allowed to vote third party if they want to, the founders never intended for two parties to hog all the attention. If republicans or democrats don’t like it they can implement rank choice voting, but they won’t because they want voters to be forced to vote for one of them so certain issues the major donors to both parties don’t want addressed won’t be.

Edited August 10 by Raze

[Consept]

On 08/08/2024 at 6:39 AM, Emerald said:

If he's dangerous, he's one of the cool rebellious kids. But if he's weird, he's just a lame kid and probably smells bad... and people won't want to get that smell on them. 

Yeah this is really true, like the really popular bad guy in films is cool and dgaf, the loser is just pathetic and weird. Dems have always run with how bad he is, lying, cheating etc which is all true but has never done him any damage. This time the focus being on how weird they are is cutting through so much easier. It doesnt help that he chose Vance as a running mate.

Its crazy that the next president might be decided because the other side may have fucked a couch.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Consept said:

Its crazy that the next president might be decided because the other side may have fucked a couch.

Don't kid yourselves. These shallow media narratives and name-calling are not what drives politics. This is just a distraction.

People vote on values. Not silly labels.

[Consept]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't kid yourselves. These shallow media narratives and name-calling are not what drives politics. This is just a distraction.

People vote on values. Not silly labels.

I dont know man, I dont see too many real discussions about deep values. The big issues in the US seem to be abortion and immigration, where you stand on that dictates who you vote for, everything else is either a distraction or something to be justified. 

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Consept said:

I dont know man, I dont see too many real discussions about deep values.

That is because values are so deep that people are not even aware of them.

The reason you can't argue or logick a Trumpist out of his views is because the view is grounded in a different set of values and no amount of logic will change those values.

Calling Trump weird is like calling conservative values weird.

Edited August 10 by Leo Gura

[ryandesreu]

On 8/9/2024 at 0:41 AM, Emerald said:

Nope! That makes him sound way cooler than he is. 

Lol, good point. 

I think the term "weirdo" has a neutral to slightly affectionate association. It describes someone who is quirky, eccentric, or unusual in a harmless and often amusing way. Someone who wears socks with sandals or carries around a rubber chicken is a weirdo. 

I think the term "creepo" has a more negative connotation. It refers to someone whose behavior is not just unusual, but unsettling, disturbing, or invasive in a way that makes others feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Someone who has been found staring too long, making unsolicited or inappropriate comments, (grab her by the p****) or invading personal space (rape case) is a creepo. A Great word to describe Mr Trump is creepo.

[ryandesreu]

@Jade123 Diablo is just a Spanish word for devil, and calling him a devil, while not at all inaccurate, makes him sound way cooler than he is. 😎

Edited August 10 by ryandesreu

[Joshe]

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Don't kid yourselves. These shallow media narratives and name-calling are not what drives politics. This is just a distraction.

People vote on values. Not silly labels.

@Leo Gura What do you think of this:

Yes, "weird" isn't effective to change minds. If someone with conservative values winds up in a voting booth in Nov, they'll likely vote Republican. 

But! A lot of factors go into whether they'll show up to vote.

I know conservatives who weren't going to vote this year. They felt defeated and that it was hopeless. Then, their will to participate in the election increased sharply after Biden defeated himself in the debate. Then, after the assassination attempt, they were never more ready to vote in their lives. 

Why? What happened? Their values didn't change.

Energy from narratives and ideas changed. Before those two events, they felt defeated and weren't gonna show up. Now, they feel defeated again. And the weird attack did play a part in that. 😂

The "weird" attack contributed to the energy of the left and diminished the energy of the right. 

You don't see it this way? 

Edited August 10 by Joshe

[Hardkill]

16 hours ago, Raze said:

This study finds this

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2021-0011/html?lang=en

Analysis of RFK finds that he was taking roughly equal from Biden and Trump, but slightly leaning to taking more from Trump

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-candidacy-hurts-trump-biden-nbc-news-poll-finds-rcna148536

but now that Biden dropped out that will likely change as many of his voters who lean left will switch to Kamala who is more popular 

We still don't know that for sure. We don't even know what RFK jr. stands for or even where the hell he even is on the political spectrum. I mean nobody knows what Trump truly stands for ideologically deep down either; however, at least Trump has clearly presented himself to the whole country as a radical right-wing Republican.

RFK jr. came off as a liberal Democrat when he first tried to challenge Biden in the 2024 Democratic primaries. Afterwards, he quickly changed to running as some kind of very strange Independent who is not a liberal, not moderate, or a conservative. He has present himself as being all over the place with his message and political platform.

[Emerald]

On 8/10/2024 at 5:34 AM, Leo Gura said:

Don't kid yourselves. These shallow media narratives and name-calling are not what drives politics. This is just a distraction.

People vote on values. Not silly labels.

It should be pretty obvious at this point that most people DO NOT vote on values when voting for a candidate.

Look at polling on an issue per issue basis... and support for abortion access, single-payer healthcare, universal background checks, and other progressive policy positions poll in the 60-75% range in the American populace.

If people voted on values as reflected in policy, only 25%-40% of people would ever vote Republican because their policy positions only appeal to the minority and are fringe (or dare I say... weird) in the eyes of most Americans.

The fact of the matter is that MOST people are low-information voters and vote along partisan lines and on vibes. They vote like they root for sports teams... or how they watch shows like "The Bachelor". 

If you don't believe me, go ask your average Trump supporter which policies that they liked of his. Probably 60% of them couldn't tell you a single policy. They really just like the tough guy act and how he "triggers the libs."

And that a bunch of egg-headed, educated fool, indoctrinated libs like you and I are going around screaming about how dangerous he is... they take as something they like about him.

It's like ambrosia salad to them!

Ultimately, normies and low information voters tend to vote in ways that reinforce their desired identity.

And LOTS of Trump supporters like the image of the dangerous rebellious renegade fighting fire with fire to trigger the libs and take the world back from the "cabal of pedophillic deep state elite" because they want that associated with their identity.

But neither traditionalist conservatives NOR rebellious libertarian-type conservatives to be associated with weirdness. 

Traditionalist conservatives tend to be very attached identity-wise to normalcy. And rebellious libertarian-type conservatives tends to be attached identity-wise to cool devil's advocacy and contrarianism... which is only cool if it's done by someone who's rebellious in a normal-protagonistish way.

So, if a candidate gets branded as weird and the label lands with normies and low-information voters (which it very much is) this essentially brand jams them in the eyes of some members of their base which can chip several percentage points off of their vote share.

 

[Beans]

On 7/29/2024 at 8:44 PM, Princess Arabia said:

Ass1, Buttocks 2 Rear end 3 to the Infinite Ass. Ok enough with the ass jokes. I don't wanna be like Yimpa and turn into an ass.

@Leo Gura  I don’t appreciate this kind of. Unfruitful and Toxic Behavior. I assumed this form was about spirituality? And didn’t honor low iq standards.  

[Emerald]

18 hours ago, Jade123 said:

@ryandesreu

   What about this winning term: Diablo?

That's just Devil in Spanish.

If Devil is cool... Diablo is even cooler.

It makes Trump sound like a legendary dessert wanderer in an old Western movie set in El Paso in the 1800s.

The last thing we need Trump associated with is a challenging hot sauce you that your friends dare you to try... and bet you $20 that you'll chicken out and not follow through.

It all emphasizes strength. But rhetorically... it's far more effective to emphasize weakness.

Edited August 11 by Emerald

[DocWatts]

Thought it might be interesting / useful to have a more precise definition of a 'low information voter'.

Of these, 'Partisan Loyalty Without Issue Awareness', 'Reliance on Entertainment-Focused Media', and 'Overreliance on Simplistic Narratives' stood out as particularly relevant right now.

_________________________

Q - "What would be some reasonable heuristics for precisely defining a 'low information voter', in the context of contemporary American politics?"

ChatGPT:

Defining "low information voters" (LIVs) in the context of contemporary American politics involves identifying characteristics and behaviors associated with limited political knowledge, awareness, or engagement. Here are some reasonable heuristics:

1) Limited Political Knowledge:

• Low Awareness of Issues: LIVs may lack detailed understanding of key political issues, policies, or candidates' platforms.
• Limited Knowledge of Political Processes: They might be unfamiliar with how government institutions work or the roles of different political offices.

2) Media Consumption:

• Reliance on Entertainment-Focused Media: LIVs may primarily consume news from entertainment-oriented sources, social media, or platforms with low journalistic standards.
• Infrequent News Consumption: They may rarely follow political news or only do so during major events like elections.

3) Voting Behavior:

• Single-Issue Voting: LIVs may vote based on a single issue, often without considering broader implications or the full spectrum of a candidate’s policies.
• Partisan Loyalty Without Issue Awareness: They may vote consistently for a party without a deep understanding of that party's current platform.

4) Civic Engagement:

• Low Participation in Civic Activities: LIVs might not engage in civic activities such as attending town halls, participating in political discussions, or volunteering for campaigns.
• Limited Research Before Voting: They may decide how to vote with minimal research or consideration of the candidates and issues on the ballot.

5) Cognitive Engagement:

• Minimal Critical Thinking Applied to Politics: LIVs might not critically analyze political information or question the validity of sources.
• Overreliance on Simplistic Narratives: They may prefer and accept simple, often emotional narratives over more complex and nuanced explanations.

These heuristics aim to capture the characteristics of voters who engage less deeply with political information and processes, leading to less informed voting decisions. However, it’s important to recognize that this concept is subjective and can be influenced by bias in how information is judged as "low" or "high" quality.

 

Q - "What percentage of Americans might fit these heuristics? A super rough estimate is okay"

ChatGPT:

A super rough estimate might suggest that around 25% to 40% of American voters could fit the description of "low information voters" based on the heuristics mentioned.

This estimate considers several factors:

Media Consumption Habits: Surveys show that a significant portion of Americans get their news from social media or entertainment-based sources, which tend to provide less comprehensive coverage of political issues.

Political Knowledge and Engagement: Research has often found that a sizable portion of the electorate is not well-informed about political processes, candidates, or policy details. For instance, polls often reveal gaps in basic political knowledge or low engagement with political news.

Voting Behavior: Many voters make decisions based on party loyalty, single issues, or the appeal of a candidate's personality, rather than a detailed understanding of platforms.

While this estimate is rough and somewhat speculative, it reflects the idea that a considerable minority of the electorate may not be highly informed or engaged in a nuanced way with political issues.

Edited August 11 by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

should be pretty obvious at this point that most people DO NOT vote on values when voting for a candidate.

Look at polling on an issue per issue basis... and support for abortion access, single-payer healthcare, universal background checks, and other progressive policy positions poll in the 60-75% range in the American populace.

If people voted on values as reflected in policy, only 25%-40% of people would ever vote Republican because their policy positions only appeal to the minority and are fringe (or dare I say... weird) in the eyes of most Americans.

Of course people don't vote on policy.

Values != policy.

Values are first and foresome vibes.

Banning gays is values.

Deporting browns is values.

Owning Libs is values.

Edited August 11 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Beans said:

@Leo Gura  I don’t appreciate this kind of. Unfruitful and Toxic Behavior. I assumed this form was about spirituality? And didn’t honor low iq standards.  

It was an inside joke. You had to be there.

Edited August 11 by Leo Gura

[Buck Edwards]

7 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Single-Issue Voting: LIVs may vote based on a single issue, often without considering broader implications or the full spectrum of a candidate’s policies.

With this point in mind, most voters of Trump are low information voters. 

 

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Q - "What would be some reasonable heuristics for precisely defining a 'low information voter', in the context of contemporary American politics?"

A: Loves Trump.