The Impact of Whiny Bernie Babies

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Weird, the electorate overwhelmingly supports something, but the legislature just can't get it passed even under Democratic majorities...

Princeton University might be able to shed some light on this issue; Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens

"By directly pitting the predictions of ideal-type theories
against each other within a single statistical model (using
a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful
measures of the key independent variables for nearly two
thousand policy issues), we have been able to produce
some striking findings. One is the nearly total failure of
“median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy
theories. When the preferences of economic elites and
the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for,
the preferences of the average American appear to have
only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant
impact upon public policy."

"Furthermore, the preferences of economic elites (as
measured by our proxy, the preferences of “affluent”
citizens) have far more independent impact upon policy
change than the preferences of average citizens do. To be
sure, this does not mean that ordinary citizens always
lose out; they fairly often get the policies they favor, but
only because those policies happen also to be preferred
by the economically-elite citizens who wield the actual
influence."
Click to expand...
You don't understand the difference between an opinion poll, which is a random sample of people who answer a question without consequences and an election in which an electorate votes to answer questions and the votes are counted culminating in a result that matters. Opinion polls have not been shown reliable predictors of election results. You keep making the same error. Repeatedly stating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You don't understand the difference between an opinion poll, which is a random sample of people who answer a question without consequences and an election in which an electorate votes to answer questions and the votes are counted culminating in a result that matters. Opinion polls have not been shown reliable predictors of election results. You keep making the same error. Repeatedly stating a falsehood doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...
The Princeton study I cited in the post you just quoted proves you wrong. The opinion polls are right. The reason most Americans don't get what they want in regards to political policy is because average Americans don't have any influence. Special interests, like insurance and pharmaceutical companies, do. You simply can't even fathom how the Democratic party could be part of the problem, too. Because you can't understand how doesn't mean it's impossible or isn't true.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The Princeton study I cited in the post you just quoted proves you wrong. The opinion polls are right. The reason most Americans don't get what they want in regards to political policy is because average Americans don't have any influence. Special interests, like insurance and pharmaceutical companies, do. You simply can't even fathom how the Democratic party could be part of the problem, too. Because you can't understand how doesn't mean it's impossible or isn't true.
Click to expand...
Seriously. You name a study to say opinion polls in fact predict election results?

Buck just named recent real live polls where people voted and the issue got wasted.

OK, I'll go back and read that Princeton study. I'll give you my thoughts in a bit. I really hope you aren't wasting my time. Like you just did when you claimed Clinton said she does not support single payer healthcare and of course she didn't.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The Princeton study I cited in the post you just quoted proves you wrong. The opinion polls are right. The reason most Americans don't get what they want in regards to political policy is because average Americans don't have any influence. Special interests, like insurance and pharmaceutical companies, do. You simply can't even fathom how the Democratic party could be part of the problem, too. Because you can't understand how doesn't mean it's impossible or isn't true.
Click to expand...
the peple of a liberal state got to vote for it and rejected it 4 to 1.
 
dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
As long as he's making the money honestly, matters not to me. I've seen a lot of fake shit about "establishment Democrats" slung about by Bernie and his supporters. Also speaking fees collected by Clinton when she wasn't in office, including after the election. Not saying you are but can't deny it's happening. If you throw poo, you can expect some coming back.

It is an infantile argument to point at Bernie's nests and say "see, he's no better" but it's also true. I don't know when it started but Bernie's supporters talk about him in a way that make me wonder what man they are referring to when they name Sanders. Maybe infantile arguments are the only ones Bernie's supporters can understand. At least the shit about Bernie's homes is factual.
Click to expand...
The worst thing about Sanders? Berniebots. Besides that, he's cool.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
single payer has failed in fucking vermont.

there is no appetite for it.
Click to expand...
It's not quite there yet. Support is growing for it though. It wasn't that long ago that a majority of the country opposed medical marijuana too.

I saw a poll a couple months back where 60 some percent of Americans felt that it was the governments job to insure that people have health care coverage, but only a 1/3 wanted single payer. What the fuck is the disconnect there? How can you feel it's up to the govt to provide you with health care, and then not support single payer?

I personally think it's a messaging problem more than anything. Nobody has really broken it down succinctly and demonstrated how efficient it is, and how much money would be saved. I don't think Bernie did a good job of that.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
It's not quite there yet. Support is growing for it though. It wasn't that long ago that a majority of the country opposed medical marijuana too.

I saw a poll a couple months back where 60 some percent of Americans felt that it was the governments job to insure that people have health care coverage, but only a 1/3 wanted single payer. What the fuck is the disconnect there? How can you feel it's up to the govt to provide you with health care, and then not support single payer?

I personally think it's a messaging problem more than anything. Nobody has really broken it down succinctly and demonstrated how efficient it is, and how much money would be saved. I don't think Bernie did a good job of that.
Click to expand...


The Luntz effect
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
the peple of a liberal state got to vote for it and rejected it 4 to 1.
Click to expand...
I think he's saying that special interests influenced people to vote against their self interests.

But I've just started to read the paper he cited and might have to retract that statement.

LOL, he included a lot of statistical jargon in his post. I wonder if he even knows what "single statistical model (using
a unique data set that includes imperfect but useful measures of the key independent variables for nearly two thousand policy issues" means.

I do. It basically means subjective criteria and non-numerical or categorical data analysis. As in: Do you favor a (fill in the blank) policy change? Yes, no or not sure. (subjective criteria) This compared with categories of respondents (type of person, average, informed, etc.)

This is the kind of study that gives statistics a bad name because the results are entirely influenced by the people doing the study. Usually, a honest user of this kind of information would quote more than one study because there is too much noise in this kind of information to rely on one source. But we know Pad is not honest. We know he's a sneaky bastard. We know he is entirely capable of trying to bullshit people with volumes of irrelevant information and just quote from it statements that agree with him.

That's my prediction. I'll sit down with the paper, it looks interesting, and test my hypothesis.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
It's not quite there yet. Support is growing for it though. It wasn't that long ago that a majority of the country opposed medical marijuana too.

I saw a poll a couple months back where 60 some percent of Americans felt that it was the governments job to insure that people have health care coverage, but only a 1/3 wanted single payer. What the fuck is the disconnect there? How can you feel it's up to the govt to provide you with health care, and then not support single payer?

I personally think it's a messaging problem more than anything. Nobody has really broken it down succinctly and demonstrated how efficient it is, and how much money would be saved. I don't think Bernie did a good job of that.
Click to expand...
Those damn Democrats. Why can't they get it right and pass a bill that completely rewrites an industry worth one fourth of our economy already?

Waaaaaaaa

Bernie isn't the great communicator. This is clear.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Those damn Democrats. Why can't they get it right and pass a bill that completely rewrites an industry worth one fourth of our economy already?

Waaaaaaaa

Bernie isn't the great communicator. This is clear.
Click to expand...
I thought it was 1/6'th?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think he's saying that special interests influenced people to vote against their self interests.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what I'm saying at all

I'm saying that, according to analysis, politicians don't vote in favor of their constituents interests*, they vote in favor of the special interests that fund their campaigns

*unless both constituents and special interests happen to coincide

Fogdog said:
This is the kind of study that gives statistics a bad name
Click to expand...
Of course that's what you think because it's an objective analysis that disagrees with your belief that the Democratic party is incorruptible

Why don't you address any of the criticisms made? Explain in rational words Gilens' and Page's reason(s) that American politics operates as an oligarchy. Then in rational words explain why they're wrong.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all

I'm saying that, according to analysis, politicians don't vote in favor of their constituents interests*, they vote in favor of the special interests that fund their campaigns

*unless both constituents and special interests happen to coincide


Of course that's what you think because it's an objective analysis that disagrees with your belief that the Democratic party is incorruptible

Why don't you address any of the criticisms made? Explain in rational words Gilens' and Page's reason(s) that American politics operates as an oligarchy. Then in rational words explain why they're wrong.
Click to expand...
Again, this study consists of an analysis of various policy debates and compares the effect various groups had on whether or not a policy was enacted. As you correctly state, the group that were most likely to see it's interests enacted into policy were economic elites, then industrial groups who are the most active a lobbying for their own interests. Mass groups like the NRA and I suppose, NAACP had practically no effect and majority opinion had virtually no effect. I'm not going to go into issues with the study although I can see many. I'm just going to go with it for the sake of discussion.

Unlike you, the article doesn't delve into factors to explain why. Not surprising that you "just know" and what you "just know" fits your bias.

The article does mention additional work that could be done, such as studying the effect of efforts to sway opinion as a means to affect policies. Why anybody would spend so much time and money swaying public opinion when it doesn't have an effect on policy is an interesting question. Makes me think that the study is just an interesting result and the wealthy spend a lot on right wing propaganda to sway public opinion because it does matter regardless of what some analysts found and documented on the internet.

Does this surprise? I mean really? Breaking News!!! Economic elites have a lot of power!!! I mean duh. Economic elites have been running this country and all others for quite some time now. In fact, they have been doing so since there has been civilization.

So, you jump to a conclusion that this proves "corrupt Democrats" . This article doesn't conclude that. (of course you would focus on Democrats and not Republicans) The results of the study say policies are enacted that are favored by economic elites. Republicans have Koch and Trump. Democrats have Kennedys and Soros. Wealthy families can be liberal and support liberal causes. There is a lot of disagreement in social ideology between ruling clans.

Nothing in that paper in any way validates your claim of "because an opinion poll shows 80% supports people will support a total overhaul of the healthcare system". Or other liberal initiatives. I still point out to you that way too many people vote for representation who out and out say they want less government involvement in health care, not less. And that's what who have in power right now. Same goes with campaign finance reform and the environment. People always vote in their own self interest. Clearly, these issues simply don't affect the way a lot of people vote nowadays. As Buck pointed out, only 20% voted for universal healthcare in Colorado.

This paper has nothing to do with what Buck and I have been saying. What I've been saying all along that opinion polls are unreliable predictors of how people vote. Buck points out that healthcare bills have failed at the polls lately in spite of good opinion polling numbers.

You conflate opinion polls with voting and that's plain wrong. Time after time you tell me about how 80% of all the people support single payer healthcare. So, you say, people will vote for Bernie and healthcare. I continue to point out that no matter how well an issue or person did recently in public opinion polls, a majority of voters in more than a majority of states have voted for right wing representatives who openly state they will never support single payer healthcare. I conclude people in those states are more conservative than you claim. I also definitely stand on the assertion that the only poll that matters is the election polls. This paper notwithstanding.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all

I'm saying that, according to analysis, politicians don't vote in favor of their constituents interests*, they vote in favor of the special interests that fund their campaigns

*unless both constituents and special interests happen to coincide
Click to expand...
Just a coda on the whole diatribe I just launched. Buck pointed out that voters defeated a universal healthcare bill in Colorado by 80% against. It was an election regarding a policy. No chance of a politician to fuck it up. Not the same as voting for a politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top