US POLITICS SPRING 2011: Let's just call off this country.

"post-moderns" = mike bloomberg?
"disaffecteds" = mike huckabee?

cluster fuck solutions

"bystanders" are 49% "dem-leaning" or democrats and only 29% "rep-leaning" or "republican"

would be nice if they voted!

haven't read the methodology yet but yeah, data clustering is a pretty standard bit of sociology today so this seems like well-worn methodology to me

Libertarians are on the chart since 1994, but only slide into the center in this most recent survey.

This is the kinda thing I've been saying for a while on this board: that this is a big future of so-called liberalism in the USA. What were the moral foundations of the welfare state à la the New Deal / Great Society, and have they been undermined by post-1960s "liberal" ideology? I think yes.

great, a whole generation full of Gabbnebs. do i start to weep for America now?!?

survey questions are here btw, not gonna be able to get to them until maybe tonight though

Gabbneb was a prophet that I think you oughta listen to.

the so-called "postmortems," that is.

the socially-liberal pro-Wall Street Dems.

(there were 13 pages of information/analysis about this, odds were that if you skipped to the "about the typologies" link there would be info on how they were created)

(also it sounds like they might have used my company's technology to do this, or one of our competitors, lol)

again I was on the phone. I used to work for a polling company very much like this and am reallllly skeptical of this “cluster analysis” bullshit. again 'is not an exact process' = let's play around w/ numbers until we have a narrative. I don't think there's really any value to these groups.

I mean the only data w/ a decent margin of error is the total sample group

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkq1snEVSF1qdx4lmo1_500.jpg

well that's one of the problems with the way that clustering algorithms work; depending on which ones you use and how you feed them the data, they produce different results

the methodology they used, where they generated several different analyses and picked the one most representative of the trends displayed makes sense to me but I work for a company that does this type of thing so duh

how post-modern of you, iatee!

do not like maths unless range factors and Defense Inndependent Pitching is involved

as descriptors of clear populations it's got it's weaknesses, sure, since there aren't any such things, life is messy, etc. but as an illustration of the widely divergent opinions and interests within each broad 'party' i always like these things. some 'republicans' love government, hate wall street, some 'democrats' vice versa.

more to the point, politicians and the political system are always playing catch-up; they are a very thin layer of waves on top of a huge ocean of shifting ideas and people. to get metaphorical.

I think this is all fine and worthy and everything but my own perception of where I am politically is very situationist. In France, I'm a liberal which is somewhere in the center of their spectrum. In San Francisco, I'm moderate to even somewhat conservative. In some places in the US, I'm apparently 'hard left'. I spend less time trying to figure out my place in the spectrum than trying to figure out my responses to various issues (or non-issues as the case so very often is).

lol it was horrible. anyway 'is not an exact process' is all we need to know. this is mark penn style politics and not super useful. xp

ie the idea that bill clinton 'caused' the 'postmoderns' to exist is just stupid. politicians chase, they don't lead.

xp "mark penn style" wow low blow!

the idea that bill clinton 'caused' the 'postmoderns' to exist is just stupid

Not entirely true. He veered to his right after losing his second election and the next time he ran he was there for ten years.

obviously clinton didn't "cause" them to exist, nor does he completely represent "them" whoever they are. however he codified some of their beliefs, and in a way made them mainstream w/in the party

huh

that was poorly worded, lol - i meant as president, and leading democrat, he legitimized "postmodernism" as an acceptable form of liberalism

ie the idea that bill clinton 'caused' the 'postmoderns' to exist is just stupid

I was being somewhat sarcastic. Reagan Democrats fathered the New Gabbnebs, then Clinton's welfare bill was the Appomattox of mainstream liberalism.

that is, what kevink said

Reagan Dems and the neolibs I mentioned are not the same.

A neoliberal believed in a Tough Foreign Policy -- a Michael Crowley or Peter Beinart type.

http://dlc.org/

as president, and leading democrat, he legitimized "postmodernism" as an acceptable form of liberalism

Reagan Democrats fathered the New Gabbnebs, then Clinton's welfare bill was the Appomattox of mainstream liberalism.

i'm saying, my belief is these kinds of shifts happen among the people first and are capitalized upon later. had clinton not found a way to get people like this to vote for him, they would have still been there, believing what they believe, happy enough to vote some other way.

i've never understood exactly who the 'reagan democrats' are supposed to be, reagan's victory in '84 was so huge, a whole bunch of different kinds of people are swept up in that bucket.

Reagan Dems (in Congress they were known as Boll Weevil Democrats because they mostly came from southern or rural districts) were Dems who rode on his coattails in 1980 by renouncing a lot of liberalism's post-sixties "excesses."

Lots of them, for example, voted for his '81 tax cuts and budget. "Reagan Dems" are now just swing voters.

i'm saying, my belief is these kinds of shifts happen among the people first and are capitalized upon later This is a subset of the whole Carlyle vs Tolstoy debate and I'm inclined to think it's more of a feedback loop than that overwhelmingly one-sided.

Reagan's victory was huge by electoral votes; 40% of the public still sighed heavily and voted for Mondale, like me. So that narrows Reagan Dems down to a manageable scale.

Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by political analysts to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support Republican President Ronald Reagan in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. It is also used to refer to the smaller but still substantial number of Democrats who voted for George H. W. Bush in the 1988 election. The term can also be used to describe moderate Democrats who are more conservative than liberal on certain issues like national security and immigration. The term Reagan Democrat also refers to the vast sway that Reagan held over the House of Representatives during his presidency, even though the house had a Democratic majority during both of his terms.[1]. The term also hearkens back to Richard Nixon's Silent Majority; a concept that Ronald Reagan himself used during his political campaigns in the 1970's.

how did the working-class northerners turn into gabbneb

Reagan Democrat is an American political term used by political analysts chris matthew to denote traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, shitkickers who beat him up in grade school

matthews

reagan dems were pissed off about integration / bussing iirc

Some of the RDs did turn into DLC style Clinton voters.

fucking Reagan everywhere

reagan dems were pissed off about integration / bussing iirc

Hence the whole Sista Souljah malarkey

The demographic shift that Ronald Reagan tapped into continued into the 1990's after he left office. This is evidenced by the rise of Bill Clinton to the presidency during 1992 presidential election. In that campaign, candidate Clinton forswore many older Democratic policies in favor of centrist Third Way policies that were championed by the Democratic Leadership Council. The term Reagan Democrat has become part of the lexicon in American political jargon is appropriate because of Reagan continued widespread popularity among a large segment of the electorate. The use of the term could be considered non-partisan in many respects and was frequently cited during certain phases of the 2008 presidential election, such as the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. Moreover, its definition is fairly well understood by many, and can be easily used in day-to-day conversations or throwaway commentary, as well as academic journals and publications.

Many self-styled Reagan Democrats claim to be fiscal conservatives but still support many aspects of the core programs of the New Deal and the Great Society, while also supporting Ronald Reagan’s strong defense policies as well as his optimism in American culture. Some elements of the Tea Party fit this sketch, but many other independents and Democrats could fall into the same category as well. It’s become a broad term, but that does not diminish the explanatory power behind it. One of the most prominent self-styled Reagan Democrats includes Virginia Senator Jim Webb, whom columnist David Paul Kuhn asserts is the quintessential Reagan Democrat and one of the last of an 'endangered species' within the Democratic Party.

lol @ "endangered species"

always endangered, always fully in control. mysterious, these white guys.

we won't get Reagan Dems back in the fold for good by sucking Wall Street cock. why is this still being debated?!?

Ronald Reagan’s strong defense policies as well as his optimism in American culture

what a creepy phrase

we won't get Reagan Dems back in the fold for good by sucking Wall Street cock. why is this still being debated?!?

― Dziękuję bardzo panie robocie (Eisbaer), Thursday, 5 May 2011 16:54 (33 seconds ago) Permalink

we're talking about two difft kinds of moderates, both of whom exist w/in the big tent

No results found for "heigl-lohan democrats".

^^^ that's exactly what I've been saying. Reagan Dems don't necessarily MIND sucking up to Wall Street.

xpost

also: lots of Reagan Dems went red (e.g. Krauthammer, Phil Gramm).