Exaggerating The Power of Left Wing Democrats (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    The Other Liberal

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Dec 18, 2020
    Messages
    78
    Reaction score
    62
    Age
    56
    Location
    Lexington Kentucky
    Website
    theotherliberal.blogspot.com
    Offline
    There's a lot of talk about the left wing Democrats. Listen to the media and so called progressives and socialists appear to be taking over the party. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are viewed as powerful politicians pushing Democrats too far left with proposals like Single Payer Healthcare and the Green New Deal to fight climate change. The pundits on CNN and in print media like The Washington Post warn of rising socialism and left wing progressivism that alienates most voters especially working class whites Democrats need to win Congress and state houses. Moreover the mainstream media wrongly ties Democrats to controversial activists movements like Black Lives Matter and college students activists. The former calls for defunding local police viewed as racists, while the students fuel a repressive cancel culture. Everyone calls for a move to the center. Even Elizabeth Warren a liberal by any standard is too far left. Never mind the Democrats don't officially endorse such things. Not to mention the issues raised by activists are legitimate and complex.

    It doesn't matter that false charges of left wing extremism among Democrats come from conservatives in the GOP. The media that adopts that narrative, and centrist Democrats use it to their political advantage too. Since the 1980s it has contributed to the rise of a centrist establishment that really controls the Democratic Party. It's not that left leaning Democrats are very powerful. They're just vocal and they stand up for their convictions. They draw a powerful contrast with the right wing GOP and centrist Democrats. Vilifying them and exaggerating their influence prevents Democrats from discussing or advancing a liberal agenda. Centrist Democrats and Conservative Republicans are alike in opposing strongly regulated markets, funding, and expanding safety nets especially health care. They don't want to redistribute wealth and income despite a grossly unequal economy that undermines working people either. If there were a strong liberalism within the party leftist concerns and demands could be translated into needed reforms. In many ways that's what the New Deal did. It's far reaching policy reforms eased the effects of the depression. The New Deal also tamed capitalism and created a welfare state that made life more livable for all. All of this preempts left wing excess. However centrists tend to be skeptical of liberal efforts. Like conservatives they're totally against the left.

    What are the results of this politics ? You get a regressive and reactionary Republican Party that doesn't benefit anybody including millions of working class people who vote for them. These people fall for the scare tactics about socialism or prioritize social issues. Yet nothing is done about their material wellbeing. At the same time Democratic Centrism is only a little better. Too often the center is Republican lite. The left isn't relevant despite their pro working class rhetoric, and liberals are not really in the game. We don't even own up to our name or tradition. Most of us wrongly claim to be progressive. Many others liberals are centrists.
     
    This tweet thread does not dovetail into this topic, but I think it provides an additional pillar to a broader conversation
    Nate Silver, et al should probably be held to account (I’m not 100% bagging on 538, but it’s limitations have been obvious the last 6 months if not 4 years)



    I don't quite understand what the tweet was getting at. Did she work for Nate Silver and did he muzzle her or something? I thought the problem with Silver was his inability to guage the number of voters who would pick Trump and why it was quite different from the lolling data? Is she suggesting racial resentment was driving that and was prevented from reporting it?

    It seems to me that's something that's been talked about before?
     
    This tweet thread does not dovetail into this topic, but I think it provides an additional pillar to a broader conversation
    Nate Silver, et al should probably be held to account (I’m not 100% bagging on 538, but it’s limitations have been obvious the last 6 months if not 4 years)



    How and for what should 538 be held accountable?
     
    Silver's predictions are based on poll numbers -- he doesn't conduct polls himself. There are other factors that do go into his model but he can't be responsible for significant polling error.
     
    538 is much bigger than just Silver’s modeling and reading polls - there is now a lot of editorializing that goes before and after the polling that he is the de facto editor and chief of
    So the tweeter is accusing Silver of being way too narrow in the scope and impact of the polls/opinions
    (I will say that the podcast- and thus the ‘newsroom’ - added a PoC editor/analyst and hopefully it will continue to broaden)
    But she is leveling the same claims that reporters of color have leveled against NPR or NYT or WaPo, et al, that they rely overmuch on their predominantly white editorial staff and thus their news has giant blind spots and is very counter productive
     
    538 is much bigger than just Silver’s modeling and reading polls - there is now a lot of editorializing that goes before and after the polling that he is the de facto editor and chief of
    So the tweeter is accusing Silver of being way too narrow in the scope and impact of the polls/opinions
    (I will say that the podcast- and thus the ‘newsroom’ - added a PoC editor/analyst and hopefully it will continue to broaden)
    But she is leveling the same claims that reporters of color have leveled against NPR or NYT or WaPo, et al, that they rely overmuch on their predominantly white editorial staff and thus their news has giant blind spots and is very counter productive

    Seems like a reasonable take to me. I tend to think it's more giant blind spots than intentional racism though. I mean, I would think that they are, or at least should be recruiting PoC for staffing. I don't know what the recruiting pool is like though. Are there plenty of them in the pipeline to fill those positions?
     
    Seems like a reasonable take to me. I tend to think it's more giant blind spots than intentional racism though. I mean, I would think that they are, or at least should be recruiting PoC for staffing. I don't know what the recruiting pool is like though. Are there plenty of them in the pipeline to fill those positions?

    I don't think she was accusing Silver of being intentionally racist as much as saying he's so married to his numbers and models that he ignores factors that don't necessarily show up in the data.
     
    I don't think she was accusing Silver of being intentionally racist as much as saying he's so married to his numbers and models that he ignores factors that don't necessarily show up in the data.

    That's not my take. Ask yourself the question, what demographic does Nate Silver largely appeal to? Does that demographic really want to grapple with the subject of racism? Let's face it, white people with discretionary income aren't looking for discussions on race until stuff is burning.
     
    Last edited:
    538 is much bigger than just Silver’s modeling and reading polls - there is now a lot of editorializing that goes before and after the polling that he is the de facto editor and chief of
    So the tweeter is accusing Silver of being way too narrow in the scope and impact of the polls/opinions
    (I will say that the podcast- and thus the ‘newsroom’ - added a PoC editor/analyst and hopefully it will continue to broaden)
    But she is leveling the same claims that reporters of color have leveled against NPR or NYT or WaPo, et al, that they rely overmuch on their predominantly white editorial staff and thus their news has giant blind spots and is very counter productive

    I don't read much at 538 but I do listen regularly to their Politics podcast and followed their election model closely. They lack knowledge in various areas including environmental issues, economic issues, race issues. Their expertise in is polls, data mining and political issues. I don't think it's reasonable to say that their reporting and analysis is counter productive because it has blinds spots. It is up to the listener/reader to cultivate multiple information sources to fill in knowledge gaps; if you rely on just one two, that's on you.

    YMMV
     
    Seems like a reasonable take to me. I tend to think it's more giant blind spots than intentional racism though.
    at some point those Venn diagram circles have a significant overlap - i don't think she's accusing him of malice or anything - but blindspots in regards to race are getting harder and harder to justify (especially in news/news adjacent orgs which should be checking biases on the regular)
     
    I don't think she was accusing Silver of being intentionally racist as much as saying he's so married to his numbers and models that he ignores factors that don't necessarily show up in the data.
    the numbers themselves are just data points - how you find the numbers is much more grey
     
    Kinda my point. Nate Silver strikes me as the type who won't account for something unless the data states it explicitly.

    Yes, but the problem with polling is people don't always vote the same way they answer polls, while others deliberately give wrong answers. The question becomes whether these factors can be reliably accounted for in polling.
     
    I don't know a good deal about the UK but does Race play as big a part in politics in the UK as it does in the US?
    Hardly any, I would suggest.

    I believe the more extreme left-wing members of the Labour Party ATTEMPT to do this in the more heavily immigrant sections of London, and areas of Yorkshire such as Bradford. However, that is more religion-based canvassing rather than race per-se.
     
    Hardly any, I would suggest.

    I believe the more extreme left-wing members of the Labour Party ATTEMPT to do this in the more heavily immigrant sections of London, and areas of Yorkshire such as Bradford. However, that is more religion-based canvassing rather than race per-se.
    You believe? Based on what?

    The most egregious recent example of this I can think of was Zac Goldsmith's crude targeting based on racial and ethnic stereotypes in his failed attempt to win the 2016 London Mayoral election (https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/tory-councillor-accuses-zac-goldsmith-11090906). But Zac Goldsmith is, of course, a Conservative.
     
    Hardly any, I would suggest.

    I believe the more extreme left-wing members of the Labour Party ATTEMPT to do this in the more heavily immigrant sections of London, and areas of Yorkshire such as Bradford. However, that is more religion-based canvassing rather than race per-se.
    agree completely - what would an Empire based almost exclusively on colonialism have any connection to race?!?
     
    There's a lot of talk about the left wing Democrats. Listen to the media and so called progressives and socialists appear to be taking over the party. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib are viewed as powerful politicians pushing Democrats too far left with proposals like Single Payer Healthcare and the Green New Deal to fight climate change. The pundits on CNN and in print media like The Washington Post warn of rising socialism and left wing progressivism that alienates most voters especially working class whites Democrats need to win Congress and state houses. Moreover the mainstream media wrongly ties Democrats to controversial activists movements like Black Lives Matter and college students activists. The former calls for defunding local police viewed as racists, while the students fuel a repressive cancel culture. Everyone calls for a move to the center. Even Elizabeth Warren a liberal by any standard is too far left. Never mind the Democrats don't officially endorse such things. Not to mention the issues raised by activists are legitimate and complex.
    I think the extreme left wing has taken control of the Democratic party in some parts of the country. For example, look at what just happened in San Francisco where 44 schools were renamed. Abraham Lincoln is now bad based on these extreme leftists, but there are enough of them to actually succeed.

    Centrists democrats still control most areas, but leftist Democrats have become much more powerful. Bernie Sanders won several state primaries and won a significant percentage of the vote. Now, while I love Bernie, he is far left by any standard. I don't know whether he would support the idiot renaming of schools, but it is that wing of he party that he represents. Cancel culture is growing, and pushing people away from the Democratic party.

    It doesn't matter that false charges of left wing extremism among Democrats come from conservatives in the GOP. The media that adopts that narrative, and centrist Democrats use it to their political advantage too. Since the 1980s it has contributed to the rise of a centrist establishment that really controls the Democratic Party. It's not that left leaning Democrats are very powerful. They're just vocal and they stand up for their convictions. They draw a powerful contrast with the right wing GOP and centrist Democrats. Vilifying them and exaggerating their influence prevents Democrats from discussing or advancing a liberal agenda. Centrist Democrats and Conservative Republicans are alike in opposing strongly regulated markets, funding, and expanding safety nets especially health care. They don't want to redistribute wealth and income despite a grossly unequal economy that undermines working people either. If there were a strong liberalism within the party leftist concerns and demands could be translated into needed reforms. In many ways that's what the New Deal did. It's far reaching policy reforms eased the effects of the depression. The New Deal also tamed capitalism and created a welfare state that made life more livable for all. All of this preempts left wing excess. However centrists tend to be skeptical of liberal efforts. Like conservatives they're totally against the left.
    I think there are many more right wing extremists in the GOP, and the GOP is cowering to those extremists, but I see a similar growing group of extremists in the Democratic party. One big difference is that the GOP's extremists are probably dying out, since most are Boomers, while the Democrat's extremists are mostly millennials, so they could become more powerful in time.

    What are the results of this politics ? You get a regressive and reactionary Republican Party that doesn't benefit anybody including millions of working class people who vote for them. These people fall for the scare tactics about socialism or prioritize social issues. Yet nothing is done about their material wellbeing. At the same time Democratic Centrism is only a little better. Too often the center is Republican lite. The left isn't relevant despite their pro working class rhetoric, and liberals are not really in the game. We don't even own up to our name or tradition. Most of us wrongly claim to be progressive. Many others liberals are centrists.
    Centrists in both parties are losing ground. The primary system rewards that. Until we get ranked voting, I think this trend will continue. Independents will continue to grow as the parties become less representative, but the parties will hold the power under the current voting system.
     
    I think the extreme left wing has taken control of the Democratic party in some parts of the country. For example, look at what just happened in San Francisco where 44 schools were renamed. Abraham Lincoln is now bad based on these extreme leftists, but there are enough of them to actually succeed.

    Centrists democrats still control most areas, but leftist Democrats have become much more powerful. Bernie Sanders won several state primaries and won a significant percentage of the vote. Now, while I love Bernie, he is far left by any standard. I don't know whether he would support the idiot renaming of schools, but it is that wing of he party that he represents. Cancel culture is growing, and pushing people away from the Democratic party.


    I think there are many more right wing extremists in the GOP, and the GOP is cowering to those extremists, but I see a similar growing group of extremists in the Democratic party. One big difference is that the GOP's extremists are probably dying out, since most are Boomers, while the Democrat's extremists are mostly millennials, so they could become more powerful in time.


    Centrists in both parties are losing ground. The primary system rewards that. Until we get ranked voting, I think this trend will continue. Independents will continue to grow as the parties become less representative, but the parties will hold the power under the current voting system.
    Do you really believe that or is ‘both sides’ just the easiest line of attack to wage?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom