Scrutable

dyqik wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:51 am

In the US, thanks to racism, the legacy of Jim Crow, etc., "Liberal" now largely means more centralized Federal government to prevent conservative local governments trampling on rights and equality, while "Conservative" means less centralized government so that local government can oppress who they want.

Absolutely. There's a huge gulf between the most foundational ideological underpinnings and the common beliefs and practise. That said, some people do make the transition from one to the other, and one hopes judges might think a bit more about the underpinnings than randoms on the street.

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:17 am

In some ways, the more principled ends of liberalism and conservatism (small l and small c), can converge quite remarkably. I was struck recently by a prominent never-Trump self-identified conservative describing as a conservative virtue the idea that government should make law only when necessary and otherwise leave prople to live their lives uninterfered with, as that's a position I would personally describe as liberal.

Sounds like you're describing a Libertarian, who sometimes describe themselves as "classical liberals", and complain that the meaning of the word liberal has changed since the 1800s. There's a few of them on the republican side of things. They come in several flavours, but they are all united by having a limited idea of what freedom is. Often what laws they disagree with or what actions they think a government should be allowed to take seems to be guided by their prejudices, their personal gain, or the gain of their cronies.

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:34 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:17 am

In some ways, the more principled ends of liberalism and conservatism (small l and small c), can converge quite remarkably. I was struck recently by a prominent never-Trump self-identified conservative describing as a conservative virtue the idea that government should make law only when necessary and otherwise leave prople to live their lives uninterfered with, as that's a position I would personally describe as liberal.

Sounds like you're describing a Libertarian ...

Well that view is necessary to be a Libertarian but is it sufficient? Liberals and libertarians might agree on the lack of necessity to make laws regulating the gender or race of people consenting adults can have sex with but they would disagree on legislating on workplace rights.

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:10 pm

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:34 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:17 am

In some ways, the more principled ends of liberalism and conservatism (small l and small c), can converge quite remarkably. I was struck recently by a prominent never-Trump self-identified conservative describing as a conservative virtue the idea that government should make law only when necessary and otherwise leave prople to live their lives uninterfered with, as that's a position I would personally describe as liberal.

Sounds like you're describing a Libertarian ...

Well that view is necessary to be a Libertarian but is it sufficient? Liberals and libertarians might agree on the lack of necessity to make laws regulating the gender or race of people consenting adults can have sex with but they would disagree on legislating on workplace rights.

No, it's not sufficient. I used sounds like for a reason. I was just suggesting that EAClucifer may have encountered a Libertarian who often seem to consider themselves to be the "true liberals", based on a historic definition, not the contemporary, which seemed to be related to his/her thoughts.

JQH wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:10 pm

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:34 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:17 am

In some ways, the more principled ends of liberalism and conservatism (small l and small c), can converge quite remarkably. I was struck recently by a prominent never-Trump self-identified conservative describing as a conservative virtue the idea that government should make law only when necessary and otherwise leave prople to live their lives uninterfered with, as that's a position I would personally describe as liberal.

Sounds like you're describing a Libertarian ...

Well that view is necessary to be a Libertarian but is it sufficient? Liberals and libertarians might agree on the lack of necessity to make laws regulating the gender or race of people consenting adults can have sex with but they would disagree on legislating on workplace rights.

A lot of libertarians online also seem to agree on the lack of necessity to make laws regulating the age of people consenting adults can have sex with, which makes me suspect they haven't quite grasped the way that power dynamics interact with liberties.

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:34 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:17 am

In some ways, the more principled ends of liberalism and conservatism (small l and small c), can converge quite remarkably. I was struck recently by a prominent never-Trump self-identified conservative describing as a conservative virtue the idea that government should make law only when necessary and otherwise leave prople to live their lives uninterfered with, as that's a position I would personally describe as liberal.

Sounds like you're describing a Libertarian

No, I'm describing a social liberal. The key part of that is the "when necessary", which opinions differ on, and I am talking about foundational principles, not ideological details. The point I am making is not that liberals and conservatives are alike, and a lot of people are not principled at all, but tribal or selfish*, but that principled small c conservatism can lead to alignment with small l liberalism. This is specifically in the context of a judge appointed as an apparent conservative ultimately supporting liberal positions.



*Or rather everyone's a blend of all of these in different proportions.

Vote him out!

Donald Trump was loudly booed by crowds as he visited the supreme court to pay his respects to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

As the president and the first lady paused at Ginsburg’s casket, the crowd yelled: 'Vote him out!'

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:23 pm

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:34 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:17 am

In some ways, the more principled ends of liberalism and conservatism (small l and small c), can converge quite remarkably. I was struck recently by a prominent never-Trump self-identified conservative describing as a conservative virtue the idea that government should make law only when necessary and otherwise leave prople to live their lives uninterfered with, as that's a position I would personally describe as liberal.

Sounds like you're describing a Libertarian

No, I'm describing a social liberal. The key part of that is the "when necessary", which opinions differ on, and I am talking about foundational principles, not ideological details. The point I am making is not that liberals and conservatives are alike, and a lot of people are not principled at all, but tribal or selfish*, but that principled small c conservatism can lead to alignment with small l liberalism. This is specifically in the context of a judge appointed as an apparent conservative ultimately supporting liberal positions.



*Or rather everyone's a blend of all of these in different proportions.

I did think what you wrote sounded like a libertarian, whether you meant it to or not. Libertarians are socially liberal and they seem very keen on principles rather than ideology, even if they often get bent when it suits and ideological libertarians exist. Anyway, as I said to JQH, I just thought that a group that often aligns themselves with conservatives that also sometimes call themselves liberals was pertinent to what you wrote. It was an example of where the overlap I thought you were talking about.

I nearly wrote a sentence or two on the "when necessary" bit about it covering everyone from a pure Anarchist to Big Brother, but that seemed overly pedantic

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:01 pm

A lot of libertarians online also seem to agree on the lack of necessity to make laws regulating the age of people consenting adults can have sex with, which makes me suspect they haven't quite grasped the way that power dynamics interact with liberties.

This sort of thing is why I said they have a limited view of freedom. The only power they think is relevant to freedom is the power of the state.

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:13 pm

EACLucifer wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:23 pm

monkey wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:34 pm

Sounds like you're describing a Libertarian

No, I'm describing a social liberal. The key part of that is the "when necessary", which opinions differ on, and I am talking about foundational principles, not ideological details. The point I am making is not that liberals and conservatives are alike, and a lot of people are not principled at all, but tribal or selfish*, but that principled small c conservatism can lead to alignment with small l liberalism. This is specifically in the context of a judge appointed as an apparent conservative ultimately supporting liberal positions.



*Or rather everyone's a blend of all of these in different proportions.

I did think what you wrote sounded like a libertarian, whether you meant it to or not. Libertarians are socially liberal and they seem very keen on principles rather than ideology, even if they often get bent when it suits and ideological libertarians exist. Anyway, as I said to JQH, I just thought that a group that often aligns themselves with conservatives that also sometimes call themselves liberals was pertinent to what you wrote. It was an example of where the overlap I thought you were talking about.

I nearly wrote a sentence or two on the "when necessary" bit about it covering everyone from a pure Anarchist to Big Brother, but that seemed overly pedantic

It's not overly pedantic at all, it's the crux of the matter of how people can move between political positions. If both positions agree on everything but a single position re: when is necessary, then there's not so much that has to change.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:01 pm

A lot of libertarians online also seem to agree on the lack of necessity to make laws regulating the age of people consenting adults can have sex with, which makes me suspect they haven't quite grasped the way that power dynamics interact with liberties.

I've seen that sort of kneejerk, brainless libertarianism described as "critical government studies" before - they can problematise all government and identify the similarities between, say, the US National Park Service and Iran's Revolutionary Guards, but fail to grasp why the differences are rather more important.

This sort of thing is why I said they have a limited view of freedom. The only power they think is relevant to freedom is the power of the state.

538 has biden now set to win Ohio. Interesting.

There was an outlier Fox poll for Ohio, will probably move back.

What matters more is the clock running down. The 538 model partly gave Trump a high % chance because there was a long way to go. Every week the odds move in Biden's favour, even though polls are refusing to shift. 5 weeks left isn't much to produce a turnaround.

But Debate 1 tomorrow. Could cause a sudden shift, if Biden tries to kiss a moderator or Trump shits his pants. I'm hoping Trump will choke on his own vomit, or someone else's vomit, and dies thrashing around on stage.

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:32 pm

There was an outlier Fox poll for Ohio, will probably move back.

What matters more is the clock running down. The 538 model partly gave Trump a high % chance because there was a long way to go. Every week the odds move in Biden's favour, even though polls are refusing to shift. 5 weeks left isn't much to produce a turnaround.

But Debate 1 tomorrow. Could cause a sudden shift, if Biden tries to kiss a moderator or Trump shits his pants. I'm hoping Trump will choke on his own vomit, or someone else's vomit, and dies thrashing around on stage.

And 40% of the US electorate would still vote for his rotten, bloated corpse on the basis that slowly putrescing while stinking vile fumes leak out of his decayed orifices is exactly the dignified presidential behaviour they want the world to see the US represented by and the sort of world class leadership the US needs right now.

The "Christian" Conservatives I imagine will be loudly predicting his resurrection on the third day and will attribute his failure to, to the biased fake news of the godless MSM.

Little waster wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:43 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:32 pm

There was an outlier Fox poll for Ohio, will probably move back.

What matters more is the clock running down. The 538 model partly gave Trump a high % chance because there was a long way to go. Every week the odds move in Biden's favour, even though polls are refusing to shift. 5 weeks left isn't much to produce a turnaround.

But Debate 1 tomorrow. Could cause a sudden shift, if Biden tries to kiss a moderator or Trump shits his pants. I'm hoping Trump will choke on his own vomit, or someone else's vomit, and dies thrashing around on stage.

And 40% of the US electorate would still vote for his rotten, bloated corpse on the basis that slowly putrescing while stinking vile fumes leak out of his decayed orifices is exactly the dignified presidential behaviour they want the world to see the US represented by and the sort of world class leadership the US needs right now.

The "Christian" Conservatives I imagine will be loudly predicting his resurrection on the third day and will attribute his failure to, to the biased fake news of the godless MSM.

Is it just abortion and racism? Or have I missed any other reason why Trump's support is still so surprisingly high?

It's not just abortion and racism. It's political polarization generally. There are a lot of Republicans who would vote for a shoebox if it was painted red and had an R on the lid. Similarly there are plenty of Democrats who would vote for a blue shoebox with a D on it. And the polarization is on all sorts of issues in addition to abortion and race -- taxes, the environment, the size of the military, globalization, everything.

Dems/libruls = communists?

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:32 pm

There was an outlier Fox poll for Ohio, will probably move back.

What matters more is the clock running down. The 538 model partly gave Trump a high % chance because there was a long way to go. Every week the odds move in Biden's favour, even though polls are refusing to shift. 5 weeks left isn't much to produce a turnaround.

But Debate 1 tomorrow. Could cause a sudden shift, if Biden tries to kiss a moderator or Trump shits his pants. I'm hoping Trump will choke on his own vomit, or someone else's vomit, and dies thrashing around on stage.

Trump must be desperately casting about for another "Russia, if you're listening..." moment to have something to sling at Biden.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:41 pm

Little waster wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:43 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:32 pm

There was an outlier Fox poll for Ohio, will probably move back.

What matters more is the clock running down. The 538 model partly gave Trump a high % chance because there was a long way to go. Every week the odds move in Biden's favour, even though polls are refusing to shift. 5 weeks left isn't much to produce a turnaround.

But Debate 1 tomorrow. Could cause a sudden shift, if Biden tries to kiss a moderator or Trump shits his pants. I'm hoping Trump will choke on his own vomit, or someone else's vomit, and dies thrashing around on stage.

And 40% of the US electorate would still vote for his rotten, bloated corpse on the basis that slowly putrescing while stinking vile fumes leak out of his decayed orifices is exactly the dignified presidential behaviour they want the world to see the US represented by and the sort of world class leadership the US needs right now.

The "Christian" Conservatives I imagine will be loudly predicting his resurrection on the third day and will attribute his failure to, to the biased fake news of the godless MSM.

Is it just abortion and racism? Or have I missed any other reason why Trump's support is still so surprisingly high?

Chuck in a massive unpaid-for tax cut and 2 (soon to be three Supreme Court judges) appointments.

He is also very good at telling his base exactly what they want to hear; that all the problems in their lives are in fact down to sneering godless liberal elites, uppity blacks, dirty Mexicans and the insidious Chinese and that he is the only politician willing to say that out loud because lets face the core Republican vote are a bunch of horrible stupid c.nts*.

There is also one of the few things in his plus column* (and ironically one of the few things the AEI ghouls disagree with him on), in that he has mostly managed to keep the US out of any further overseas military entanglements.


*cue a million chin-stroking articles from self-appointed moderates who believe we shouldn't call them out on that but should instead try to find ways to pander to them.

**YMMV

Biden nine points ahead in Pennsylvania, according to both WaPo and NYT polls. Excellent news.

Pennsylvania is the only state you need to poll. Not only is it the key marginal that's pretty likely to be the state that tips the EC from Trump to Biden, it's also the most correlated state.

It's highly correlated with Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Plus Ohio, Iowa and Missouri. And New Hampshire for some reason. It even correlates quite well with Florida. The only marginals it doesn't really correlate with are Georgia and Arizona.

There was a chart somewhere on 538 that shows the correlations, but I can't find it now.

Couldn't find it on 538 because it was The Economist

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020- ... /president

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 29, 2020 10:48 am

Pennsylvania is the only state you need to poll. Not only is it the key marginal that's pretty likely to be the state that tips the EC from Trump to Biden, it's also the most correlated state.

It's highly correlated with Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Plus Ohio, Iowa and Missouri. And New Hampshire for some reason. It even correlates quite well with Florida. The only marginals it doesn't really correlate with are Georgia and Arizona.

There was a chart somewhere on 538 that shows the correlations, but I can't find it now.

If you assume that Wisconsin is safe enough, and correlated with PA, then you should be polling at least AZ, GA, NC and FL as well as PA. Any one of those states gets Biden to 270, and they aren't well correlated enough that lack of movement in PA means lack of movement elsewhere. Biden also has somewhat of a home town advantage in Scranton, PA, so you shouldn't assume the correlation holds for him as well as it does generally.

Oh, and Alaska is probably worth polling too.

Of course it isn't. Polling resources are limited, so deploy resources on a state that also reveals other states.

If you were only allowed one poll, you'd poll Pennsylvania. If allowed a second, then Florida. From those two you can pretty much get all the marginals.
That's how correlation works. If you poll Georgia as well then that only gives extra indications for Louisiana or Alabama that you don't care about. North Carolina gives indications for Tennessee and Kentucky.

The only benefit to polling Alaska or Iowa is for the Senate races.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:43 pm

Of course it isn't. Polling resources are limited, so deploy resources on a state that also reveals other states.

If you were only allowed one poll, you'd poll Pennsylvania. If allowed a second, then Florida. From those two you can pretty much get all the marginals.
That's how correlation works. If you poll Georgia as well then that only gives extra indications for Louisiana or Alabama that you don't care about. North Carolina gives indications for Tennessee and Kentucky.

The only benefit to polling Alaska or Iowa is for the Senate races.

You're allowed far more than one poll though. Dozens at least.

And control of the Senate is as important as the White House, and far more in question.

Has something happened in Georgia? Because all of a sudden Raphael Warnock is polling ahead of the two republican candidates in the special senate election.