John C Calhoun probably would be a Tea Partier if he were alive today.

[chompalot]

Here's an interesting article concerning the evolution of movement conservatism and how it dates all the way back to John C Calhoun. For those who enjoy political history, I think you'll find it an enjoyable read.

Original Sin: Why the GOP is and will continue to be the party of white people

[mdgator05]

Interesting article. The denial aspect of the modern right, discussed extensively in that article, has been a topic of interest for me for a little while now. The ability to construct an entire counter-factual world, as done during the election with polling, unemployment numbers, etc. and post-election with even further out-there conspiracy theories, such as this whole Newtown Conspiracy Theory, is so interesting to me.

The dichotomy between the denial and the reluctant and bitter acceptance of reality is just so interesting. This past election was the ultimate case of this denial, where we had people up until election day calling for a Romney landslide, despite all evidence to the contrary, and after the election declaring the end of the world as they were forced into accepting the reality that their views were not really the views of the majority of Americans.

One aspect of the modern right that the author touches on but doesn't seem to fully dive into is the fact that I think much of the "movement" conservatives have an element of personal identification above any form of ideological consistency. It seems like many of the movement conservatives are completely unwilling to accept somebody who has a different view from the "movement" on just about anything. Foreign policy. Economic policy. Religious policy. Social policy. It doesn't seem to matter. If you differ on any of these, even in a small way, you become a RINO (an acronym almost never used by Democrats in similar circumstances). You don't even really have to disagree with any of these issues if you fail to be unwilling to compromise or unwilling to insult "liberals" enough to be considered a member of the group (see somebody like Luger- who really wasn't even close to moderate). This suggests that support from many of those on the hard right is not won through policy agreement but through identification with the group.

[chompalot]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Interesting article. The denial aspect of the modern right, discussed extensively in that article, has been a topic of interest for me for a little while now. The ability to construct an entire counter-factual world, as done during the election with polling, unemployment numbers, etc. and post-election with even further out-there conspiracy theories, such as this whole Newtown Conspiracy Theory, is so interesting to me.

The dichotomy between the denial and the reluctant and bitter acceptance of reality is just so interesting. This past election was the ultimate case of this denial, where we had people up until election day calling for a Romney landslide, despite all evidence to the contrary, and after the election declaring the end of the world as they were forced into accepting the reality that their views were not really the views of the majority of Americans.

One aspect of the modern right that the author touches on but doesn't seem to fully dive into is the fact that I think much of the "movement" conservatives have an element of personal identification above any form of ideological consistency. It seems like many of the movement conservatives are completely unwilling to accept somebody who has a different view from the "movement" on just about anything. Foreign policy. Economic policy. Religious policy. Social policy. It doesn't seem to matter. If you differ on any of these, even in a small way, you become a RINO (an acronym almost never used by Democrats in similar circumstances). You don't even really have to disagree with any of these issues if you fail to be unwilling to compromise or unwilling to insult "liberals" enough to be considered a member of the group (see somebody like Luger- who really wasn't even close to moderate). This suggests that support from many of those on the hard right is not won through policy agreement but through identification with the group.

Concur with your observations, especially with the last paragraph. I believe that is the reason why there aren't many, if any, "RINO's" on this board.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Interesting article. The denial aspect of the modern right, discussed extensively in that article, has been a topic of interest for me for a little while now. The ability to construct an entire counter-factual world, as done during the election with polling, unemployment numbers, etc. and post-election with even further out-there conspiracy theories, such as this whole Newtown Conspiracy Theory, is so interesting to me.

The dichotomy between the denial and the reluctant and bitter acceptance of reality is just so interesting. This past election was the ultimate case of this denial, where we had people up until election day calling for a Romney landslide, despite all evidence to the contrary, and after the election declaring the end of the world as they were forced into accepting the reality that their views were not really the views of the majority of Americans.

One aspect of the modern right that the author touches on but doesn't seem to fully dive into is the fact that I think much of the "movement" conservatives have an element of personal identification above any form of ideological consistency. It seems like many of the movement conservatives are completely unwilling to accept somebody who has a different view from the "movement" on just about anything. Foreign policy. Economic policy. Religious policy. Social policy. It doesn't seem to matter. If you differ on any of these, even in a small way, you become a RINO (an acronym almost never used by Democrats in similar circumstances). You don't even really have to disagree with any of these issues if you fail to be unwilling to compromise or unwilling to insult "liberals" enough to be considered a member of the group (see somebody like Luger- who really wasn't even close to moderate). This suggests that support from many of those on the hard right is not won through policy agreement but through identification with the group.

The people calling for a landslide were an obvious minority, albeit vocal. It's like that in every single election. People, especially in regards to politics, let their emotions dictate their thoughts on a lot of things, as opposed to just using common sense and reasoning - not dissimilar from you two in this thread. The truly interesting thing is that you two are the ones constructing a "counter-factual world." Two people criticizing "the right's" "counter-factual world" by creating a counter-factual world yourselves. I don't think I'll ever get to repeat that sentence again. Unfortunately this nonsense isn't unique to THFSG.

In every election, there are people ignoring the numbers and going off of "gut instincts" or "insider knowledge" and who knows what else, going against the grain, and swearing up and down something considered unlikely, sometimes supremely so, as happening.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Tim85

The people calling for a landslide were an obvious minority, albeit vocal. It's like that in every single election. People, especially in regards to politics, let their emotions dictate their thoughts on a lot of things, as opposed to just using common sense and reasoning - not dissimilar from you two in this thread. The truly interesting thing is that you two are the ones constructing a "counter-factual world." Two people criticizing "the right's" "counter-factual world" by creating a counter-factual world yourselves. I don't think I'll ever get to repeat that sentence again. Unfortunately this nonsense isn't unique to THFSG.

In every election, there are people ignoring the numbers and going off of "gut instincts" or "insider knowledge" and who knows what else, going against the grain, and swearing up and down something considered unlikely, sometimes supremely so, as happening.

You can create a nice little world for yourself here, but it simply isn't true. Look at the levels of denial before trying to claim it as some kind of minority opinion amongst Republicans.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...ased-for-obama

But Republicans are particularly likely to believe that the polls are unfair, reporting by a 71-13 percent margin that polls are biased against their candidate. Members of the Tea Party suspect intentional skewing by a remarkable 84-5 percent margin.

"Intentional skewing" is the absurd belief that an entire industry conspired against them for no apparent reason. Why in the world would so many people believe such an absurd notion?

And it doesn't stop with the election. Let's look at the Obama is a super secret Muslim polling numbers amongst Republicans.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...a-is-a-muslim/

And yet, I was a bit surprised to see a PPP poll showing that 45 percent of Alabama Republicans think Mr. Obama is a Muslim, and only 14 percent know that he’s actually a Christian. In Mississippi, the same poll showed that a majority of Republicans, 52 percent, believe the Muslim lie.

How about the election? What happened according to half of all Republicans? Why it was stolen by an organization that doesn't even exist anymore!

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...ults-well.html

49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.

You can try to pawn this off with false equivalencies all you want, but just try to find a factual issue, which all of these are, where the majority of Democrats are believing things this ridiculous.

This is the very definition of a counter-factual world, where the willingness to believe anything "negative" about "outside groups" becomes a part of the group's identity. So those that aren't birthers or super-secret Muslim believers or believers that every polling firm in existence is for some reason intentionally skewing their results become not a part of the group. And thus they are RINOs regardless of their ideological beliefs.

[Tim85]

So according to a poll done by the uber-liberal site Daily KOS? Honestly, if you're trying to make a point and convince us all of something, it doesn't seem like a good idea to go and find a poll done by a notoriously liberal website. Even if you wanted to take it seriously, which I don't, and I doubt anyone who is really trying to find truth amongst the muck, 14% of Democrats also felt like Obama received skewing as well. Then it goes onto to say 45% of Independents also thought the pollsters were skewing numbers. That's a pretty huge number -- I guess nearly half of all Independents(according to this survey, which in my opinion, isn't an unbiased or trustworthy source to begin with) are living this world imaginary world as well, right?

I hate to be one to just attack the source of your arguments, but I believe in trying to post at least half-way unbiased sources to prove a point, and your second link may even be worse than the first. From the actual article:

"While there’s no question that far too many people buy into this propaganda, I’m not ready to condemn a majority of Mississippians based on this survey. PPP is a partisan organization that conducts automated surveys. That means it’s not clear who answered the questions and whether the sample is statistically representative.

Current law prohibits automated dialers from calling cellphones. So PPP is likely missing a big chunk of the population. (The latest research shows that about 25 percent to 31 percent of people now use cellphones exclusively.)"

Now when the author of a persuasive article admits, within his own article, that even he isn't really sure he trusts his own source -- that's some cause for concern.


How is my point that people in every election I've ever witnessed or been a apart of, people have done this exact same thing, a false equivalency? How is it any different from in this last election? Can you provide sources that aren't mired with bias? Either way, you can find statistics and reports to back almost any position you believe in, no matter how extreme. Personally, I think you're exaggerting and overstating with the ideas in your original post.

[gator421]

Thanks for the link. I heard about this article yesterday. I doubt this thread will go anywhere.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Tim85

So according to a poll done by the uber-liberal site Daily KOS? Honestly, if you're trying to make a point and convince us all of something, it doesn't seem like a good idea to go and find a poll done by a notoriously liberal website. Even if you wanted to take it seriously, which I don't, and I doubt anyone who is really trying to find truth amongst the muck, 14% of Democrats also felt like Obama received skewing as well. Then it goes onto to say 45% of Independents also thought the pollsters were skewing numbers. That's a pretty huge number -- I guess nearly half of all Independents(according to this survey, which in my opinion, isn't an unbiased or trustworthy source to begin with) are living this world imaginary world as well, right?

I hate to be one to just attack the source of your arguments, but I believe in trying to post at least half-way unbiased sources to prove a point, and your second link may even be worse than the first. From the actual article:



Now when the author of a persuasive article admits, within his own article, that even he isn't really sure he trusts his own source -- that's some cause for concern.


How is my point that people in every election I've ever witnessed or been a apart of, people have done this exact same thing, a false equivalency? How is it any different from in this last election? Can you provide sources that aren't mired with bias? Either way, you can find statistics and reports to back almost any position you believe in, no matter how extreme. Personally, I think you're exaggerting and overstating with the ideas in your original post.

PPP was found to have a bias in this past election...for Republicans.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...idential-race/

So you figure that they are biased in favor of Democrats somehow in their election bias towards Republicans?

Thanks for proving the point. Rather than actually looking up the stats, you just figured you would accuse them of bias without finding out if their track record indicates bias or not.

[Dreamliner]

Liberals who disparage the modern Tea Party movement (the one that's not violent) tend to revere the first Tea Party movement (the one that was violent).

I'm beginning to think that liberals just like violence.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

PPP was found to have a bias in this past election...for Republicans.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...idential-race/

So you figure that they are biased in favor of Democrats somehow in their election bias towards Republicans?

Thanks for proving the point. Rather than actually looking up the stats, you just figured you would accuse them of bias without finding out if their track record indicates bias or not.

I figure that they're a partisan website, whether they claim to be or not, and it's in their nature to manipulate to make their side seem better. I went to all three links you posted, and like anyone trying to research a topic or find truth should do, checked the sources. You used sources that aren't trustworthy, regardless of who they were biased towards. My only point was it's hard to take your ideas seriously when they're informed and extrapolated on by questionable sources, and you haven't done anything to prove otherwise. If any point was proven by our discussion, it's that you continue to use sources that are biased in some way, whether it be towards R. or D.

Listen, I'm just interested in true discussion. I want what's best for our country, and I think anyone from any side could potentially have good ideas. What I get tired of is people repeating the same drivel they read on their partisan websites and expect others to take up arms with them. Why aren't people more skeptical? I suppose it just feels better to believe in a cause than to question it.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I figure that they're a partisan website, whether they claim to be or not, and it's in their nature to manipulate to make their side seem better. I went to all three links you posted, and like anyone trying to research a topic or find truth should do, checked the sources. You used sources that aren't trustworthy, regardless of who they were biased towards. My only point was it's hard to take your ideas seriously when they're informed and extrapolated on by questionable sources, and you haven't done anything to prove otherwise. If any point was proven by our discussion, it's that you continue to use sources that are biased in some way, whether it be towards R. or D.

Listen, I'm just interested in true discussion. I want what's best for our country, and I think anyone from any side could potentially have good ideas. What I get tired of is people repeating the same drivel they read on their partisan websites and expect others to take up arms with them. Why aren't people more skeptical? I suppose it just feels better to believe in a cause than to question it.

PPP has never hidden the fact that their leadership is Democratic. They have never hidden the fact that they work for Democratic campaigns and media organizations.

However, they have never let it leak into their methodology, unlike Rasmussen. The split between Rasmussen and PPP is also a revealing example. Both are run by undeniably partisan folks. However, one group, PPP, consistently produces results in the mainstream of polling regardless of which direction the very slight year-by-year random biases go (this past year polling was very slightly biased towards Republicans in a way that would not be inconsistent with randomness). Rasmussen, on the other hand, has spent the Obama years producing terribly Pro-Republican biased polls, far outside the mainstream.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

One aspect of the modern right that the author touches on but doesn't seem to fully dive into is the fact that I think much of the "movement" conservatives have an element of personal identification above any form of ideological consistency. It seems like many of the movement conservatives are completely unwilling to accept somebody who has a different view from the "movement" on just about anything.

Wow what a truly objective, non-partisan observation. It's so true that conservatives insist on absolute ideological uniformity within the ranks, and that this distinguishes them from liberals who are known for their tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

[MastaG8r]

The Gallup Organization had Romney at 49% and Obama at 48% in their final poll of likely voters before the election. So obviously the Republicans who thought Romney was going to win despite such clear evidence to the contrary were all just a bunch of self-deluded groupthink wingnuts.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

The Gallup Organization had Romney at 49% and Obama at 48% in their final poll of likely voters before the election. So obviously the Republicans who thought Romney was going to win despite such clear evidence to the contrary were all just a bunch of self-deluded groupthink wingnuts.

"Hey look, the most ridiculous outlier agreed with us! So we weren't just hunting for one poll out of 23 to tell us exactly what we wanted to hear."



Hey look at that: Gallup was an outlier with an average error of almost 2% higher than anybody else in the business and a bias of almost 3% higher than anybody else in the business. Anything you can desperately cling to, right? Remember when you were putting down all those nerds and their statistical models? As is usual in the real world, the nerds win again. Even when they tell you things you didn't want to hear.

[wgbgator]

The "Marx of the Master Class" a Teapartier? Seems about right.

Not in the slightest was [Calhoun] concerned with minority rights as they are chiefly of interest to the modern liberal mind – the rights of dissenters to express unorthodox opinions, of the individual conscience against the State, least of all of ethnic minorities. At bottom he was not interested in any minority that was not a propertied minority. The concurrent majority itself was a device without relevance to the protection of dissent, designed to protect a vested interest of considerable power...it was minority privileges rather than [minority] rights that he really proposed to protect.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

Wow what a truly objective, non-partisan observation. It's so true that conservatives insist on absolute ideological uniformity within the ranks, and that this distinguishes them from liberals who are known for their tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

You don't even get the point of what I am saying. They don't insist on ideological purity. They insist on group purity. Ideological purity is insufficient and, at times, unimportant. Just ask Senators Murkowski, Luger, or Bennett. They weren't saved by their ideological positions, which were almost totally in line with the Republican Party in every case, but were ousted due to not being sufficiently within the identification of the "movement."

At least with Lieberman, the Democrats can point to a particularly big break with the party on his particularly vocal and continued support of Iraq in 2006 even in the face of significant evidence and the general public turning against the conflict. What was Lisa Murkowski's great crime against conservatism?

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

"Hey look, the most ridiculous outlier agreed with us! So we weren't just hunting for one poll out of 23 to tell us exactly what we wanted to hear."



Hey look at that: Gallup was an outlier with an average error of almost 2% higher than anybody else in the business and a bias of almost 3% higher than anybody else in the business. Anything you can desperately cling to, right? Remember when you were putting down all those nerds and their statistical models? As is usual in the real world, the nerds win again. Even when they tell you things you didn't want to hear.

So now Gallup - America's best known and most respected polling organization - is just a Conservative front and people are dumb for believing it, huh? Hahaha. What a joke. Nearly ALL the polls were close enough that there was nothing inherently "delusional" about Republicans expecting to win.

The "Romney landslide" believers may have been out on a limb, but at least they were making predictions about an unknown future. The ones who are really delusional are those on the Left who are claiming after the fact that 0bama's victory was a "landslide" and a "mandate." It was a 3% margin of victory in the popular vote!

And yes I'm still putting down all those nerds and their statistical models. Other than the occasional computer dork like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg who comes up with (or steals) an idea that the cool kids like, nerds rarely win. Even when they do, they're still nerds...and us cool kids who got laid in high school will always look down on you. Err, I mean them.

[CHFG8R]

Gee thanks. Let me see if I get it.

Republicans = Bad

Democrats = Good

I feel so much better now that this has been cleared up for me. Now, if only we could get (D)s in every elected position from dogcatcher to POTUS we could all live in a virtual eden revisited.

P.S. Thanks Chompy. I was missing my daily dose of partisan myopia.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

You don't even get the point of what I am saying. They don't insist on ideological purity. They insist on group purity. Ideological purity is insufficient and, at times, unimportant. Just ask Senators Murkowski, Luger, or Bennett. They weren't saved by their ideological positions, which were almost totally in line with the Republican Party in every case, but were ousted due to not being sufficiently within the identification of the "movement."

At least with Lieberman, the Democrats can point to a particularly big break with the party on his particularly vocal and continued support of Iraq in 2006 even in the face of significant evidence and the general public turning against the conflict. What was Lisa Murkowski's great crime against conservatism?

I understand perfectly well the point of what you are saying. Your point is that Liberals are better than Conservatives. Your new Delta Tau Chi nickname is longwindedfredsanford.

At least most self-described Conservatives can tell you what their ideology is, and how it differs from the Liberal one. Do you know what it is that unites pretty much all Liberals? Two things. Number one, as a result of indoctrination by the Liberal news & entertainment media they all buy into the same negative stereotype of the "typical Conservative." And number two, they all dislike that type of person and want to "get even" with them for their perceived wrongs and wrongheadedness.

"Voting is the best revenge!"

--BH0

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

So now Gallup - America's best known and most respected polling organization - is just a Conservative front and people are dumb for believing it, huh? Hahaha. What a joke. Nearly ALL the polls were close enough that there was nothing inherently "delusional" about Republicans expecting to win.

The "Romney landslide" believers may have been out on a limb, but at least they were making predictions about an unknown future. The ones who are really delusional are those on the Left who are claiming after the fact that 0bama's victory was a "landslide" and a "mandate." It was a 3% margin of victory in the popular vote!

And yes I'm still putting down all those nerds and their statistical models. Other than the occasional computer dork like Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg who comes up with (or steals) an idea that the cool kids like, nerds rarely win. Even when they do, they're still nerds...and us cool kids who got laid in high school will always look down on you. Err, I mean them.

"Most respected?" Another sign of the conservative bubble. Only there could the single worst performing pollster (and the 17th rated pollster out of 20 in 2008) be considered "the most respected." I can see why you would personally respect the worst polling outfit over the last two elections. Gallup has been so bad for so long that they are the go to story every time a Republican is losing a couple of weeks prior to an election, based on a horrible outlier they put out in 1980 for their final poll. They sure seem super well-respected.

By the way, we don't decide national elections based on popular vote. And there simply wasn't a state-by-state path for victory for Republicans, as I explained to you over and over again before the election.

And us nerds will have to deal with your whole high school awesomeness thing. Peaking in high school is pretty cool. We will just have to settle with being right (like we were about this election) and cry into all of our money.



Hmm I only see engineering, computers, mathematics, and statistics in the top 10 earning degrees. Look at all those nerds out-earning everybody. But I bet that high school reunion was really fun. I wouldn't know, as I have to spend mine in a 5 star hotel in Germany on a business trip accompanied by my former All-American Swimmer wife. It is indeed tough being looked down upon