Agreed. Hillary is so far beyond irrelevant at this point, I'm kinda surprised that people still talk about her considering she hasn't really done anything significant post-election.
I could care less, that election is over and she won't run again worrying about Hillary's popularity is pointless navel gazing at this point.
Your english is terrible. If its not your native language, try using google translate to check your grammar. It's literally unreadable.Try taking the attitude that you were expected to in college for more difficult material.
No, they love their guy bringing home the bacon and hate everyone else getting any, ie perfectly self-interested.
Says the conservaterrorist idiot pretending to be a liberal.
Agreed. Hillary is so far beyond irrelevant at this point, I'm kinda surprised that people still talk about her considering she hasn't really done anything significant post-election.
Have you not been paying attention for the last year?
"Fuck You" is exactly the message Donny was sending and he was elected.
I would love for this to be true, but having a lot of first hand experience with the average Trump supporting conservative voter down here in the south, I fear that none of them would be willing to acknowledge the failure of Reaganomics.
Yeah but you can't use the same message. Its ok for them, not you.
The sentiment behind your statement is an illogical fantasy.
1: That wasn't the message.
2: Do you want votes or not? Openly hating people does not invite them to your cause.
Agreed. Say what you want but this lady has done more for world peace and more to reduce human suffering that pretty much everyone in here. I would put her in the top 1% of human suffering reducers in the world currently if you look at her history as a lawyer or as a politician or as a philantropist/activist. Its a little unfair to judge her so harshly because of a multifactorial failed campaign, part of which was hacking by Putin. Which of us thinks we would win an election if Putin hacked and released our personal emails?1: Yes it was.
2: Openly hating people, or more accurately, scapegoating, does indeed invite people to your cause (just not the people you are using to scapegoat). Humans throughout history have always blamed others for their plights and they rally around those who can point out the "devil".
Screw her...figuratively. Just go away and let the Democrats find some younger blood. I like Biden but he's too old now. She was a terrible candidate (whether fair or not), and between that and the DNC's hijinks managed to lose to Donald Fucking Trump....a candidate so ridiculous that the Simpsons featured him as president ten years ago because he was the most ludicrous public figure Matt G could imagine as President.
I think she would have been an ok and efficient president--though utterly hamstrung by this Congress. I have no doubt at all that her being president was EXACTLY what they really wanted. They had no plan at all for the possibility that they might actually have to come up with things like Health Care...they figured they'd get to continue to throw darts at the President like they have for the last 8 years and have their base love them for it.
If Trump doesn't kill us or wreck something important (like oh the world economy or our climate) then him winning might just be the worst possible thing for the GOP. The Supreme Court situation sucks to be sure though, especially after the scum waited a year to avoid putting in a truly qualified and centrist judge admired by all... I hope Trump sucks them down into a vortex for decades, though I'm not exactly confident in it. Have to hope for something though.
That's what you believe. But 84 million millenials are voting eligible next time around. What do they care about? By 70:30 margin they care about non-expensive education, healthcare for all and livable wages. Hildabeast didn't give them that. Neither does Trump or any Republican at the moment.
There's a reason Obama's turnout was higher than ever before.
Give them incentive and they will show up.
Not supported by the evidence. The median democrat is more economically liberal now than they were before the Clintons.
You've touched upon the one reason people held their noses and voted for trump. The supreme court pick. Its also why those same voters won't have voted for Bernie.
No, it's just a fact that the clintons' initial claim to fame was compromising with the GOP on welfare reform. Just as their disciple in obama should be known for basically implementing the GOP healthcare plan which was initially proposed as the alternative to clinton's own idea. Same as for defense, where to their credit they least avoided the racist option of muslims as the new comic book super-villians. These guys are compromisers, playing a losing game against extremists and bragging about it. NOMINATE & such doesn't track this movement to the center because it cannot track absolute positions, only relative to others.
This cannot be more evident than in the case of Sanders, who is considered some kind of extremist by centrist democrats and republicans alike, even though he toes D party line nearly all the time outside a few issues like college tuition and single payer healthcare, positions which are the norm in other first world peers.
You don't know what you're talking about so you should stop.
NOMINATE tracks ideology of legislators on a common scale, meaning that you can explicitly make comparisons between the median ideology of a Democrat today and the median ideology of a Democrat before Clinton. This is literally the point of the tool. So no, it is not showing that Democrats today are more liberal relative to conservatives today, it's showing that Democrats are more liberal on a common scale today than they were in 1991. It shows quite clearly that the mean house Democrat was about a -0.3 in 1990 and is about a -0.4 now.
So again, empirical evidence says you're wrong. If you're smart and logical you will either find other empirical evidence to refute this position of equal or better quality, or you'll change your mind. I bet you do neither.
About one in eight people who voted for President Donald Trump said they are not sure they would do so again after witnessing Trump's tumultuous first six months in office, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 2016 voters.
Not playing this game, kid, learn what a liberal is before you ever use that word again because you are most certainly not one.
I'd put you in the same camp as Buckshot24, chucky2, agento00f, AnonymouseUser and all the other authoritarian extremists.
No, as mentioned NOMINATE doesn't track absolute positions, only relative voting records using their stats. I'm simply pointing out your evidence doesn't mean what you think it does, and also pointed out the plainly visible record of compromise from centrist democrats in a losing game against hardliners.
It absolutely means what I think it does. The entire purpose of DW-NOMINATE is to track movement in congressional ideology over time and measure Congress today relative to what it was in the past. Again, that's literally what it does. DW-NOMINATE exists precisely to answer the question that we are talking about which is: "Are Democrats today more liberal than they were before Clinton?" The answer to that is yes.
Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just going to end up looking stupid if you continue. Stop while you're less far behind.
Your english is terrible. If its not your native language, try using google translate to check your grammar. It's literally unreadable.
I guess you're arguing that that people like their senator/representative but hate all the others. But that's not actually true either. It's true they like their senator more than congress overall (ie the rest) but the regional approval polls for a large number of individual senators are pretty mundane, in the 40s or so.In Kentucky, Mitch McConnells approval rate is like 38% but will he be challenged in a senate race? No chance. The base popularity of an individual senator that doesn't explain the 96% overall incumbent re-election rate. At the very least, assuming no outside factors, you'd see primary challenges within the same party that would lead to upsets. However you don't see those. Finally, how rational is it that every state thinks only their representatives are the winners in congress and every other representative is a loser?
At the end of the day, I simply am pointing out basic failures in american civic education.
Non expensive education? Good luck with that while Liberal leaning individuals are the major influencer of the education system. That is a cash cow for them and have pounded into everyone head that is the only way to succeed and be happy in life.
NOMINATE is statistical math using voting records as inputs; what's voted for isn't itself scored. So as a simple matter of basic first principles it cannot track what you believe it does without making assumptions about behavioral continuity of the voters. Also NOMINATE doesn't exist to answer the question you identify, but rather to identify polarization, which is a relative matter.
One of us understands math, and it's pretty obviously not you.
However, we developed a dynamic methodology, DW-NOMINATE (McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal 1997), to allow for over-time comparisons of legislator ideological positions. The key innovation is the use of “bridge” legislators—members of Congress (MCs) who have served in multiple sessions—to compare the positions of legislators who have never served together.
A sports analogy to the overlapping cohorts method is the “common opponents” statistic. If we want to compare two teams who have not played each other, we compare their performances against a common opponent(s). Likewise, MCs who have not served together can be compared with the use of a “bridge” legislator who has served with both. For example, if we know that Sen. George McGovern (D-SD) is more liberal than Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), and that Sen. Leahy is more liberal than Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), then we can say that Sen. McGovern is more liberal than Sen. Baucus. Though intransitivities may arise cases involving 3 or more sports teams, Poole shows in his 2007 Public Choice article “Changing Minds? Not in Congress!” that MCs remain remarkably static in their ideological positions over the course of their careers. Thus, we are on much firmer ground in making over-time comparisons between MCs with the caveat that we cannot compare members outside of one of the stable, two-party periods of American history. For that reason, when we discuss current polarization we focus on the period from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 to the current period.
With the use of overlapping cohorts, we can make the over-time comparisons needed to analyze polarization. A good example is Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), who, after his primary defeat last week, will have served in the Senate between 1977 and 2013. As David Karol points out, Lugar himself did not change very much over time: he was a reliable conservative who moved only somewhat towards the center during a 30-plus year career (from a DW-NOMINATE first dimension score of 0.348 to 0.241). DW-NOMINATE scores range (with slight simplification) from minus 1 to 1 or a band of two units. So in 30 years, Senator Lugar moved just five percent on the liberal-conservative dimension.1
For Lugar, what is more dramatic is the change in his ideological position relative to the Senate Republican Caucus. In his first term in Congress, Senator Lugar was the 23rd most moderate Republican in the Senate; in the most recent term (through 2011), he was the fifth most moderate. Even if he had maintained his freshman score of 0.341, he would still have been the 12th most moderate Republican in the 112th Congress. This repositioning occurred because almost every new cohort of Republican Senators has been more conservative than Senator Lugar. That fact is the basis for our claim that the Republican party has moved to the right.
1) Empirical research shows that the ideology of members of congress stays relatively constant over time, which means the assumptions of the model are empirically grounded.
2) NOMINATE exists to answer exactly the sort of question we're talking about. It uses space between legislators to... you guessed it... measure shifts in ideology over time on a common scale through the use of bridging legislators. The results of the image I linked show that the median Democrat today is ideologically closest to a Democrat considerably more liberal than the median Democrat in 1990, meaning Democrats have become more liberal.
In case you have any further doubt, he's a post by the creators of DW-NOMINATE:
http://themonkeycage.org/2012/05/polarization-is-real-and-asymmetric/
If you're going to continue with this stupidity then you're saying that Keith Poole doesn't understand his own model but you do. I've literally taken classes from Poole that revolved entirely around DW-NOMINATE and how it can be applied to these sorts of questions.
One of us understands DW-NOMINATE and it's pretty obviously not you. You should have taken my suggestion earlier to not talk about things you don't understand. Instead you decided to dig a deeper hole because as we've already shown, you're too stupid and too proud to admit when you're wrong.