dagblog - Comments for "Beyond Red vs. Blue: Pew Research Center's New Political Typology"

I'm a scorpio!

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:02:19 +0000

In reply to Beyond Red vs. Blue: Pew Research Center's New Political Typology

I'm a scorpio!

I try (though they sneer.)

quinn esq — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 21:07:46 +0000

In reply to Near Orthogonian level of

I try (though they sneer.)

Near Orthogonian level of

EmmaZahn — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:45:47 +0000

In reply to I think they caught me in

Near Orthogonian level of ressentiment in few words. :-D

Worth making; yeppers. And

we are stardust — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:11:55 +0000

In reply to I think half of this is

Worth making; yeppers. And nice to see you, Seldom Seen. :o) I also wanted to tell you that your math on 'likely voters' and how small the pool became due to disillusionment and abandonment, was really good. Should have been easy to see, but I never saw it.

I think half of this is

Obey — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:03:13 +0000

In reply to Beyond Red vs. Blue: Pew Research Center's New Political Typology

I think half of this is horseshit. Yes, people are identifying less with the two parties. No, independents are not "increasingly diverse".

They always were incredibly diverse.

Look back at scatterplots of the electorate regarding social versus economic policy stances in '64 or '80 and you see the two dimensions are statistically independent (see here p 229, for instance). Knowing someone is/was socially liberal tells you nothing about their economic views. They are and always were just as likely to be economically liberal as they were economically conservative. Knowing someone is/was economically liberal tells you nothinga bout their social views. Knowing someone is/was socially conservative tells you nothing about their economic views and knowing someone is/was economically conservative tells you nothing about their social views.

In short, the democratic and republican coalitions as they currently exist are and always were totally artificial. You could easily have parties polarized along completely different lines - an economically liberal party with socially conservative views versus an economically conservative party with socially liberal views.

Right now economic liberals are getting totally screwed because they are the junior partner in a dem coalition run by wealthy coastal elite social liberals. Which makes it wildly successful at achieving progress on equal rights issues (cf. Lilly Ledbetter and DADT repeal) and horrible at achieving anything for working class prosperity. And social conservatives are getting royally screwed because they are the junior partner in GOP coalition run by wealthy coastal elite economic conservatives. Which means it is wildly successful at destroying regulation, cutting taxes, breaking trade barriers, and horribly indifferent in achieving anything on religious values.

So if they can pry themselves away from their respective wealthy party elite, both economic liberals and social conservatives would probably be happier in a new marriage of convenience with each other.

Not a terribly original point, but worth making nonetheless imho.

If we are invisible or

we are stardust — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:53:36 +0000

In reply to Yeah, what is it about the US

If we are invisible or labeled throw-backs, conspiracists, kooks, fringe, la la la, we are easier to discount and ignore. And most will not listen or learn from us...they hope, as in 'the ideas are tainted, marginal, impossible in the present political climate, with these self-identifying political percentages.

And nice job on Andrew Rich's piece. ;o) Even Randy Wray showed up!

Since when did polls not

Beetlejuice — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:40:18 +0000

In reply to <i>I skipped the immigration

Since when did polls not steer the answers to support a pre-determined understanding? The poll in question here was specifically designed to categorize those willing to answer the questions into pre-determined categories. It said I was a Solid Liberal which I'm not. The attributes that define a Solid Liberal in this poll are of the imagination of the person developing the questions, not those of a real Solid Liberal. Perhaps it's best to consider this poll and it's results are nothing more than the opinion of the authors of the questions. So I wonder what point they're trying to create out of thin air using a poll with biased questions?

I think they caught me in

quinn esq — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 18:25:42 +0000

In reply to Like Dan I was having some

I think they caught me in that new category, the "Newly-Moral, Staunchly-Disaffected, Two-Cheeseburger, Couldn't Get Much More Fucking Embittered Than I Already Am, Hardly-Partisan (But Kill The Republicans), Did I Mention I'm Deeply Savouring The Bitterness, Passively Aggressive, Surrounded By Fools, Turn It The Fuck UP Willya, Democrat." Join me.

Yeah, what is it about the US

Dan Kervick — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:57:05 +0000

In reply to Pew may believe that we just

Yeah, what is it about the US media and political industry that makes them so insistent on denying the very existence of a left wing in this country. The left is not the same thing as people who descibe themselves as "liberals".

Some do, most don't. Pew's

EmmaZahn — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:35:25 +0000

In reply to Doesn't look like the types

Some do, most don't. Pew's narrative accompanying the charts explains the changes. Is Disaffected is a kinder, gentler way of saying Embittered?