Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.

[DGuller]

I do have to say I have voted for the Republicans in state and local elections over the past 20 years many times. And I have yet to not regret it later. Which is why I have basically decided there are only so many times I can get burned before I learn. I guess that makes me a fake moderate or independent or something. Should I just keep making the same mistake to prove my cred or do what I think is right for the country?

I voted for Christie.  I'm sorry.

[Valmy]

LOL that is nothing. I voted for Ted Cruz.

[DGuller]

LOL that is nothing. I voted for Ted Cruz.

Agreed.

[Razgovory]

Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates.  There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another.  I'll take you for example, Berkut.  When is the last time you voted for a Republican for President?  15 years ago?  20?  Ever?  The idea that most Americans are "moderates" or "independents" is a myth.  A phantom created from poorly used polling data.

Maybe I do not understand the definition of 'moderate' here. There is such a thing as a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican so the idea that it requires you vote for both parties in equal amounts or be proven to be a fraud strikes me as a made up criteria.

"Moderate" and "independent" get mixed together.  I'm focusing more on the "independent" aspect.  How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election?  How are they materially different then a Democrat?  What actually makes them "independent"?

[Razgovory]

Eh, the thing is there really aren't that many moderates.  There are people who like to think of themselves as moderates, but when it comes down to brass tacks, will almost always vote one way or another.

The last time I was over my sister's, we got into a discussion on that.  I said something like "Yeah, everyone fancies themselves a moderate, calm and deliberate, no one is an extremist".  My sister, obviously not detecting my sarcasm, said "Yeah, like me".  Then one minute later she said that de Blasio was a communist.

You'd think your sister would be able to distinguish a true communist from her days in the Young Pioneers.

[Eddie Teach]

How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election?

They typically don't. The independent is more apt to vote for Republicans or third party candidates in some races.

The primary process means there is very little variation in one Presidential nominee's views from the previous one. That is not so for all races. Sometimes you get a choice between a Democratic gun nut and a Republican who supports abortion. Or a Communist and a RINO. Or someone who wants to leave the UN vs a Blue Dog.

[Valmy]

"Moderate" and "independent" get mixed together.  I'm focusing more on the "independent" aspect.  How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election?  How are they materially different then a Democrat?  What actually makes them "independent"?

They are less likely to contribute cash to a Democrats campaign or volunteer for one?

[Jacob]

"Moderate" and "independent" get mixed together.  I'm focusing more on the "independent" aspect.  How can someone be an "independent", if they vote the same way a Democrat does every election?  How are they materially different then a Democrat?  What actually makes them "independent"?

"Independent," I'd imagine, means they are not part of either of the parties, do not use any of their branding, do not receive any kind of funding from the party apparatus, do not use the party organization and mailing lists to run their campaigns and fund-raise.

In other words, while they may or may not vote in lockstep with one of the parties, they are not part of the party hierarchy and organizational structures.

[Berkut]

Anyway, to go from poker to politics, here is what I was thinking of when I was thinking of levels.  It wasn't really related to intelligence, more like thoughtfulness.

Level 1:  Political parties are like sports teams.  Your party is almost always right, and the other party is almost always wrong.  If you disagree with your party on some issues, you either come around it and agree with it, have a cognitive dissonance, or make that rare personal exception and continue disagreeing with the party.

Level 2:  Politics aren't sports.  Blind devotion to parties is stupid, and people who do that do it out of some stupid tribal instincts.  People have a lot of difference opinions on a lot of different issues, they can't all consistently fall on one party's side or another.  If they do fall consistently on one side or the other, they're not rationally thinking about the issues, they're blind devotees.  In fact, we would be better off without parties, and just vote for best people.

Level 3:  People's stances on issues aren't randomly and independently distributed.  The stem from some fundamental values or ideologies, and tend to cluster.  Parties likewise appeal to some of those clusters.  If you happen to be close to the cluster that one party is representing, in our political system it is perfectly rational to identify closely with that party.  A party is a coalition of like-minded voters, and coalitions achieve further the interests of its members more than they all could individually achieve.  This is also true for the negative issues:  if some party clusters around issues that you really don't want advanced, it's perfectly rational to be opposed to that party as well.

Level 4:  If it exists, I haven't reached it yet.  I'll wait and see.

Where do I fall?  Level 3, as I said before.  I don't identify myself that strongly with the Democratic party.  They're too liberal on some things and at best pay lip service to things I consider important.  I definitely identify myself against the Republican party.  They seem to be for way too many things that I am vehemently against.

What is interesting about your take on this is how nicely it reinforces my views that the political radicals align a lot with religious fanatics, in that what they find most deplorable is not even their political opponents, but rather those who reject the idea of party (or religion) altogether as a useful tool for personal evaluation of views.

Note that in DG's "hierarchy" of super thinkers that the members of the Tea Party? They are all Level 3 thinkers, to a man (or woman). Just like thim...They all believe, just as fervently as he does, that their stance is based on principle and a level of faith towards the party that represents those views most closely, and dogged opposition to those who oppose those views.

So in his "hierarchy" the "deep/thoughtful thinkers" are (surprise, surprise) the most radical members of each party - and yet we all would agree that in fact the Tea Party dumbshits are NOT, by any stretch, the thoughtful, intelligent, thinking on a higher plane demographic amongst the electorate - the very people he called "crazy".

There is nothing in this "hierarchy" that has anything at all to do with intelligence, and his claim that those in "Level 2" simply cannot comprehend the advanced thinking of those in "Level 3" is completely ridiculous. I, for one, understand his argument perfectly well enough to know exactly how ridiculous it is if you think about it more for more than about 60 seconds.

Lastly, in a nod towards his analogy with poker. What is interesting about the hierarchy in relation to poker is that it is testable - you can watch poker players, and see that some consistently beat others, even though it can be hard for the losers to tell why this is happening. So to the extent that you can evidence this hierarchy, even to someone who is not a level 5 player, you can do so by pointing out that in fact someone keeps beating you, and you don't understand why, but they are...those who lack the ability to play at a higher level, and also lack the ability to even understand that there ARE higher levels, tend to do things like blame external factors they cannot control, like luck.

What is kind of funny is that the original article was about how the Dems manage to lose constantly at almost all levels. Yet Dems like DG are at a similar loss as to understanding why, and simply insist that they are doing everything right, but it is the voters who are broken...kind of ironic, really. Of course, this is HIS analogy, not mine.

[Berkut]

In other words, while they may or may not vote in lockstep with one of the parties, they are not part of the party hierarchy and organizational structures.

I know you are talking about poltiicians here, rather than voters, but I think it is an interesting point, even if we tweak it a little bit to describe voters.

To the extent that I call myself independent, I think it is fair to challenge me on that on my voting record. Looking at voting record alone over the last couple decades, one would he very hard pressed to distinguish me from DGuller.

But I think there is a critical difference in our viewpoints. He thinks this is because he thinks on a higher plane than I do, but that is another argument.

He feels that the Party has a value in and of itself - an ideological value. Such that he is very comfortable demanding ideological allegiance based on individuals adherence to his own ideology. Stray too far from what he sees as "purity" and he is justified in calling the "fake" memebers, and delighting in their ejection.

I do not feel that way at all - to the extent that the Party has utility, it is purely practical. A grouping of like minded people based on some principles, and it's value only exists as long as the organization has utility to advance some agenda. So I might vote Democrat, but that is because the Republicans jumped the shark on most issues (and to be fair my own views have in fact shifted to the left as well). If the party alignments shifted, and the Dems went far left and the Republicans followed them into the center, I would have no problem spending the next 20 years voting for them, and would not feel a single bit of conflict over that.

To me, the Party's have almost no ideological utility. Indeed, in my opinion, the most pressing problems the US is facing are those that the parties helped create and are helping perpetuate, because they are problems that the Party system itself feeds on. So for me, my "allegiance" to the Dems right now is purely tactical. As long as they more closely align with my views, I will continue to support them. If they do not, I won't lament that the Party moved (or that my views moved and they did not), I will simply look for the next best alternate. It seems to me that this state won't change much though, given that the Republicans seem to be sprinting away from rationality as fast as they can.

[DGuller]

Note that in DG's "hierarchy" of super thinkers that the members of the Tea Party? They are all Level 3 thinkers, to a man (or woman). Just like thim...They all believe, just as fervently as he does, that their stance is based on principle and a level of faith towards the party that represents those views most closely, and dogged opposition to those who oppose those views.

Tea Party followers are ultra-partisans of their own party within a party.  They very much think about political process at level 1.

[DGuller]

How are they materially different then a Democrat?  What actually makes them "independent"?

The (unobservable) likelihood of voting for a different party if the party changes to some extent.  Just because the other party isn't changing, or changing in the opposite direction to where you would meet it, doesn't mean that you yourself aren't an independent.  The conditions to which you would react just don't ever happen to present themselves.

[Berkut]

Note that in DG's "hierarchy" of super thinkers that the members of the Tea Party? They are all Level 3 thinkers, to a man (or woman). Just like thim...They all believe, just as fervently as he does, that their stance is based on principle and a level of faith towards the party that represents those views most closely, and dogged opposition to those who oppose those views.

Tea Party followers are ultra-partisans of their own party within a party.  They very much think about political process at level 1.

No, not at all.

Level 1:  Political parties are like sports teams.  Your party is almost always right, and the other party is almost always wrong.  If you disagree with your party on some issues, you either come around it and agree with it, have a cognitive dissonance, or make that rare personal exception and continue disagreeing with the party.

The reason they are fighting with their party is that they lack the party loyalty your fake hierarchies demand of a level 1. Rather they feel THEY are the "true" party, and the others are the ones who have betrayed the principles that they value much more than party. Hence their contentment with excising those from the party willing to compromise...much like how Blue Dogs were treated, in fact. The difference here being that the Tea Party is (for now) a minority in the Republicans, rather than the Blue Dogs being the minority.

The Tea Party is not at all "Party loyalists" in any way. They are ideological loyalists. Just like you.

If you asked them, they would all claim, just like you, to be Level 3 thinkers.

[DGuller]

They are a de-facto different party at this point that caucuses with GOP, and that uses and abuses its power as a kingmaker to bring the rest of it to its heel.  If we had a parliamentary system at his point, they would be a different party, and everyone would be better off for it.

[frunk]

They are a de-facto different party at this point that caucuses with GOP, and that uses and abuses its power as a kingmaker to bring the rest of it to its heel.  If we had a parliamentary system at his point, they would be a different party, and everyone would be better off for it.

The Tea Party hasn't been around that long, clearly the members must have come from somewhere.  Presumably they were formally members of another party, either the Republicans, Libertarians or independent, that decided that the Tea Party better matched their beliefs.