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

[Berkut]

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.

LOL, you are really moving the goal posts. They are not at all motivated by party loyalty. Period. That is 100% clear to everyone. They are motivated by ideology, and could not care less about their "party" per se.

They are very much members of your "Level 3", and there is noting at all in your own description that would exclude them. You are trying to define them away because you know that is the case, and your silly arrogance is so much hot air, as almost all such ridiculous arrogance turns out to be...

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.

That describes the Tea Party *perfectly*, including their radical opposition to anything tainted by Obama: "if some party (or person )clusters around issues that you really don't want advanced, (like Obamacare and gay marriage) it's perfectly rational to be opposed to that party as well."

[Berkut]

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. 

Indeed - which completely trashes the notion that they are motivated by "team loyalty". They are so NOT loyal to a team that they went and formed their own team that better aligned with their ideological extremism.

So they cannot be Level 1. They certainly are not Level 2, and they perfectly fit into the description given by DG himself for Level 3.

hoist by his own petard, I believe is the relevant phrase here.

[DGuller]

Tea Party types adopt a lot of issues grossly against their interests.  Such as being against Obamacare, or being for tax cuts to the rich.  They're adopting those issues because they come with the package of the Tea Party membership, and thus aren't even thinking about them and the impact it would have on them.  Intolerance is what they're really looking for; everything else they blindly believe in out of faith to their movement.

[Berkut]

Dance, dance, dance.

Your opinion on the validity of their positions is not relevant to whether or not they fit into your levels, and which they fit into - your level 1 is defined by "team loyalty", which they very clearly DO NOT espouse, since in fact their team is in the middle of a nasty fight right now over them being willing to destroy the team rather than go along with what they see as ideological betrayal.

We all agree they are basically idiots - that is the point. Your hierarchy, which is intended to prove to all of us how much smarter you are, places the dumbest of the political "Know Nothings" right into the very group you carefully crafted for yourself.

The irony is that in fact you are inadvertently exactly right that they do in fact inhabit the same group you do, just not in the fashion you think.

And, to be completely fair, I do not at all think you are an idiot, nor would I even claim to be objectively smarter than you - I suspect we are both in the same band of "pretty damn smart compared to the average, not quite at the stupidly smart active scientists making breakthroughs level though". Probably top 2-3%, but not top 0.5%.

But one thing I have learned in the last few decades is that being smart isn't really all that important compared to having an open mind and some humility about the things you don't know, and some appreciation that people who disagree with you often do so for very good reasons other than they just aren't smart enough to ascertain the Truth with your own level of clarity.

[DGuller]

In any case, thinking about party politics at level 3 as I outlined doesn't make you a good person, or a person with superior judgment.  You can believe in genocidal fascism, and be a level 3 independent because neither party really covers your cluster.  I was just explaining why Berkut time and again completely misjudges where I'm coming from when I express my opinions.

[Berkut]

In any case, thinking about party politics at level 3 as I outlined doesn't make you a good person, or a person with superior judgment. 

Actually that is exactly what you claimed:

Am I claiming that I think about politics on a level one higher than you?  Yes, yes I do, not that it's that great of an accomplishment.  Will I be able to convince you of this fact?  No, I'm not under any delusion about that, not until you mature some more intellectually.

[DGuller]

I misspoke.  I meant superior judgment in what your values are

[The Brain]

I'm the most intelligent person on Languish. Fuck all y'all if you doubt me.

DG is intelligent, BUT cannot be trusted because Telefon.

[DGuller]

I'm the most intelligent person on Languish. Fuck all y'all if you doubt me.

Why in the world would anyone doubt that?

[The Brain]

I'm the most intelligent person on Languish. Fuck all y'all if you doubt me.

Why in the world would anyone doubt that?

Oh you.

[Razgovory]

"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.

I mean voters, not politicians.  Most people who self-identify with one party don't work on campaigns or give money.  About 25-30 Percent of the population self-identify as a Democrat and the about the same number self Identify as a Republican.  The rest identify as "independent".  That makes up around 40% of the population.  That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election.  If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections.  We don't see that.  Despite self-Identifying as Independent most of them consistently support one party's candidates for another.  Gallup Polls show this as people who "Lean" one way or another.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Well, what is the material difference between people who self-Identify as Democrat and one who just leans democratic?  Nothing really.  I think a lot of people like to think of themselves as "independent", for whatever reason.  People who don't want to be pigeonholed or want to feel as if they are above such ideological purity and better then the "sheeple" who always vote for one party despite doing the same thing themselves.  The actual number of independent undecided voters is probably less then 10%, and I think it's a fallacy to assume that they are moderates.  People who don't consistently vote for one party or another may very well be radicals.  Nazis, or Communists, or Greens, or Libertarians.  There is no big "moderate middle", in American politics.

[Razgovory]

DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.

[The Brain]

DG, you really need to drop this "level" bullshit.

Should he take it down a level?

[Valmy]

That makes up around 40% of the population.  That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election.  If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections.  We don't see that.

Why would we expect that? People may be independent but that does not mean their individual positions change radically from election to election. Unless you are suggesting that from election to election the two parties are radically shifting their policy positions in the expectation that independents are going to flock to them but I do not see that happening very often.

The actual number of independent undecided voters is probably less then 10%, and I think it's a fallacy to assume that they are moderates.  People who don't consistently vote for one party or another may very well be radicals.  Nazis, or Communists, or Greens, or Libertarians.

Well duh Raz.

The only person I see who lumped 'independents' with 'moderates' is you. Radical independents are the ones who are powering things like the Tea Party. And, you know, FEEL THE BERN himself is an independent.

There is no big "moderate middle", in American politics.

There may be a big moderate middle but the Venn diagram with independents may not overlap as much as you seem to think or suggest that everybody else thinks.

[Eddie Teach]

That would indicate that 40% of the population is up for play in an election.  If that were true we would expect to see major shifts in poll numbers during elections.  We don't see that. 

Because we get candidates who agree with their party platform on every issue. Thus the decision-making calculus is always the same.