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

[MadImmortalMan]

That's true but generally true of both parties.  Talented people don't get into politics anymore.

There's a lot to that, but Texas is an outlier even in that regard. Non-crazy democrats leave that state and don't come back.

[grumbler]

I think you're making an awful lot of assumptions and generalizations about how smart people behave. 

It may shock a lot of psychologists here, but sometimes truly smart people really do assert their intellectually superiority rather directly.  Especially when their willingness to suffer fools gladly dips temporarily.  It may not make them the most likable of people, but it doesn't make them not smart. 

I think way too many people here have read too much into Dunning-Kruger effect.  Just because the tendency identified by them does exist doesn't mean that every person's competency is the inverse of their perceived competency.  It is in fact possible to be simultaneously aware of both your competencies and your limitations.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

[DGuller]

I think it's just right, personally.

[Berkut]

You have to admire how convenient his arrogance is - not only is he right, he is actually incapable of being wrong relative to the rest of us not operating on his level (and of course you will find a perfect correlation between the set of people he *might* acknowledge as being on his level and those who agree with his political views. You know, by coincidence.). Any perception that he might be wrong is simply the inability of those who do not agree with him to think on a level that they cannot even perceive exists.

This divorces him from any need to even consider whether someone who does not agree with him might have any kind of point. Even if they appear to have a point, it is only chance - and even if it appears that he is wrong, it is only because he is operating at a higher level of thought such that you cannot even understand the rules under which his thinking works.

[Eddie Teach]

Broadly speaking, nearly everyone on the forum agrees with his political views.

[jimmy olsen]

Broadly speaking, nearly everyone on the forum agrees with his political views.

Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.

[Eddie Teach]

Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.

I don't know what tactics you're talking about, but Guller's opinion on the Republican party is very much in the majority on the forum.

[Berkut]

Broadly speaking, nearly everyone on the forum agrees with his political views.

That is because level 1 thinkers sometimes call or bet correctly, even though they are not doing so for the "correct" reasons that the truly enlightened understand.

[Berkut]

Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.

I don't know what tactics you're talking about, but Guller's opinion on the Republican party is very much in the majority on the forum.

However, his opinions on the Democratic Party are not so universally shared. Look at his initial response to the article, where he is basically saying the Dems are completely right, and any problems they have is because of terrible voters.

Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making.

The problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did.

[DGuller]

Most may agree with progressive policies, but I think that the majority of us disagree with his proposed tactics, as well as his evaluation of the other side.

I don't know what tactics you're talking about, but Guller's opinion on the Republican party is very much in the majority on the forum.

However, his opinions on the Democratic Party are not so universally shared. Look at his initial response to the article, where he is basically saying the Dems are completely right, and any problems they have is because of terrible voters.

Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making.

The problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did.

So I said that Democrats are not "unusually incompetent or nefarious", and you read it as saying that they're completely right?  How do you even hold discussions with a person who is unwilling or unable to properly comprehend what you write?  This isn't the result of level 2 thinking now, this is just the result of having a go at me for the sake of having a go at me, what with to be determined as we go along.

[Razgovory]

FWIW I think y'all are a bunch of bona fide genuises.

Oh yeah, a real gang of regular brainiacs here on languish. No doubt.

Well, we ain't exactly a chapter of Mensa here.

Half the posters here are non-Polish lawyers.  You need to be pretty bright to make it in that field.

[Berkut]

I comprehend what you are saying just fine - that the article is wrong, and the problem being described has nothing to do with the Democrats, it is just that the voters are "crazy".

You can back peddle from that now if you want, but if you paused for a second from telling yourself how much smarter than everyone else you are, you might understand why you come across very differently from your own perception of what you say.

Your entire response to the article can be summed up as "The Dems are fine, they should change nothing, it is the stupid voters who are the problem". If you don't see how problematic that position is for people who actually believe that the success of the Democratic Party is important (especially now), then you cannot be helped - it is the textbook response of the ideological purist.

Which is, after all, very consistent with your position over time - you are the person who said that Blue Dog Dems should be excised from the party for example.

You are the Tea Party of the left.

[DGuller]

I'm not backpeddling from anything, you're a lunatic who can't read.  And can't remember much either, since I never said that Blue Dogs should be excised.  Really, you're a walking example of a confirmation bias.

[Berkut]

Well, certainly the resort to personal attacks is consistent as well. Yes, I am not only a "level 1 thinker" compared to your level 3, I am a "lunatic" as well.

All because I don't agree with you that the Dems are fine, and the problem with them losing all the time is "crazy" voters. The best possible evidence of lunacy and poor thinking skills, I am sure.

[Razgovory]

I'm not backpeddling from anything, you're a lunatic who can't read.  And can't remember much either, since I never said that Blue Dogs should be excised.  Really, you're a walking example of a confirmation bias.

Hey, I can read!