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

[Berkut]

Getting back to the actual article, which I found pretty interesting, what SHOULD the Dems do, other than wait around for the crazy to pass from the electorate?

I think there is a bad failure in messaging to those not already in the fold. When I talk to friends who are obvious liberals, there is this attitude that they are obviously right, and if someone doesn't see that, then they are probably hopeless.

So that leaves a lot of people who are not Tea Party crazies who are also not really true liberals who basically get no pitch from the Dems at all when it comes to anything not Presidential. The Republicans, IMO, win not just because they've managed to gerrymander the districts so well, but because there isn't really anyone really running against them beyond the Dem candidate being there, and just assuming they will get the true liberal Dem votes, and if there are enough, great, and if not...oh well.

The problem, IMO, is not that the entire non-solidly liberal world went crazy and dove far right, it is that the moderates are seen as "everyone not of the left" by the left and not even pitched to ("they are all crazy anyway"), and hence they stay home and don't bother, leaving just the radicals on both sides to vote and decide - and THAT is where the gerrymandering really works - when the moderates stay home.

[DGuller]

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.

[Razgovory]

Getting back to the actual article, which I found pretty interesting, what SHOULD the Dems do, other than wait around for the crazy to pass from the electorate?

I think there is a bad failure in messaging to those not already in the fold. When I talk to friends who are obvious liberals, there is this attitude that they are obviously right, and if someone doesn't see that, then they are probably hopeless.

So that leaves a lot of people who are not Tea Party crazies who are also not really true liberals who basically get no pitch from the Dems at all when it comes to anything not Presidential. The Republicans, IMO, win not just because they've managed to gerrymander the districts so well, but because there isn't really anyone really running against them beyond the Dem candidate being there, and just assuming they will get the true liberal Dem votes, and if there are enough, great, and if not...oh well.

The problem, IMO, is not that the entire non-solidly liberal world went crazy and dove far right, it is that the moderates are seen as "everyone not of the left" by the left and not even pitched to ("they are all crazy anyway"), and hence they stay home and don't bother, leaving just the radicals on both sides to vote and decide - and THAT is where the gerrymandering really works - when the moderates stay home.

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.

[Razgovory]

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.

Level 5.  The the ability to stop digging when you are in a hole

[Berkut]

Yes, when it comes down to actual voting, those who vote do in fact vote one way or the other, since I have yet to see "Moderate - 1/2 vote for each" on the ballot.

[Valmy]

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.

[Valmy]

Yes, when it comes down to actual voting, those who vote do in fact vote one way or the other, since I have yet to see "Moderate - 1/2 vote for each" on the ballot.

Man that would be great. You get a half vote! You get a half vote! Everybody gets a half vote!

[DGuller]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

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.

Well, duh, if the parties keep offering up the same choice, the voter will keep choosing the same option. That doesn't mean they closely identify with that candidate or party.

Candidates who might make the other party's voters stop and rethink, such as Christie, Paul, Liebermann or Webb, don't get the nomination.

[Barrister]

I've never called myself a moderate.  I'm in the Goldwater camp when it comes to moderation in politics.

[Berkut]

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.

Indeed - just like nobody thinks they are in your "Level 1" group.

There are tells though - like when someone says something like "The problems with Party X are that all the people who vote are crazy". That is a good sign that they are probably ideological purists. Or accuse moderates in their own party of not actually being part of the party at all.

Or when they support letting the  government default rather than even give an inch on some trivial ideological niche issue like Planned Parenthood.

[Valmy]

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.

I have met many self-described partisans and political radicals. So your premise is false.

[Berkut]

I've never called myself a moderate.  I'm in the Goldwater camp when it comes to moderation in politics.

I don't think that applies to how we use "moderate" in regards to political positions though. At least, it certainly does not apply to myself when I describe myself as "moderate" in relation to the Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative divide.

Goldwater's quote is talking about how vigorously you defend what you see as "right", not how you decide what is "right" to begin with.

[Valmy]

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?

[DGuller]

Or accuse moderates in their own party of not actually being part of the party at all.

First thing first.  I never said that Blue Dogs should be kicked out of the party.

Now, on to a philosophical discussion.  Here is another place where we just think differently, and I would say that my thinking is more robust.  Party purity is absolutely a valid concept to think about.  Like with all useful concepts, you can take it too far, and even way too far, but the fact that some concept can be abused doesn't invalidate it altogether.

As I previously wrote, parties cover clusters.  If you try to cover too many clusters, you're not covering any clusters.  He who defends everything defends nothing.  There is a balance to be struck here between the size of your tent and its homogeneity.  It's somewhere in the middle.  Go too far in one direction or another and your party becomes irrelevant as a political unit.