What moves swing voters

[The Minsky Moment]

If the authors of the report are denying statistical significance and given the report does not otherwise disclose the method of calculation or standard uses, I would be more hesitant than you to ascribe significance that the authors do not.

The good thing about math is that 2+2=4 even if Gauss for some reason wrote that it's 5.  The math is what it is, regardless of what people with even very high authority say it is.  What the authors say based on fallacious logic should have no bearing on what you think is correct.

I don't disagree but given the data reporting it is more like saying ~2 + 2?? = 4

[crazy canuck]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free.  The deregulation that occurred in the name of the third way and appeasing centre right voters did a lot of harm.

The better thing to do is not give in to silly public policy choices and instead organize a base that will support public policy choices that make sense.

[ulmont]

Here is another article I saw: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1052650979/mcwhorters-new-book-woke-racism-attacks-leading-thinkers-on-race.

Attacking the liberal position on race has been McWhorter's schtick for 2 decades now, though, so you have to take that with a grain of salt: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000OCXGJ6/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p2_i4

[DGuller]

If the authors of the report are denying statistical significance and given the report does not otherwise disclose the method of calculation or standard uses, I would be more hesitant than you to ascribe significance that the authors do not.

The good thing about math is that 2+2=4 even if Gauss for some reason wrote that it's 5.  The math is what it is, regardless of what people with even very high authority say it is.  What the authors say based on fallacious logic should have no bearing on what you think is correct.

I don't disagree but given the data reporting it is more like saying ~2 + 2?? = 4

There is no fuzziness in the part where Var(X-Y) = Var(x) + Var(Y) - 2 * Cov(X, Y), the formula always holds to the 29th decimal place and more.  What they said in your quoted paragraph is true only for the most negative possible value of the Cov(X, Y) term (which does happen when you have only two categories that are mutually exclusive).  This part is the purely hard science part of statistics, so there is no ~ or ? about it, it's just dead wrong.

[The Minsky Moment]

The fuzziness is that we don't know exactly what the error rates they are reporting represent or how they are calculated.

[Sheilbh]

I am not one element of the right though. I am no element of the right.

I haven't given an answer for what *I* want?

I don't understand the question - aren't my political views on Languish pretty clear? Is there some question about that?

I don't know what prompted this and I'm not really sure what you mean.

[quote[In the context of this particular discussion, what I want is to convince fellow progressives to focus more on winning elections, understanding why they are NOT winning elections, and fix that problem so that we can achieve our actual political goals. That is what I want.

But I get the feeling that isn't what everyone on the left wants. The immediate and visceral reaction to actual data and strategy around winning is pushed back against rabidly - to me, it is basically saying that you would rather be "right" then be in power and actually set things right.[/quote]
Right - and my point is that how you win elections and what that looks like depends on what your actual political goals look like. You need the strategy first - which is why I think Democrats struggle because they are a coalition party of interests while I think the GOP are far more ideologically coherent so have a more defined strategy (and, looking at that same data, if you're the GOP your main tactic in opposing the Dems will be trying to heighten fights that focus on the woke wing of the Democrats).

I think you must be meaning someone else if you're saying I'd rather be right than win

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free.  The deregulation that occurred in the name of the third way and appeasing centre right voters did a lot of harm.

The better thing to do is not give in to silly public policy choices and instead organize a base that will support public policy choices that make sense.

The Blair (and Brown) government was the most redistributive government in British history, it more or less eliminated poverty among the elderly and lifted millions of children out of poverty - not to mention the minimum wage, huge improvements in healthcare and education etc. For example it doubled the percentage of the population that went to university. That's not to mention the profound shifts in social attitudes on race and sexuality. Because the entire Labour party has spent the last decade shitting on its record, has rather diminished it but it had real achievements.

But also I think that fundamentally misreads Blair. He's the model of what I'm talking about: he had an analysis and a strategy which defined the messages (though he obsessively tested what message worked). It wasn't just about winning. And I think the period in the 80s when Blair and Brown shared an office as new MPs was hugely important because I think that hot-housed that analysis.

As much as I love him, I think his analysis is wrong now (and perhaps always was been even if it worked for a while) - and I think mimicking it now would be catastrophic.

Edit: And I think on the key point Blair is right - presentation and comms can only take you so far. You need the analysis, strategy and policies they lead to and they need to talk to each other or you'll lose.

[DGuller]

The fuzziness is that we don't know exactly what the error rates they are reporting represent or how they are calculated.

That actually doesn't matter at all.  There is no fuzziness in 2+2=4 just because you don't know whether you're adding two bananas to two bananas, or two oranges to two oranges.  The variance formula applies the same way regardless.

[Barrister]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free.  The deregulation that occurred in the name of the third way and appeasing centre right voters did a lot of harm.

The better thing to do is not give in to silly public policy choices and instead organize a base that will support public policy choices that make sense.

Yeah, the 90s sure were a terrible time...

But mroe seriously, your analysis only holds if you think that losing an election only to fight on in the next is a valid strategy.  When you're concerned that if the wrong side wins US democracy will be fatally wounded you can't afford to take that risk.

[crazy canuck]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free.  The deregulation that occurred in the name of the third way and appeasing centre right voters did a lot of harm.

The better thing to do is not give in to silly public policy choices and instead organize a base that will support public policy choices that make sense.

Yeah, the 90s sure were a terrible time...

But mroe seriously, your analysis only holds if you think that losing an election only to fight on in the next is a valid strategy.  When you're concerned that if the wrong side wins US democracy will be fatally wounded you can't afford to take that risk.

That is a valid point.  But I guess I am more pessimistic that the Dems can save US democratic institutions by moving even more to the right.

[Berkut]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free.  The deregulation that occurred in the name of the third way and appeasing centre right voters did a lot of harm.

The better thing to do is not give in to silly public policy choices and instead organize a base that will support public policy choices that make sense.

Yeah, the 90s sure were a terrible time...

But mroe seriously, your analysis only holds if you think that losing an election only to fight on in the next is a valid strategy.  When you're concerned that if the wrong side wins US democracy will be fatally wounded you can't afford to take that risk.

That is a valid point.  But I guess I am more pessimistic that the Dems can save US democratic institutions by moving even more to the right.

Who has suggested that anyone move more to the right though? You just made that up out of whole cloth.

The entire point is that there are progressive, left wing messages that can and do appeal to blue collar workers. There are other messages that do not.

We should focus more on the progressives messages that appeal to them then the ones that turn them off.

That is not moving to the right at all.

[Berkut]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free. 

THis is not coherent.

Was the problem that they "simply" wanted to win elections, or that they bought into right wing ideology about free markets?

And damn, I was not aware that the 90s and Clinton era was such a clear hell hole.

https://www.theonion.com/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-prosperi-1819565882

[grumbler]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free. 

THis is not coherent.

Was the problem that they "simply" wanted to win elections, or that they bought into right wing ideology about free markets?

And damn, I was not aware that the 90s and Clinton era was such a clear hell hole.

https://www.theonion.com/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-prosperi-1819565882

Yeah, it's weird the way the far left rewrites history to make themselves look like they were correct.  Clinton was, arguably, the best post-WW2 US president because he didn't cling to failed left-wing policies and made rational decisions even when those irritated both the far left and the far right.  He worked to get policies passed a hostile legislature by avoiding the extremist trap of making better the enemy of good.

[crazy canuck]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free.  The deregulation that occurred in the name of the third way and appeasing centre right voters did a lot of harm.

The better thing to do is not give in to silly public policy choices and instead organize a base that will support public policy choices that make sense.

Yeah, the 90s sure were a terrible time...

But mroe seriously, your analysis only holds if you think that losing an election only to fight on in the next is a valid strategy.  When you're concerned that if the wrong side wins US democracy will be fatally wounded you can't afford to take that risk.

That is a valid point.  But I guess I am more pessimistic that the Dems can save US democratic institutions by moving even more to the right.

Who has suggested that anyone move more to the right though? You just made that up out of whole cloth.

The entire point is that there are progressive, left wing messages that can and do appeal to blue collar workers. There are other messages that do not.

We should focus more on the progressives messages that appeal to them then the ones that turn them off.

That is not moving to the right at all.

You seem to forget what you posted not long ago when you called for a move to the centre.  Since the move is from the left, by definition that is a move further to the right. 

It is certainly a good a idea to have progressive policies that can be better pitched.  But that is a different thing from moving politically further to the right in order to inhabit some mythical middle ground or the Blarite rhetoric of the third way.

[crazy canuck]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free. 

THis is not coherent.

Was the problem that they "simply" wanted to win elections, or that they bought into right wing ideology about free markets?

And damn, I was not aware that the 90s and Clinton era was such a clear hell hole.

https://www.theonion.com/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-prosperi-1819565882

Yeah, it's weird the way the far left rewrites history to make themselves look like they were correct.  Clinton was, arguably, the best post-WW2 US president because he didn't cling to failed left-wing policies and made rational decisions even when those irritated both the far left and the far right.  He worked to get policies passed a hostile legislature by avoiding the extremist trap of making better the enemy of good.

Its funny that pointing out that deregulation was bad makes one far left in the US context.  That is probably why things are so messed up in your country.

[Berkut]

The appeal Berkut makes to a Blarite move the the middle is a good example of the danger of simply wanting to win elections for winning sake.  Blair and for that matter Clinton did a lot of harm by buying into the right wing ideology of the day that markets should be made free.  The deregulation that occurred in the name of the third way and appeasing centre right voters did a lot of harm.

The better thing to do is not give in to silly public policy choices and instead organize a base that will support public policy choices that make sense.

Yeah, the 90s sure were a terrible time...

But mroe seriously, your analysis only holds if you think that losing an election only to fight on in the next is a valid strategy.  When you're concerned that if the wrong side wins US democracy will be fatally wounded you can't afford to take that risk.

That is a valid point.  But I guess I am more pessimistic that the Dems can save US democratic institutions by moving even more to the right.

Who has suggested that anyone move more to the right though? You just made that up out of whole cloth.

The entire point is that there are progressive, left wing messages that can and do appeal to blue collar workers. There are other messages that do not.

We should focus more on the progressives messages that appeal to them then the ones that turn them off.

That is not moving to the right at all.

You seem to forget what you posted not long ago when you called for a move to the centre.  Since the move is from the left, by definition that is a move further to the right. 

It is certainly a good a idea to have progressive policies that can be better pitched.  But that is a different thing from moving politically further to the right in order to inhabit some mythical middle ground or the Blarite rhetoric of the third way.

The subject of conversation here has nothing to do with moving anywhere.

And I love the idea that the middle ground is a myth. That is so delightful!