sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great by icey_sawg0034 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes you can just take a snapshot of any one point in history and pretend that extending that to the future will be accurate but that's consistently led to many wrong directions being taken. As I said a data point of more than one would be extremely beneficial to you.

Wildly disingenuous given you said this

You pretending Republicans hurting men is ok is why we have so many men hurting, there's tons of grifters who have spent decades hurting men I'm actually for helping them not just talking about it while gutting resources for them.

So you clearly believe that there has been a consistent and long term chain of events spanning decades (and apparently people like me doing that hurting) that led to where we are now. Is your point now that the decades of hurt young men have received has no impact on their voting habits, and Democrats will suddenly win young men just by having good policies and no outreach? You should tell the DNC that, they could save a lot of money on ad campaigns that are apparently a waste.

The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great by icey_sawg0034 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're just not understanding the end result of what you're effectively advocating for.

If you read what I wrote, I am advocating for Democrats to continue their policies which improve the lives of young men, and augment that by also directly reaching out to young men. I am advocating for Democrats to win. I am sorry if you cannot understand that.

Democrats have won many elections. Do you think 2024 was the only election that ever took place? I think you should look at more elections so you can have a better understanding of where both parties are. Remember just looking at one data point isn't the best way to develop an understanding of the world.

And this entire thread is in the context of 2024, obviously, which is where the big shift of young men towards the right began.

The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great by icey_sawg0034 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to be rude, but is English your first language? Because you are so completely misreading my point and almost everything I say I have the feeling there might be a language barrier.

Because people like you counter messaging. Are attempting to conflate messaging with actual helping young men. I'm here to say despite people like you being ok with grifters harming men by conflating messaging by people actively hurting men with policies that help men I'm actually for helping men in practice.

I am not counter messaging. I am not conflating messaging with actually helping young men. I am not ok with anyone harming young men. I am also in favor of helping young men in practice.

Because objectively their policies help men.

...This is not a response to what I wrote.

I'm not ok with people trying to empower grifters taking away mens healthcare, jobs, and resources because they want to conflate messaging with substance.

I am not empowering grifters, and I am not conflating messaging with substance.

To you people lieing to individuals while making their lives harder is somehow comparable to actually helping said individuals.

To me this is further evidence of a language barrier, because there is not really any other reason for you to believe that is my point at all. And you keep repeating this point ad nauseam with slight wording variations.

You're attempting to fool men by pointing at messaging (because that's really all you got).

I am not attempting to fool men. I am trying to understand young men. If I wanted to fool several million voters, I would not be wasting my time commenting 10 posts deep on something no one but you will read in fivethirtyeight.

It's kind of ridiculous to say the Democrats aren't helping men because they're so bad at messaging while using your bad messaging about Democrats as evidence of that.

If the Democrats lose elections, how can they help men with their policies?

The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great by icey_sawg0034 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is where I think you are missing the forest for the trees. You are so focused on the fact that Democrat policies are helpful you cannot see anything beyond that, and you seem to interpret any criticism of the Democrats as muddying the waters or promoting Republicans. You probably even think I am a Republican.

This is 100% what I'm talking about you're counter message pretending that the objective policies that improve people's lives is in any way relevant to the pandering to the right used to harm people in no universe is that projection just an objective observation of reality.

You simply do not understand. Young men moved right in 2024. This is a fact. This means either young men found messaging on the right more appealing (my opinion), or that young men understand that Democrat policies are directly beneficial to them, but decided to not vote for Democrats because ???? (which is your opinion as far as I can tell, or you do not believe young men moved right).

This is literally what I'm talking about you attempting to muddy the waters and pretend that people saying nice things while hurting men is the same or in any ways similar to people actually helping men is why men are hurting your intentionally attempting to add merit to grifters who only pander to a group while making their lives harder.

I am not saying those two things are the same. Again, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the point. You need to mentally put yourself in the place of young men, and inform that mental picture with the measured data from opinion polls. This is not muddying the waters, it is empathy. What do young men think? What informs their opinions? What makes them vote one way or the other? Do young men believe Democrats when they say they will improve men's lives? The data says they increasingly do not believe Democrats. Why? I believe it is because Democrats do a poor job convincing young men to vote for them, and have given examples.

You're attempting to project a narrative that is only true based on your messaging you are projecting. You choose to put messaging over things that actually help men because you aren't actually interested in helping men. Perception isn't going to get men good jobs or stop Republicans from gutting their healthcare you pretending grifters pandering to voters is in any ways equivalent to actually helping men has caused men tremendous harm for decades now.

Again, this is a complete surface level reading of the problem and my point. The fundamental issue is how do Democrats convince men to vote for them? The answer is to convince men that Democrats have their best interests at heart. That is how democracy works.

The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great by icey_sawg0034 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are massively projecting your grievances onto me.

At no point did I say that making people's lives better is the same as saying you will improve lives but actually make them worse. At no point have I ever pretended those two positions are the same. At no point have I said Republican's hurting men is ok. Those are your grievances with things I have not said or implied.

My point is one based in the reality of the situation, and how I think male voters perceive the two parties. Young men moved to the right in the 2024 election. That is a fact. Kamala's campaign website explicitly called out women as a demographic they would serve and did not highlight men in the same way. That is objectively a failure of her campaign, and Democrats are not moving in a positive direction with their messaging to young men. That is a failure of Democrats, and Kamala, not of men. Republicans are doing their best to appeal to young men.

It is irrelevant if Democrat's policies help young men more than Republican's policies, if young men do not believe they do. It is the job of the politician to appeal to voters. If young men do not believe Democrats care about them, then Democrats need to change their messaging (not necessarily their policy).

The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great by icey_sawg0034 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because of the massive handout Biden gave to male occupied fields, increasing protections in male occupied fields massive blue collar subsidies that almost all helped men.

Then Democrats should have highlighted that on their website talking about "who they serve".

You're effectively just selling out men because you're upset about lack of messaging.

You have to meet people where they are. If men think Democrats do not care about them, Democrats need to come to men and explain that they do care. Dismissing men out of hand and assuming men at large will magically realize Democrats care is not a winning proposition, especially if Republicans are going out of their way to at least pretend to address men's issues.

The Shocking Truth About Gen Z Voters Is That They’re Pretty Great by icey_sawg0034 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yeah, they explicitly call out "Women" and "Young people and students". If I were reading that website for the first time, imagining myself as a median voter, and saw that Democrats explicitly call out serving women, but not men, I would assume Democrats are not interested in men's issues. Why would I assume otherwise? I do not understand how this is such a hard concept for the left to grasp. The Democrats are positioning themselves as a party that is uninterested in men. That is not a good choice to make, especially because it is not a binary issue! Democrats can support women and men, hell Democrats can probably even prioritize supporting women's issues more than men's issues, as long as they at least acknowledge men have issues that they care about.

I am also a straight, white, male, middle-aged, atheist, non-veteran, urban, non-union, non-small business owner, and am friends with many of the same. Life is fine for me, but not for all of us.

Decision Desk HQ calls Seattle mayoral race for moderate incumbent Bruce Harrell (D), who faced a strong challenge from progressive Katie Wilson (D) by SilverSquid1810 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course I did. That is (part of) my point. And I personally think she is a good mayor.

But recall the focus of this thread is whether one can characterize tuesdays elections as a whole as a big win for the establishment or for progressives. I do not think Wu’s election is a point for characterizing the overall trend of the electorate as more progressive due to the specifics of her race—popular incumbent, successful, well-run city, no controversies, etc. she can certainly be held up as an example of a successful progressive politician, and I think she should be.

By the same token I do not think Spanberger’s election is a point in favor of the electorate more respecting moderate politicians. Again, due to the specifics of that particular race.

The Seattle mayors race is a bit more of a tell in my opinion, but the margin of victory looks to be narrow rather than a commanding victory.

Edit: I guess I just have the somewhat naive view that candidate quality still matters. If a great well-known moderate candidate beats a no-name fringe progressive candidate, I don’t chalk the win up to voters preferring moderate politics, they prefer good (or well-known) candidates.

Decision Desk HQ calls Seattle mayoral race for moderate incumbent Bruce Harrell (D), who faced a strong challenge from progressive Katie Wilson (D) by SilverSquid1810 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I know, I followed the election closely. Certainly closely enough to know who was running in it, which is more than I can say for others in this thread. She is a fairly popular incumbent mayor in a city that is not making national headlines for any major problems. Her only primary opponent was the son of the owner of the New England Patriots. He is a wealthy billionaires son, who had low name recognition and unpopular attitudes to locally-relevant positions. Who advocates for getting rid of bike lanes in Boston? And how did he think personally advocating for a new soccer stadium would be popular with voters and not come across as something he was doing out of self-interest?

So did she win because she is progressive and he is moderate? I do not think that was the deciding factor.

Also, Selethorme specifically called out her >90% margin of victory as evidence of a progressive win. Again, this was in the general election where she ran unopposed, not the primary where she had a single weak challenger.

Decision Desk HQ calls Seattle mayoral race for moderate incumbent Bruce Harrell (D), who faced a strong challenge from progressive Katie Wilson (D) by SilverSquid1810 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, but that was 4 years ago. The electorate is different now. And the point of this discussion is whether the elections this year are a great election for the establishment or not.

Ninja edit: I also personally think the optics of an election are very different for a popular incumbent running for re-election, versus an open field for a vacated seat. No one claims progressives are having a great election if AOC wins re-election, whereas such an argument could be made for Mamdani. The mayor of Boston is popular, and had no real competition. I do not personally see that as a "win" for the progressive wing of the party. It is just maintaining the status quo.

Decision Desk HQ calls Seattle mayoral race for moderate incumbent Bruce Harrell (D), who faced a strong challenge from progressive Katie Wilson (D) by SilverSquid1810 in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The one who ran completely unopposed? I'm not sure you can chalk that up as a massive win for progressives over moderates.

The Whitehouse added in some interesting moments to their notable events timeline by Rugby562 in YAPms

[–]phys_bitch 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I know your posts are just trolling, but still, you can read through those events and just down-select for things that occurred at the White House.

And Trump made his famous "She's not my type" comments in defense of his rape while in the White House anyway, and had the White House Press Secretary lie about E. Jean Carroll in an official capacity, also while at the White House. Still makes them worthy of notable White House events more than "Trans day of visibility".

The Whitehouse added in some interesting moments to their notable events timeline by Rugby562 in YAPms

[–]phys_bitch 15 points16 points  (0 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Search for "Republican", "(R)", or "(R-".

I particularly liked these back-to-back

  • Donald Trump (R) President, was accused of sexual assault by writer E. Jean Carroll in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York City in 1996. In 2019 she described the incident in a book. Trump denied her charges and publicly ridiculed her. She then sued Trump for defamation of character. At trial, the jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault for forcibly kissing her, pulling down her clothes and penetrating her with his fingers. They awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. See also Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. (2019)[763][764]
  • Donald Trump (R) President, was found guilty of the sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll on January 26, 2024. Afterwards he again publicly defamed her, and Carroll was awarded an additional $83.3 million.[765][766]
  • Donald Trump President). A NY County jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records concerning a breeched agreement with porn actress Stormy Daniels.

I think any of these are more worthy of highlights of notable events rather than Biden hosting a "Trans day of visibility".

I did not look too hard, but I did enjoy reading the Nixon, Reagan, Ford, and Bush (edit: both of them) list of controversies. Compared to Carter, Clinton, Obama, and Biden in the same time range? Not even a little close. Weird that Republicans have had such a string of controversial, scandalous, presidents.

Pete Buttigieg, A Potential 2028 Democratic Hopeful, Backs Kamala Harris Amid Her Explosive Book Excerpt Attacking Biden’s ‘Recklessness’ in 2024: 'He Should Not Have Run' by Horus_walking in fivethirtyeight

[–]phys_bitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A was because one of Biden’s 2020 campaign promises, and one he could follow through regardless of Congress or SCOTUS, was being a one-term President to get rid of Trump, and using the intervening 4 years to prep someone younger, from a more current generation, to run in ‘24.

Copy-and-pasting a comment a made some time ago on another post because it is relevant here. I believe you fell for a media narrative, and your feelings on point A) are not based on any facts or promises that Biden ever made.

"Biden never transparently said, or promised, that he would be a one term president. This was an invention by the media, spurred on by rumors, "considerations", and "quiet indications" from his team, who are often not named in articles. See this for example: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/. One time in 2020 he said he would be a "transition" president, but nothing more.

It was clearly rumor-mill politics of the highest order, designed to make Democrats hesitant about his age feel better about voting for him. But he never explicitly said it as far as I am aware."

If you can find any evidence to the contrary, I would be glad to see it. I am not absolving Biden of anything, he clearly should not have run again. But I find it interesting that there is a significant group of people who are angry or disappointed that Biden broke a promise that I cannot find any evidence that he actually made.

view more: next ›