e

TRUMP [after spending 5 minutes with Zohran]: surplus value, it’s a very wonderful thing, very wonderful, and they’re stealing it. Can you believe that?

We’re going to be looking very strongly at the bourgeoisie, what they’re up to

Another W for Catholicism

Bright pink aurora borealis

The entire sky filled with pink aurora

Panoramic auroras in alaska!!

Thinking about that last sequence from bugonia

They really popped off when they called them woodpeckers

Crazy they let Ayn Rand interview Sydney Sweeney

The new party mascot must be a bird

Dick Cheney dies, Zohran Mamdani wins, a beaver moon shines in the sky… I just know the Etsy witches have been busy.

I guess I’m asking because abstract issue polling seems to have some value in my mind - namely because of its separation from individuals or political parties.

So would you say issue polling is inaccurate or insufficient because of that gap between a abstract policy proposal and the actual implementation of said policy?

Or maybe also that political propagandists get involved in that gap to push for their preferred outcomes?

Why do you think issue polling is bad? Genuine question.

Charitably, their problem with issue polling is its disconnection from party politics - which leads to this method that bakes in partisan framing.

My cynical reading is that this method allows for the creation of the pretty charts that tell dem candidates they don’t actually have to change policy

Our Approach to Measurin... For this report, we performed a large-scale issue polling experiment using the above approach. What does this approach look like in practice? To illustrate it, we can use the example of increasing the refugee cap from 15,000 a year, to 125,000 a year, a real-world policy enacted by the Biden administration in October of 2021. Respondents were shown the following description: • Policy description: Some Democrats in Congress have proposed a bill that would increase the number of refugees allowed to come to America. Under this bill, the number of refugees allowed to come to America each year would be increased from 15,000 a year to 125,000 a year. Respondents were then randomly selected to be shown one of two Democratic arguments as well as one of two Republican arguments. The Democratic argument options were: • Democratic Argument 1: Democrats support this policy because they say that turning away people fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries is wrong. • Democratic Argument 2: Democrats support this policy because they say refugees are hardworking and admitting more will make our country stronger by creating jobs and growing our economy. While the Republican argument options were: • Republican Argument 1: Republicans oppose this policy because they say we can't properly vet so many refugees and we should focus on helping American citizens first. • Republican Argument 2: Republicans oppose this policy because they say that refugees are more likely to commit crimes than Americans are and this will make our communities more safe.

Respondents were then asked "Which party do you agree with more?" Results are aggregated across all argument matchups to create an overall support number. This support number is the "two-way" support for the policy, meaning it strips out undecided voters and looks only at the proportion of support among voters who expressed an opinion. In the case of increasing the refugee cap, the two-way support number was 34%, meaning that 34% of respondents who expressed a view on the issue said they agreed more with the randomly-selected Democratic argument they saw, while 66% of respondents of those who expressed a position said they agreed more with the randomly-selected Republican argument they saw. In the tables that follow in Part 5, we express support as "net support," which is the difference between the two-way support for the position of the party proposing the policy and the two-way support for the position of the party opposing the policy. For this refugee policy, the net support is -32% (34% minus 66% is equal to -32%). For many of the policies we polled, the findings more closely matched ballot initiative results. For example, rather than the 85% support for universal background checks discussed in the previous section, we found that 55% of voters agree more with Democrats about the policy - far closer to the Maine and Nevada results. And in contrast to the polling mentioned previously finding majorities of Americans supporting affirmative action in college admissions, we found restoring colleges' ability to use affirmative action to be supported by 37% of voters - much more consistent with its loss in a California referendum. Overall, our polling found that, for a substantial number of progressive policies, less than half of voters agree with Democrats about the policy - and that relatively few Democratic policies reach heights of 60+% support. Overall, in our sample of 105 Democratic policies we polled, 57 were supported by a majority of voters, while 48 were oppo…

I urge you to dig deeper into how WelcomePAC’s polling was conducted. They are expressly against issue polling and create their own style of question that connects each issue with the Democrats or Republican, while adopting republican framing in the “arguments”

The left has to be better at sniffing these guys out. Make them get specific on their beliefs beyond being anti establishment and aesthetically working class

Nyt supporting him is unsurprising. Anyways read @moiradonegan.bsky.social ‘s recent guardian piece on platner instead

No no you don’t get it - they don’t believe in issue polling

It’s unpopular by they’re new polling methodology which explicitly ties every issue to either the republican or Democratic Party

Because that’s much more realistic

Good for you. It’s just ragebait filtered through consultant brain.

For this report, we performed a large-scale issue polling experiment using the above approach. What does this approach look like in practice? To illustrate it, we can use the example of increasing the refugee cap from 15,000 a year, to 125,000 a year, a real-world policy enacted by the Biden administration in October of 2021. Respondents were shown the following description: • Policy description: Some Democrats in Congress have proposed a bill that would increase the number of refugees allowed to come to America. Under this bill, the number of refugees allowed to come to America each year would be increased from 15,000 a year to 125,000 a year. Respondents were then randomly selected to be shown one of two Democratic arguments as well as one of two Republican arguments. The Democratic argument options were: • Democratic Argument 1: Democrats support this policy because they say that turning away people fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries is wrong. • Democratic Argument 2: Democrats support this policy because they say refugees are hardworking and admitting more will make our country stronger by creating jobs and growing our economy. While the Republican argument options were: • Republican Argument 1: Republicans oppose this policy because they say we can't properly vet so many refugees and we should focus on helping American citizens first. • Republican Argument 2: Republicans oppose this policy because they say that refugees are more likely to commit crimes than Americans are and this will make our communities less safe. Respondents were then asked "Which party do you amnas rrith mars)" Daculte ana aemnaratad sansco oll

* Our Approach to Measurin... Respondents were then asked "Which party do you agree with more?" Results are aggregated across all argument matchups to create an overall support number. This support number is the "two-way" support for the policy, meaning it strips out undecided voters and looks only at the proportion of support among voters who expressed an opinion. In the case of increasing the refugee cap, the two-way support number was 34%, meaning that 34% of respondents who expressed a view on the issue said they agreed more with the randomly-selected Democratic argument they saw, while 66% of respondents of those who expressed a position said they agreed more with the randomly-selected Republican argument they saw. In the tables that follow in Part 5, we express support as "net support," which is the difference between the two-way support for the position of the party proposing the policy and the two-way support for the position of the party opposing the policy. For this refugee policy, the net support is -32% (34% minus 66% is equal to -32%). For many of the policies we polled, the findings more closely matched ballot initiative results. For example, rather than the 85% support for universal background checks discussed in the previous section, we found that 55% of voters agree more with Democrats about the policy - far closer to the Maine and Nevada results. And in contrast to the polling mentioned previously finding majorities of Americans supporting affirmative action in college admissions, we found restoring colleges' ability to use affirmative action to be supported by 37% of voters - much more consistent with its loss in a California referendum. Overall, our polling found that, for a substantial number of progressive policies, less than half of voters agree with Democrats about the policy - and that relatively few Democratic policies reach heights of 60+% support. Overall, in our sample of 105 Democratic policies we polled, 57 were supported by a majority…

This is their polling methodology btw

I wonder why when they explicitly tied the issues to the incredibly unpopular Democratic Party, the democratic issues were unpopular

It’s so incredibly damning that this Democratic Party report views climate change as a spoiler issue

Like what the fuck are they even doing

Part 8: What It Does and Does Not Mean to Be Moderate I Democrats should moderate. In this section, we take a closer look at exactly what it means to be a "moderate," including how being a moderate interacts with being an outsider and/or a critic of the establishment. Being moderate means taking popular, heterodox positions-not defending the establishment

Get ready for the corporate dem Heterodox moment - this is going to be unimaginably annoying

The directionality only flows one way:

Voters think this -> let’s run on that

The party doesn’t seem to think it can change what voters think or believe. Which would be:

We believe this -> let’s convince voters

It makes them unprincipled on the formal level.

The party seems to fundamentally misunderstand how beliefs and opinions are formed. They do not even think to include how their messaging (or lack thereof) on certain issues leads to changes in opinion.

Or most importantly, how right wing propaganda has effected political opinions

Every part of this New Democratic Party report betrays the facts that the party elites do not understand how propaganda functions, how to cut propaganda, and how people’s beliefs are formed

Any publication in particular?

Great care to share them?

Seems strange to assume ones income will increase over time

It really unfortunate to have to be skeptical of those who claim to be running on your “side.” But as more instances of this occur - the phenomenon ought to be examined more closely.

I think we ought to expect more of an intellectual/analytical understanding of the state of American politics rather than simply just a rhetorical understanding.

Like Fetterman is a real capitalist realism candidate - using the critiques of the system to further entrench it.