2022 Elections Thread

[JohnStOnge]

Don't be obtuse. It shows data at a point in time. It doesn't show trends, especially the trend since 2020, which is important when considering why people might blame Democrats for increased crime and violence.

You're so determined to make Republicans look bad that you can't see that your bias impacts what data you look at and how you look at it.

JSO's entire political philosophy can be completely structured around his post just a few replies up (quoted below) and it really sums up the entire political lens he views any and all data or topics through. He is textbook case of a myopic political viewpoint.

by JohnStOnge » Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:11 pm
You have to be a complete idiot to vote for Republican right now. You really do. Unfortunately, the United States has a lot of complete idiots in it.

I have ran across similar people in public (and online) and while they are humorous to engage, it is untimely pointless. This is due to the fact they they have convinced themselves of their own viewpoint so thoroughly that no other information can or will be considered (aka they are in love with themselves and that is pretty Trumpian if I do say so myself).

The humorous point is that they become what they hate but do not realize it. The term is Egocentric and is defined as "egocentrism, in psychology, the cognitive shortcomings that underlie the failure, in both children and adults, to recognize the idiosyncratic nature of one’s knowledge or the subjective nature of one’s perceptions."

https://www.britannica.com/science/egocentrism

At best they are an example of the trap one should not fall into into with ones own beliefs.

If it were as you say I would be supporting the Republicans right now. I am someone who spent more than 40 years consistently voting Republican and arguing for putting the Republican Party in power. But when the Republican Party went nuts, unlike other people who rationalized in order to keep supporting it even though it had obviously become a problem, I started opposing it. The fact that I am now against the Republican Party makes it self evident that I am willing to change my opinion based on the information at hand.

[UNI88]

JSO's entire political philosophy can be completely structured around his post just a few replies up (quoted below) and it really sums up the entire political lens he views any and all data or topics through. He is textbook case of a myopic political viewpoint.

I have ran across similar people in public (and online) and while they are humorous to engage, it is untimely pointless. This is due to the fact they they have convinced themselves of their own viewpoint so thoroughly that no other information can or will be considered (aka they are in love with themselves and that is pretty Trumpian if I do say so myself).

The humorous point is that they become what they hate but do not realize it. The term is Egocentric and is defined as "egocentrism, in psychology, the cognitive shortcomings that underlie the failure, in both children and adults, to recognize the idiosyncratic nature of one’s knowledge or the subjective nature of one’s perceptions."

https://www.britannica.com/science/egocentrism

At best they are an example of the trap one should not fall into into with ones own beliefs.

WB has rendered JSO speechless.

[kalm]

I’m not looking at a single year. How many years should we go back?

How many police departments were actually defunded, what was their size, what was their location?

And what kind of crime? Property? Violent? Drug?

Our longest war in history, the War on Drugs certainly increased crime rates, didn’t it?

It’s an extremely complicated issue.

Yes it is a complicated issue but that doesn't change the current narrative which is that Democrats are soft on crime. That narrative is strongly supported by anecdotal stories about what has happened over the last couple of years in liberal cities such as Portland and San Francisco.

Don't ask me to dig up statistics to support the existing narrative. It's already out there and it's your job to dig up statistics to disprove it. Now roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Which is why you made my point earlier. The narrative damages Dems, some of it self inflicted and deserved, some of it enough to appeal to those already biased.

[JohnStOnge]

How about a link showing murder rates by state (and by major metropolitan area) from 2018 - 2022. The defund the police movement took off with George Floyd's murder in 2020 so the perceived change in murder (and crime) from 2022 is what concerns voters.

.

According to the article I linked, "We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. (Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) " That was as of March, 2022.

The defund the police thing is a false bogeyman. Democrats generally do not want to defund the police. Also, I know of no evidence suggesting that, historically, crime has been worse when Democrats have controlled Congress. And that's what we are really talking about here. We have Republicans making the argument that Democrats being in control of Congress means more crime and I don't think there is any basis for that at all.

I don't see any problem with a snapshot. Here is another analysis: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... lent-crime. Again, the authors State that 2020 is the latest year for which complete data are available. But the point is that crime rose pretty dramatically in 2020 and there was no indication that there was an association with Democrat controlled jurisdictions.

The "Democrats mean crime" thing is a bogus scare tactic just like the "Republicans will end Social Security" thing is.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, who do you think has shown more of a willingness to change when the information changes?

1) Someone who consistently voted Republican for over 40 years and frequently argued in favor of the Republican Party but turned against it when it nominated Donald Trump then continued to support and make excuses for him when he did inexcusable things.

2) Someone who consistently voted Republican and argued that integrity and honestly were important but kept supporting the Republican Party after it nominated somebody like Donald Trump then continued to support and make excuses for him when he did inexcusable things.

[UNI88]

How about a link showing murder rates by state (and by major metropolitan area) from 2018 - 2022. The defund the police movement took off with George Floyd's murder in 2020 so the perceived change in murder (and crime) from 2022 is what concerns voters.

.

According to the article I linked, "We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. (Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) " That was as of March, 2022.

The defund the police thing is a false bogeyman. Democrats generally do not want to defund the police. Also, I know of no evidence suggesting that, historically, crime has been worse when Democrats have controlled Congress. And that's what we are really talking about here. We have Republicans making the argument that Democrats being in control of Congress means more crime and I don't think there is any basis for that at all.

I don't see any problem with a snapshot. Here is another analysis: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... lent-crime. Again, the authors State that 2020 is the latest year for which complete data are available. But the point is that crime rose pretty dramatically in 2020 and there was no indication that there was an association with Democrat controlled jurisdictions.

The "Democrats mean crime" thing is a bogus scare tactic just like the "Republicans will end Social Security" thing is.

Defund the police is not a false boogeyman. Nice use of the word "generally". Police funding has been reduced (typically in metropolitan cities, not states) with Democrats leading the charge. It doesn't matter if 8 in 10 or some other majority of Democratic elected officials don't want to defund the police, the 2 in 10 that do have already done significant damage to the police's ability to fight crime in metropolitan areas. Add to that the Democratic DAs in cities like Portland (Multnomah County) and San Francisco (recently recalled and replaced) who have intentionally not prosecuted criminals and the problem snowballs.

Yes, local elected officials have a much greater impact on crime in metropolitan areas than Congress but politics and campaigning are dirty businesses and Democrats would be doing the same thing if the roles were reversed.

A snapshot is fine but the story it tells is limited. The Thirdway snapshot is even more biased because it focuses on states while ignoring the impact that crime in blue cities has on a red state's statistics (that whole local official impact thing you agree with when discussing Congress' impact but want to ignore when looking at state data). Tracking crime, shootings and murders in states and cities over time is a much better indicator of impact.

As I posted before, the defund the police movement didn't really take off until mid-2020 and I would guess that it took many months before it started to significantly impact crime statistics. It was convenient that Thirdway's story focused on 2019 and 2020 before that impact was felt.

[UNI88]

Yes it is a complicated issue but that doesn't change the current narrative which is that Democrats are soft on crime. That narrative is strongly supported by anecdotal stories about what has happened over the last couple of years in liberal cities such as Portland and San Francisco.

Don't ask me to dig up statistics to support the existing narrative. It's already out there and it's your job to dig up statistics to disprove it. Now roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Which is why you made my point earlier. The narrative damages Dems, some of it self inflicted and deserved, some of it enough to appeal to those already biased.

Kind of like the trump is a fascist narrative but more believable?

[kalm]

Which is why you made my point earlier. The narrative damages Dems, some of it self inflicted and deserved, some of it enough to appeal to those already biased.

Kind of like the trump is a fascist narrative but more believable?

Yeah…EXACTLY like that!

[BDKJMU]

How about a link showing murder rates by state (and by major metropolitan area) from 2018 - 2022. The defund the police movement took off with George Floyd's murder in 2020 so the perceived change in murder (and crime) from 2022 is what concerns voters.

.

According to the article I linked, "We collected 2019 and 2020 murder data from all 50 states. (Comprehensive 2021 data is not yet available.) " That was as of March, 2022.

The defund the police thing is a false bogeyman. Democrats generally do not want to defund the police. Also, I know of no evidence suggesting that, historically, crime has been worse when Democrats have controlled Congress. And that's what we are really talking about here. We have Republicans making the argument that Democrats being in control of Congress means more crime and I don't think there is any basis for that at all.

I don't see any problem with a snapshot. Here is another analysis: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ ... lent-crime. Again, the authors State that 2020 is the latest year for which complete data are available. But the point is that crime rose pretty dramatically in 2020 and there was no indication that there was an association with Democrat controlled jurisdictions.

The "Democrats mean crime" thing is a bogus scare tactic just like the "Republicans will end Social Security" thing is.

Not including 2021 & 2022 makes the study as worthless as tits on a bull.

[BDKJMU]

Cringeworthy.

[BDKJMU]

Even the left is admitting Uncle Fester’s performance was a disaster.


https://www.axios.com/2022/10/26/fetter ... e-midterms

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA13nvBI

[Baldy]

Even the left is admitting Uncle Fester’s performance was a disaster.

That guy is back on TV?

[BDKJMU]

Da fuq?

[Baldy]

Cringeworthy.

Herschel Walker isn't fit for the Senate, but this guy is?

[BDKJMU]

Fetterman just slams himself..

[BDKJMU]

Uncle Fester’s best line of the night..

[BDKJMU]

Cringeworthy.

Herschel Walker isn't fit for the Senate, but this guy is?

I know. Its pretty comical.

[BDKJMU]

Stumbling bumbling…

[BDKJMU]

Before Fetterman’s disaster tonight Predictit actuall had Fetterman back up at 52 cents. Post debate the money is pouring in on Oz, who’s now at 67 cents..

[GannonFan]

Interesting, most people will end up watching what happened in that debate through social media. I know that FIOS didn't carry the channel that the debate was on, only a message from Verizon saying that they couldn't come to an agreement with the producer of the debate (kind of an odd thing, the channel that the debate was on is carried by FIOS, just not this broadcast). You could stream it and watch it that way, which my family did, but I imagine most people will just see the twitter feeds and video clips.

Not a strong night for Fetterman at all. Even in normal circumstances he was going to look less polished than Oz given Oz's extensive career in front of the camera. But the stroke has definitely played a part in limiting Fetterman and inhibits his ability to explain his positions.

What is still going to help Fetterman a little is that the governor's race in PA is all but wrapped up for the Democratic nominee, Shapiro. Mastriani, the GOP gubenatorial candidate, is a complete whacko, so that race has been over since the primaries. But, with it also being wrapped up, Fetterman would've been helped by that race being a little closer as Dem voters would've been more motivated to come out to vote. If this race wasn't tight before, it certainly is after this debate. Fetterman is certainly in trouble.

[houndawg]

Kind of like the trump is a fascist narrative but more believable?

Yeah…EXACTLY like that!

Crime is way up in red states. Which makes sense given the link between crime and poverty and the fact that 9 of the 10 poorest states are red; as are 95 0f the 100 poorest counties in the US.

[houndawg]

Interesting, most people will end up watching what happened in that debate through social media. I know that FIOS didn't carry the channel that the debate was on, only a message from Verizon saying that they couldn't come to an agreement with the producer of the debate (kind of an odd thing, the channel that the debate was on is carried by FIOS, just not this broadcast). You could stream it and watch it that way, which my family did, but I imagine most people will just see the twitter feeds and video clips.

Not a strong night for Fetterman at all. Even in normal circumstances he was going to look less polished than Oz given Oz's extensive career in front of the camera. But the stroke has definitely played a part in limiting Fetterman and inhibits his ability to explain his positions.

What is still going to help Fetterman a little is that the governor's race in PA is all but wrapped up for the Democratic nominee, Shapiro. Mastriani, the GOP gubenatorial candidate, is a complete whacko, so that race has been over since the primaries. But, with it also being wrapped up, Fetterman would've been helped by that race being a little closer as Dem voters would've been more motivated to come out to vote. If this race wasn't tight before, it certainly is after this debate. Fetterman is certainly in trouble.

its been within the margin for a while

Fetterman seems like a guy that got kicked upstairs from the factory floor. Dr. Oz seems like a guy that would be pushing quack remedies on Oprah.

[GannonFan]

Interesting, most people will end up watching what happened in that debate through social media. I know that FIOS didn't carry the channel that the debate was on, only a message from Verizon saying that they couldn't come to an agreement with the producer of the debate (kind of an odd thing, the channel that the debate was on is carried by FIOS, just not this broadcast). You could stream it and watch it that way, which my family did, but I imagine most people will just see the twitter feeds and video clips.

Not a strong night for Fetterman at all. Even in normal circumstances he was going to look less polished than Oz given Oz's extensive career in front of the camera. But the stroke has definitely played a part in limiting Fetterman and inhibits his ability to explain his positions.

What is still going to help Fetterman a little is that the governor's race in PA is all but wrapped up for the Democratic nominee, Shapiro. Mastriani, the GOP gubenatorial candidate, is a complete whacko, so that race has been over since the primaries. But, with it also being wrapped up, Fetterman would've been helped by that race being a little closer as Dem voters would've been more motivated to come out to vote. If this race wasn't tight before, it certainly is after this debate. Fetterman is certainly in trouble.

its been within the margin for a while

Fetterman seems like a guy that got kicked upstairs from the factory floor. Dr. Oz seems like a guy that would be pushing quack remedies on Oprah.

Eh, back in the summer and early September this race was all Fetterman's. You didn't see ads from Oz and all the talk was how many houses Oz had outside of the state and what a charcuterie board was. Since then, though, you see ads from both on pretty much any platform you're on (been watching a lot of Hulu lately and every commercial is these two guys) as well as the baseball playoffs. And Oz has certainly diminished Fetterman's lead as the issues (economy, crime, etc) have gravitated to what Oz is better in. And Fetterman's inability to be articulate, whether from the stroke or just from his natural self, is becoming more and more of a problem. It's hard to vote for a guy who looks like he'll have trouble just communicating with others. And Fetterman's image has taken a hit - at first glance he does look like a regular joe, but everyone knows his story now - rich kid, underachiever through school, played college ball at a tiny D3 school of no note, and hasn't really had a job his father wasn't supporting him in through the first 50 years of his life. He didn't accomplish much of anything in Braddock and being a Lt Governor is pretty much a nothing position in PA government. And on top of it even before the stroke he wasn't much of a uniter - he did things he wanted to do whether anyone came along with him - that's not a great mentality to have going into a Senate where you're going to have to talk to and compromise with people - even inside your own party.

Neither candidate is ideal, but there's certainly a significant shift away from Fetterman at this point. Just telling you how it seems inside the state right now.

Oh, and for reference, Silver's 538 site had Fetterman with an 83% chance to win this as recent as 9/24, and winning with a 7% margin, which is huge in this state. Now, just a month later, it's down to a 59% chance (last night's debate not factored in yet) with the margin being about 1%. It went from a slam dunk to a possible loss in just 30 days.

[kalm]

Stumbling bumbling…

Stumblers and bumblers unite!

[Winterborn]

JSO's entire political philosophy can be completely structured around his post just a few replies up (quoted below) and it really sums up the entire political lens he views any and all data or topics through. He is textbook case of a myopic political viewpoint.



I have ran across similar people in public (and online) and while they are humorous to engage, it is untimely pointless. This is due to the fact they they have convinced themselves of their own viewpoint so thoroughly that no other information can or will be considered (aka they are in love with themselves and that is pretty Trumpian if I do say so myself).

The humorous point is that they become what they hate but do not realize it. The term is Egocentric and is defined as "egocentrism, in psychology, the cognitive shortcomings that underlie the failure, in both children and adults, to recognize the idiosyncratic nature of one’s knowledge or the subjective nature of one’s perceptions."

https://www.britannica.com/science/egocentrism

At best they are an example of the trap one should not fall into into with ones own beliefs.

If it were as you say I would be supporting the Republicans right now. I am someone who spent more than 40 years consistently voting Republican and arguing for putting the Republican Party in power. But when the Republican Party went nuts, unlike other people who rationalized in order to keep supporting it even though it had obviously become a problem, I started opposing it. The fact that I am now against the Republican Party makes it self evident that I am willing to change my opinion based on the information at hand.

Well I am never going to turn down more support for a post of mine. So thanks for more background.

You are a smart guy so I will give you a hint, my post was not written with respect to your decision to switch sides.