As expected.
A liberal puppet doing whatever his insane leftist masters demand of him.

The most disgusting part of it all is the media coverage. No outlet dare be critical of him or anything he says or does.
"Kids in cages" is now "Youth migrants in overflow facilities"

He's a passive idiot on the world stage.

This was your core argument:


If you consider me proving this argument wrong to be "nitpicking hyperbole", and then delude yourself into thinking you "rekt" me, then so be it.

-----------

One more thing that got lost in the shuffle:


The answer is 2. There were two competitive races in which the Democratic candidate had endorsed medicare for all. One of them is an R+5 seat in Northeastern Pennsylvania which was redistricted by the PA supreme court in 2018, the other is a district in Oregon which is listed as having a PVI of R+1 in spite of having voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since 2004; and the Dem House candidate is an entrenched, ultra-long-time incumbent who represents this seat since 1986.


https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/17/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/medicare-all-supporters-win-swing-districts/

Sidenote: 21 of the Dem candidates in the 23 swing districts did not endorse medicare for all. AOC's claim that "all Democrats who supported medicare for all won, even in Republican districts" is technically correct (based on a sample size of 2), but extremely misleading.

For someone who loves to accuse others of sheepishly falling for right-wing propaganda, you are remarkably willing to regurgitate your own side's propaganda.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 21 2021 12:37pm

its because he’s a simpleton who cannot think for himself. he literally believes ‘russia’ hacked the election because the swamp demons and media who told us “weapons of mass destruction in iraq” said so. the kind of guy who would celebrate a consolation goal when losing 6-0, if only he werent at an obese bmi so we know theres no sports being played.

tried to brag about being smart but he couldn’t even finish school, doesnt is even know basic history or economics. refuses to repay terms of the contracts he willfully signed. a lifelong leech on the taxpayer and a net-negative to society. he gets extra vaccine doses and wears 2+ masks alone outside or in his car when science says this is folly. then whenever he gets hot and bothered and has a health episode he blames “republicans wanting to get rid of the free universal health care”

inb4 his usual repressed frustrated homophobic retort

The black vote is finally, after 200 years, becoming a swing vote. T picked up more black votes in 2020 than in 2016. Older blacks are still a dem voting bloc but when they die off, the black vote will be swing. Were probably 10-15 years from that process completing. The entire BLM thing was crafted simply to try to keep blacks in the dem party for 1 more election. But by 2024, a large chunk of the black vote will be Voting rep and trump

This post was edited by Kuggergug on Jun 21 2021 01:18pm

No fucking way

What I could see happening, though, is 2nd and 3rd gen hispanics trending toward Republicans and thus becoming a swing demographic. 4th and later gen hispanics will most definitely go the way of the Irish and Italians and eventually get "absorbed" into "whiteness".

Hi, curious still.

also disagree on the latinos. i think they're more likely to create a counter culture against the catholic dogma of their parents and be more sympathetic to illegals, even tho their parents immigrated legally presumably. most of the latino surge is just overcalculation of Miami cubans.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 21 2021 02:06pm

You're just nitpicking again. My argument was that every Democrat that supported medicare for all was reelected, even in Republican leaning districts. I find it hilarious that you think you've proven something by pointing out that there were 2 in Republican leaning districts. The mere fact that they have a 100% rate is notable in a year where Republicans gained seats, and it's doubly so when you consider that the Republican leaning districts still elected them despite this being a notably left deviation. If your thesis holds any water then M4A supporters in even neutral districts should have lost, but they didn't.

All you have is to nitpick my obvious hyperbole. The point I was making remains strong as ever in the face of your shit arguments. Biden would gain support if he supported left-wing policies as even notably right-wing states like Kentucky support policies that are further left than him. The reality is that the average Republican supports generally liberal policies, unless they're a victim of "HE'S A SECRET COMMUNIST DICTATOR REEEEEEEEEEEEE" propaganda.

You can call the completely factual and well supported arguments I've just made "propaganda" if it helps you sleep at night, but there really is no argument on this.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 21 2021 02:38pm

Afaik, Kentucky was very supportive of high spending by the federal government back in the day.



Big disagree. This is a map of the county swings from 2016->2020:

As you can see, it's not just southern florida, where the rightward shift could be explained by Cubans coming home to the GOP or by campaign ads scaremongering about looming socialism falling on fertile ground.

The same trend is also visible in the Rio Grande Valley, LA county and the non-elite districts of NYC. Also note that Harris county (Houston) was a wash in spite of whites stampeding to the left there, because of hispanics moving to the right and balancing it out.


Now, Republicans are of course overstating both the magnitude of their support among latinos and the size of this trend (Maricopa county/Phoenix is a counterexample), but it's nonetheless a widespread pattern in the 2020 map.
The big question, imho, is rather if 2020 was really the beginning of a long-term realignment among hispanic voters, or if it was an idiosyncratic result based on a unique political environment (covid, BLM riots) and a unique candidate (Trump).










The fact that you consider an argument which hinges on a sample size of 2 to have any merit is a disgrace for a PhD holder who literally works as a scientist.

And no, I'm not nitpicking. In this one district in Oregon, which is only marginally R-leaning, the Democratic incumbent has represented them in Congress for 34 years. Do you seriously believe it proves anything that voters were not willing to give him the boot over his largely symbolic support for one piece of legislation which will not become law anytime soon anyway?

Likewise, the 100% win rate is not nearly as notable once we keep in mind that most Dem candidates in competiive districts did not endorse M4A. 91.3% (21 of 23) Dems running in swing districts chose to stay away from M4A.



Also, you're massively moving the goalposts. My thesis was not that M4A was completely toxic, it was your thesis that it's an electoral winner.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 21 2021 02:58pm

Good thing I never did that or you might have a point.

You cherry picked the second part of the argument. Notice that I said "every one that supported M4A, including those in Republican leaning districts". See, there's two parts.

You have nothing but cherry picking, which is why you are trying to present me as only using an N of 2.

I also included other things, like the $15 minimum wage in Florida, and Obamacare being net favorable in massively conservative Kentucky.

All you can do is separate and cherry pick. When taking the whole argument together your thesis falls apart.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 21 2021 03:03pm

Democrats in non-competitive district being reelected carries little to no info on the popularity of M4A, whether they support or oppose it. The argument is crap if we take out the second part and it only consists of the first part.


I already addressed these points. To recap: yes, I admit that the support for a $15 minimum wage in Florida is a strong point in favor of your thesis of widespread support for certain(!) liberal economic policies. At the same time, it is an argument against your thesis that only conservative voters are prone to populism, propaganda and voting against their own interest.


We'll keep disagreeing whether a +11 net approval for Obamacare (at just 43% approve, and with a very high share of 'do not knows') in Kentucky qualifies as "polling insanely well//incredibly high" or not.