The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Atlas Force]

Let me break down this trainwreck of a post one step at a time, even though it's not going to convince concern trolls like you about anything:

1. Polls can't tell you about Latino turnout at all. I hate when people explain poll results by saying "THERE'S LOW LATINO/(insert whatever subgroup) TURNOUT IN THIS AREA IN MIDTERMS" because polls can't predict turnout.

2. How much of that SD-19 swing was because turnout dropped hard for an obscure special election, thus meaning the electorate could've been much whiter than the actual demographics? It'll probably be a significantly more Hispanic electorate in 2018, let alone 2020 when this seat comes back up again.

3. CA-21 was never on the board at all because that area has laughable turnout AND a strong incumbent. The CA-39 poll had Trump approval at even in a Clinton +9 seat which isn't believable at all. That was also probably our toughest of the OC seats. CA-25 is still a tossup, given that Knight is only up 3 and he's under 50 in a 42-52 Trump approval seat.

FL-26 was always going to be tough because the GOP incumbent is really well liked (and even that isn't preventing his race from being within 3 points AND below 50 against an opponent with 32% name recognition LOL), and the two FL-27 polls are internals. One of those internals is from McLaughlin, which is a notoriously terrible firm that's missed races by 30+ points consistently. The other is from a random firm I've never heard of, and it could very well be just being pushed out to tell people "DONATE TO ME!!!!!"

4. The Nevada polls are in line with what we've seen in other Nevada polls, and Nevada polls have a LONG history of underestimating Democrats, as this post by IceSpear shows: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=301205.msg6407307#msg6407307

5. What surge? We have two outlier polls with Cruz +9 and O'Rourke +2, which cancel out largely to be a Cruz +4-5 race. Cruz +4 or Cruz +5 would be very much in line with what the race has been stuck at for months.

[Atlas Force]

David Brooks has always been a 'both sides are equally bad' mentally lazy moron. As I've written before, his continued employment despite his dimwitted hackery and his outright making stuff up to write stories (he has done what he accused Michael Wolf of doing on at  least two occasions) is clear evidence, to me anyway, of white male privilege. 

Mark Shields is about the most milquetoast commentator around (although he does get in some subtle jabs) I have no idea how anybody can claim that he is more partisan than Brooks.  Shields occasionally quotes the 'when they bring a knife to a fight...' but, in reality, his one remaining wish is that when Republicans bring either a knife or gun to a fight, that Democrats bring a Bible (or the lyrics to Kunbaya) and that, finally, everybody can get along.

Brooks is a  Dunning Kruger type who has been allowed to believe that he is some great intellectual, and Shields is a fossil.

[Atlas Force]

Thats right Donnelly...keep driving that RV

The RV industry is big in Indiana, and in 2008 it got burned by a combination of high interest rates, a credit crunch, and a spike in gas prices. RVs are expensive purchases often made on credit or from the sale of houses (related to the overall economy), and they devour huge amounts of motor fuels. The economic meltdown hurt the RV industry, and Obama did freakishly well in the counties on the Michigan border in 2008.

An RV is a costly, environmentally-destructive vehicle, but it is also how many Hoosiers make their living -- working to build them.

[Atlas Force]

I think others have pointed out the problems with this "poll" quite well. Instead of my usual shtick about how a polling error here, which has happened before, is more likely than NV not only being immune to the blue wave, but hosting a giant red wave, let me talk about something else...

This absurd electoral truism of "Nevada bucks the trend." It really ONLY applies to the Senate races, and it's a prime example of correlation not equaling causation. In 2010, Harry Reid's opponent was Sharron Angle, who was a complete lunatic, and Republicans should have known that someone with ties to their state as strong as Reid wasn't going to go down easily. Had he faced a stronger opponent, he might well have lost. In 2012, Dean Heller's opponent was scandal-plagued, and basically written off after polls showed her consistently down by about 5%. He still just barely eked out a win against her with just 46% of the vote. Had he faced a slightly better opponent, he almost definitely would have lost. Then there's 2016, where Nevada really did not buck the trend, unless your criteria for "bucking the trend" is based only on who wins. In a slightly Republican-leaning year, a Democratic-leaning state narrowly went Democratic. It still swung Republican, just not by enough for it to flip in a year that was only somewhat Republican-leaning.

And why on earth would Nevada buck the trend this year? Heller's not a popular incumbent like Baker, Scott, or Hogan, Nevada's not a Republican stronghold like North Dakota, and while Rosen might basically be a generic Democrat, it's not like there's anything so offensively off-putting about her as to turn off a large segment of the population.

If 2018 is a good year for Republicans, sure Heller could win. But there's really no reason to believe Heller will survive a blue wave, unless you believe the polls. And if you do, I'll direct you to IceSpear's posts or my signature.

[Atlas Force]

The idea that there's a broad base in American society of neglected, ideologically moderate, centrist/center/central/centrally, middle-of-the-road voters who will only vote for ideologically moderate, centrist/center/central/centrally, middle-of-the-road candidates and will shirk back into their cocoon of neutral, open-minded, see-it-both-ways, centermost centerness the moment somebody steps out from the middle of the political aisle is an idea that needs to die.

I am not at all surprised to see that the forum's most insistent proclaimant of ideologically moderate, centrist/center/central/centrally, middle-of-the-road-politics who shirks back into his self-proclaimed cocoon of neutral, open-minded, see-it-both-ways, centermost centerness the moment somebody steps out from the middle of the political aisle is the one who is asking this question.

[Atlas Force]

Rural areas have abandoned the Democratic party in the midwest. If they couldn't keep those seats in the 2018 election, they won't have much of a chance getting them back in the next decade or so.

Agreed. Minnesota is a perfect representation of the realignment that is taking place. I suspect that within the next ten years, the last remaining cells of Democratic support in rural areas will be completely extinguished, and they will become a solely urban-suburban party. By 2040, 60% of the nation's counties will be going 70, 80, or 90% Republican in each election.

That is a massive assumption. We still saw Dem strength in some rural areas (Evers won SW Wisconsin, Dems won two upstate NY seats and almost got a third, Democrats won one of the most rural CDs in the country in ME-02).

You also can't ignore minority-majority rural areas (like the Black Belt, Southern Texas, and Native reservations).

It would be delusional to suggest rural areas (white ones in particular) aren't trending away from Democrats, but we've been through periods of equal or worse polarization that eventually went away. I have no reason to believe this one is any more permanent.

[Atlas Force]

The new Democratic coalition has more wealthy suburbanites in it then before, but you'd have know nothing about American politics to believe that poorer and working class people aren't essential pillars of the party. For one, do you really think the party's black voters, who are chronically cursed with economic and social malaises, will forgive a Thatcherite agenda from the party? What about the party's huge base of young people living in rather precarious economic situations? And so on.

People have a very short term memory. They seem to be under the impression that the old Blue Dogs were uniformly Non Partisan League style vulgar populists who said politically incorrect things but fought against the elites, when in fact they were largely corporate shills, owned by Wall Street and special interests. The "new Dems" - the likes of, say, Spanberger or Slotkin - are not ideal, but if anything they are to the left of where centrist Dems used to be. In fact, the most explicitly right wing Democrat on economic grounds is Jeff Van Drew, who is not remotely from the school of Dems that people like hofoid are most scared of.

[Atlas Force]

I don't know enough about 1930s American race relations to know whether or not that's an accurate description of the New Deal, but I do know that it's definitely not the most incontrovertible example of a racist FDR policy she could have chosen.

People, especially on the left, don't care much about racism against Asians these days because they're a "privileged" group. Just look at how Harvard is justifying its anti-Asian policies by claiming Asians have "bad personalities" and getting leftist professors to stick up for them.

I would respond more to racism against Asians if

1. Any Asian I ever knew in my life actually raised a complaint on the issue, which they haven't (my high school was 25% Asian for the record)
2. There was something more systemic in the nature of racism against Asians than not being admitted to Ivy League schools (note: working in an academic setting where Asians are disproportionately represented, racism against Chinese people is quite real, but I find it manifesting itself more on a personal level than a systemic level)
3. If it wasn't wielded as a cudgel in bad faith by conservatives who don't care about racism at all. I've heard much more complaining from white people about Harvard admissions than I ever have from Asians, and usually it's with the context that too many Blacks and Hispanics are admitted.

[Atlas Force]

There’s a big difference between PC BS and calling out genuinely horrible behavior.  As far as the left goes, the whole idea of rampant SJW-ism is a fiction whose sole basis in reality is a small - but loud and obnoxious - minority of campus whacktivists...with one glaring exception (but more on that later).  If anything, it wouldn’t kill the campus left to be a bit better about practicing what it preaches regarding speaking out against bigotry.  

But let’s start with some definitions: to me, “political correctness” means self-righteously making a bad faith claim to moral superiority over others by self-righteously moralizing about something that is both A) a straw man of the actual position or has been blown waaaaaaay out of proportion and B) which is not actually a discriminatory or prejudicial act.  You cannot have PC policing unless both are present and by definition, it is a bad-faith thing rather than one borne of misguided - but still good-faith - activism.  

“Cancel culture” is a distinctly different thing in my mind and I’d argue that it refers to the idea that we should not reward talented people who have done “horrible things” - whatever that term means to you - with continued professional success.  This is neither an inherently good or bad thing, it depends how reasonably we define “horrible things” and whether we approach this thoughtfully or with a mob mentality.

Put simply, PC policing is not condemning an actual racist for said racial views because racism is a horrible thing that deserves to be condemned.  It is not PC policing to say Columbus Day should no longer be a holiday b/c Columbus was a monster since there are legitimate arguments on both sides that could make for a lively good-faith discourse.  It is PC policing to say that anyone who opposes abolishing Columbus Day is simply a racist against Native-Americans since this is both a bad-faith straw man of the actual position and the mere existence of Columbus Day itself is not inherently discriminatory.  

By the same token, cancel culture could mean we say that because Roman Polanski is literally an unrepentant child rapist who has spent decades as a fugitive from justice, we shouldn’t watch his movies...or it could mean saying we shouldn’t watch Toy Story films b/c Tim Allen was a drug dealer a long time ago before he turned his life around.  How reasonable Cancel Culture is depends on how far you as an individual choose to take it.  Now, onto PC itself!

Imo, there isn’t really much out-of-control PC policing about gender on the left, especially among the campus activist crowd (personally, I’ve actually gotten in some pretty heated arguments at law school over the disturbing amount of #NiceGuy misogyny from the campus left at law school due to my willingness to call out such behavior) particularly in the form of an appalling sense of sexual entitlement as though “saying the right things” somehow means you’ve earned the right to have sex with whoever you want.  You hear lots of rants about “muh feminazis” and I’ve even heard one of the most left-wing people I’ve ever met IRL whine about how it was “not fair” that one of our classmates whom he wanted to sleep with was a lesbian.  Tbh, unless my law school experience is a fluke there are quite a few liberal men who are as misogynistic as any Trumper, but just put up a respectable front in public.

Where there is a PC problem on the left is with race and [albeit to a much lesser degree] religion...but not necessarily in the way conservatives like to claim.  There are a significant number of folks within many of the minority groups in the Democratic coalition: Jews, Muslims, atheists, gays [as opposed to lesbians, who seem to be much better about this sort of thing], African-Americans, etc who are constantly turning a blind eye to demagoguery before turning around demanding other groups tow the line in condemning some trivial outrage of the day ostensibly committed against their community.

Meanwhile, they seldom speak out to defend the communities whose support they feel entitled to from demagogues.  Where was the African-American community when the CBC fought tirelessly to torpedo a congressional resolution condemning anti-Semitism?  Where were the pillars of the Jewish-American community when the time came to condemn Netanyahu for uprooting countless innocent Palestinians and forcibly expelling them from their homes so Jewish settlements could be built in their place?  Where were the Muslim-Americans who attacked Jewish-Americans for turning a blind eye to Israel’s actions in the West Bank when the time came to denounce Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib’s anti-Semitic hate speech?  And why stop at race and religion?  Where is the gay political establishment whenever it is time to speak out about cisgender homosexual community’s discrimination against the transgender community?  

The PC strain on the left is defined by demanding that all others condemn even the smallest slights against one’s own community while those making said demand continue to ignore the large-scale suffering of the communities whose support they expect.

I’d argue that there is far more traditional PC policing on the right than the left.  The 1980-present Christian Right has always had a tendency to engage in highly dogmatic #MoralGuardian behavior while also being defined in part by both a victim complex and insecurity about whether it’s overarching vision is still relevant on social issues at any given moment.  You get things like the “war on Christmas,” the Southern Baptist Convention voting to protest Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame movie*, the obsession with banning contraceptives for the sake of banning contraceptives even if it’d make the abortion rate plummet, the fear of minorities gaining acceptance (“what if this changes society so it has even less need for our vision on social issues?  *Gasp*  We might even have to change with the times!”), etc.  

Also, Trump’s whole schtick is white grievance politics.  The backbone of the Republican Party has long been identity politics, and to an even greater degree than the Democratic Party no less.  Trump isn’t new in this respect.  Trump is merely the unchecked Id of the average rank-and-file Republican, speaking with a bullhorn instead of a dog whistle.  Are all Trump voters racists?  Definitely not...but quite a few of them are, and those intending to vote for him in 2020 - racist or not - are at best choosing to turn a blind eye to explicit racism if it furthers their personal agenda.  But I digress...

TL;DR: Political correctness is a thing on the left, but not in the way most people mean when they use the term.  The traditional definition of political correctness and especially racial identity politics are far more of a Republican thing than a Democratic one.

*Even though the only real man of God in it is extremely sympathetic and the film makes a point of distinguishing between the triviality of materialistic prayers for wealth/indulgence of one’s vanity/etc and the spiritual beauty of sincere, altruistic prayers made for those more in need than oneself.  Moreover, the villain is decidedly not a true man of God, but rather implicitly compared to those who sought Christ’s death for fear of his message and even commits the sins of wrath, pride, lust, envy, [spiritual] sloth, and greed [Frollo’s obsessive craving to possess the women he lusts after as though she were an object rather than a person falls under some traditional definitions of greed] all in one scene.  If anything, you’d think religious folks would welcome a children’s film that distinguishes between A) the humble being guided by sincere faith as they help the less fortunate and B) the weak, wicked, and prideful men who use faith as a cover to rationalize their abuse of power to persecute the vulnerable.  It’s a very pro-Christian film imo.