The Political Compass charts are a complete joke exhibit #15981882

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Political Compass is kinda like Atlas, a relic of the early internet where you could get a lot of attention and credibility by snagging the right domain name regardless of the quality and actual correctness of your info.

[The Mikado]

Political Compass is kinda like Atlas, a relic of the early internet where you could get a lot of attention and credibility by snagging the right domain name regardless of the quality and actual correctness of your info.

Are you questioning the quality or correctness of Dave Leip's maps?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Political Compass is kinda like Atlas, a relic of the early internet where you could get a lot of attention and credibility by snagging the right domain name regardless of the quality and actual correctness of your info.

Are you questioning the quality or correctness of Dave Leip's maps?

Oh no only comparing them as being part of the early internet .

[GeneralMacArthur]

Political Compass is kinda like Atlas, a relic of the early internet where you could get a lot of attention and credibility by snagging the right domain name regardless of the quality and actual correctness of your info.

uselectionatlas.org isn't exactly the hottest domain name

[LAKISYLVANIA]

It's obvious that it's trash. I'm perhaps not the biggest fan of Biden, but he's certainly not auth-right. He's more to the center, and was certainly more to the right previously in his career (as well as more auth), but right now his presidency is perhaps one of the most, if not the most, lib-left presidencies we ever got, exc. for some issues (mostly foreign policy perhaps). So I would place him slightly or moderately lib-left. America as a whole is however more auth-right obviously, and the Democratic Party itself has been moving more lib-left (mostly lib), but in the 2000's perhaps still was around the center.

Of course political compasses do evolve as well. The world is different than 50 years ago, and different than 100 years ago. What was considered left back than, might not be left-wing enough today.

That being said, i disagree with General MacArthur. The primaries in 2016 were rigged, and Hillary Clinton was a questionable candidate. I do however agree that painting Trump as left-wing on some issues (which i'm guilty of well) was basically cherrypicking or not being informed enough, and that he was no good alternative to Trump, but Clinton wasn't a good candidate either, and let's not forget that. But painting Bernie Sanders as a traitor for not cooperating or siding with the Greens is certainly a tankie take.

[GeneralMacArthur]

]The primaries in 2016 were rigged

I'll bite very briefly.  Which lie is your lie of choice?

DWS must have rigged the primary because we hacked her entire e-mail account, exposing her entire nefarious plot, and found an e-mail near the end of the primary where she called Bernie's campaign manager a dick?

The media must have rigged the primary because we hacked Jon Podesta's e-mail account and found one single e-mail where Donna Brazile told them about a debate question?

The superdelegates rigged the primary by endorsing Hillary Clinton?

or is there some other conspiracy you're into?

After the 1/6 attack, and all the other stuff we've seen, proof of the nefarious impact a claim of "rigged election" can have, how can you still stand behind these outlandish five-year-old claims without feeling an immense sense of shame?

[VBM]

]The primaries in 2016 were rigged

I'll bite very briefly.  Which lie is your lie of choice?

DWS must have rigged the primary because we hacked her entire e-mail account, exposing her entire nefarious plot, and found an e-mail near the end of the primary where she called Bernie's campaign manager a dick?

The media must have rigged the primary because we hacked Jon Podesta's e-mail account and found one single e-mail where Donna Brazile told them about a debate question?

The superdelegates rigged the primary by endorsing Hillary Clinton?

or is there some other conspiracy you're into?

After the 1/6 attack, and all the other stuff we've seen, proof of the nefarious impact a claim of "rigged election" can have, how can you still stand behind these outlandish five-year-old claims without feeling an immense sense of shame?

Didn’t one of the leaked emails talk about lowering Latino support for Bernie, and another talked about bringing up his religious beliefs in order to make him do worse in Appalachian states?

[GeneralMacArthur]

]The primaries in 2016 were rigged

I'll bite very briefly.  Which lie is your lie of choice?

DWS must have rigged the primary because we hacked her entire e-mail account, exposing her entire nefarious plot, and found an e-mail near the end of the primary where she called Bernie's campaign manager a dick?

The media must have rigged the primary because we hacked Jon Podesta's e-mail account and found one single e-mail where Donna Brazile told them about a debate question?

The superdelegates rigged the primary by endorsing Hillary Clinton?

or is there some other conspiracy you're into?

After the 1/6 attack, and all the other stuff we've seen, proof of the nefarious impact a claim of "rigged election" can have, how can you still stand behind these outlandish five-year-old claims without feeling an immense sense of shame?

Didn’t one of the leaked emails talk about lowering Latino support for Bernie, and another talked about bringing up his religious beliefs in order to make him do worse in Appalachian states?

No.  Towards the end of the primary, there was an e-mail thread to the tune of "Bernie's refusal to drop out is a really really big problem, he's preventing the party from unifying and attacking us and our nominee on a daily basis, this could end up swinging the election towards Trump."

One guy on the thread (one employee out of thousand) wrote an e-mail "we could try hurting him in the few remaining contests, maybe by bringing up his atheism."  But nobody on the e-mail thread even acknowledges his stupid idea, much less takes him up on it.  It's just one guy talking out of his ass to vent his frustrations -- happens all the time at work.

It's truly amazing to me that an example of the DNC senior staff refusing to even consider doing the most mild thing imaginable to hurt Bernie -- to avoid the impression of bias -- became one of the biggest pieces of evidence that they were biased and were hurting Bernie.  Here's a hint: if the primary were actually rigged, this guy wouldn't have been talking about taking him down a few percentage points in late primary states.

but people believe whatever they want to believe.  Bernie could never lose fairly, it must have been rigged.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

]The primaries in 2016 were rigged

I'll bite very briefly.  Which lie is your lie of choice?

DWS must have rigged the primary because we hacked her entire e-mail account, exposing her entire nefarious plot, and found an e-mail near the end of the primary where she called Bernie's campaign manager a dick?

The media must have rigged the primary because we hacked Jon Podesta's e-mail account and found one single e-mail where Donna Brazile told them about a debate question?

The superdelegates rigged the primary by endorsing Hillary Clinton?

or is there some other conspiracy you're into?

After the 1/6 attack, and all the other stuff we've seen, proof of the nefarious impact a claim of "rigged election" can have, how can you still stand behind these outlandish five-year-old claims without feeling an immense sense of shame?

You all know what happened, or did you forget the Wikileaks in 2016???

On July 22, WikiLeaks published the Democratic National Committee email leak, in which DNC operatives seemed to deride Bernie Sanders' campaign[12] and discuss ways to advance Clinton's nomination,[13] leading to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other implicated officials. The leak was allegedly part of an operation by the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton.[14][15] Although the ensuing controversy initially focused on emails that dated from relatively late in the primary, when Clinton was already close to securing the nomination,[13] the emails cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality and, according to Sanders operatives and multiple media commentators, showed that the DNC had favored Clinton since early on.[16][17][18][19][20] This was evidenced by alleged bias in the scheduling and conduct of the debates,[c] as well as controversial DNC–Clinton agreements regarding financial arrangements and control over policy and hiring decisions.[d] Other media commentators have disputed the significance of the emails, arguing that the DNC's internal preference for Clinton was not historically unusual and did not affect the primary enough to sway the outcome.[28][29][30][31] The controversies ultimately led to the formation of a DNC "unity" commission to recommend reforms in the party's primary process.[32][33]

- Superdelegates
- Bernie getting almost no endorsements
- Debate rigging
- Media rigging
- DNC rigging

I am ashamed of how people can call what happened in 2016 a democratic process.

Yes at the end, she likely still would've won, but the process of it was so disgusting. 2020 went more fairly.

[GeneralMacArthur]

You all know what happened, or did you forget the Wikileaks in 2016???

Yes, that is what I brought up in my comment.  As far as I am aware the sole basis for people still thinking 2016 was rigged comes from 2 or 3 WikiLeaks e-mails that are all perfectly innocuous in context... and even out of context.  It's so monumentally stupid that people bought into this crap.  But then people will buy into anything if it tells them what they want to believe.  Hundreds of people believed Jim Jones was going to build a socialist utopia out in the Guyanese jungle.

All WikiLeaks showed was that a few people at the DNC thought Bernie was an asshole.  That is not evidence that they rigged the election against him.  Nor is it evidence that they killed his dog.  Nor is it evidence that they conspired to cause his heart attack.  Nor is it evidence of any other nefarious conspiracy he'd like to blame on his "enemies."

Similarly, Brad Raffensperger calling Trump an asshole in private would not be evidence that the Georgia election was rigged.  Katie Hobbs calling Trump an asshole in private would not be evidence that the Arizona election was rigged.  Both of these people would have good reason to call Trump an asshole, since thanks to his wild accusations they have both received countless death threats.  Just like how DWS and the superdelegates received countless death threats thanks to Bernie's wild accusations in 2016.

- Superdelegates
- Bernie getting almost no endorsements
- Debate rigging
- Media rigging
- DNC rigging

"Superdelegates" and "Bernie getting almost no endorsements" are the same thing since superdelegates are just endorsements.  It's Bernie's own fault he didn't get endorsements.  If he wasn't such an asshole, maybe he would've.  He barely got any serious endorsements in 2020 either, but nobody says 2020 was rigged.  No governors, no senators other than Leahy, nine representatives (mostly just the squad and company), and of the 2020 dropouts only BDB and Marianne.  He couldn't even get Warren, Tulsi or Yang to endorse him.

"Debate rigging" is there any evidence of this or just the Donna Brazile e-mail that's literally the most harmless, stupid thing in history?

"Media rigging" this constantly gets cited and never turns out to be anything other more than whining about cherry-picked clips of pundits saying mean things about Bernie.  The punditry was far meaner to Hillary Clinton anyway.  But Hillary doesn't have an entire Wikipedia article cataloguing every time she was criticized on MSNBC.

"DNC rigging" is circular since that is what this list is supposedly trying to demonstrate.

The election wasn't rigged against Bernie, he just didn't get any help because everyone thought he was an asshole.  And then he proved them all right by declaring that people criticizing him, or not kissing his boots, was proof that it was all rigged against him.  The maddening thing is that DWS and the DNC actually did go out of their way to help him at several points in the primary, partly because he was calling it all "rigged" and they wanted to demonstrate that he was wrong... and all they got for their troubles was a kick in the balls.

[Continential]

- Bernie getting almost no endorsements

That is not anti-democratic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I forgot about this one but it might be their dumbest one ever:


So Jay Inslee, whose primary issue in his campaign was an aggressive Green New Deal-like program to battle climate change, is to the right economically of Donald Trump.

Also Beto O'Rourke, who once tweeted this, has called for an end to the War on Drugs and reparations to those affected by it, and spent much of his career in municipal politics fighting with the police federation is closer to the governments of North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and Singapore on the authoritarian axis than...Uruguay and Switzerland. Or even the center point on that axis.

(Also big time LOL@Switzerland, a country that gave women the right to vote later than Iran, voted to ban minarets, is notorious for xenophobia and racial profiling by police at levels comparable to the US, and where the largest party is one in the vein of the Front National or AfD, being one of the few countries on Earth on the libertarian side of that axis.)

[Conservatopia]

I think it would be cool to get together and make our own Atlae one.  I know there's already the PM but it's kind of naff.

It can't be hard.  You just decide how far in each direction each answer moves you.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I think it would be cool to get together and make our own Atlae one.  I know there's already the PM but it's kind of naff.

It can't be hard.  You just decide how far in each direction each answer moves you.

It would be cool with an establishment/populist axis.  Or practical/revolutionary.

[PSOL]

The political compass should be retired already. Given that the first one, the Nolan Chart, was born already as a garbage #hottake I mean it was evident everything after it would also be bad.

[Conservatopia]

I think it would be cool to get together and make our own Atlae one.  I know there's already the PM but it's kind of naff.

It can't be hard.  You just decide how far in each direction each answer moves you.

It would be cool with an establishment/populist axis.  Or practical/revolutionary.

Wouldn't make sense. I might be populist in Britain but part of the establishment in Kenya or whatever.  I think the axes are good the way they are.

That being said the whole idea of trying to pin down how somebody thinks onto a chart is dumb.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Another big issue is the Y axis doesn't really distinguish between what we think of as social conservativism and political authoritarianism. Based on the "reading list" it sort of uses the former for the upper right and latter for upper left. The test kind of blends them together. But this creates some odd scenarios: like does anyone seriously believe that Mao should be lowered a bit on that axis because he legalized abortion or that even matters in regards to his full record? For a more contemporary example what about a Christian conservative like Matt Walsh who is also pretty critical of the NSA, strongly supports Edward Snowden and supports marijuana legalization?

Neither of course justifies placing Democrats as high on that axis as they do obviously. From some of their writings you can glean some justifications they'd use like arguing that the death penalty is such an extreme use of state power that no one who supports it can be on the lower half...but even that doesn't work because most of the Democrats they were plotting oppose the death penalty.