Few people are actually liberal, arrogance not warranted

[renard_ruse]

If you consider that liberals only win majorities thanks to demographic block votes, the true liberal is actually a small minority of the population.

In fact, the liberal strategy since at least the FDR years was to win by coopting the white blue coller vote, many white "ethnics", and blacks. In the past 30-40 years, they have simply changed the groups they co-op to win elections. Today, they have switched out the white blue collar workers and white ethincs (both of which have faded as significant blocks of the population anyway due to assimilation and economic change), and replaced them with non-black/non-white racial block votes (while maintaining a near total stranglehold on the black vote).

Yet, large parts of these population blocks would not really be considered liberal to the extent that the politicians they elect would be. So, if you consider actual "party line" liberals, the vast majority of people are not liberals. A good way to view it, is to look at the white population, which tends to vote ideologically rather than ethnically or racially (a few do, but the vast majority do not). White liberals probably compose less than a third of whites. So, taking that as a benchmark, we can extrapolate that similar numbers of other racial groups are liberals as opposed to simply voting for liberals because they consider them better for their group interests or because they believe that conservatives "hate them."

Thus, the liberal arrogance is not warranted. They win elections, but only because people who aren't liberal vote for them for other reasons.

 

[Bert Notorius]

getting a liberal to admit they are liberal is about as unlikely as getting one to loan you a dollar.

 

[cowslinger64]

If you consider that liberals only win majorities thanks to demographic block votes, the true liberal is actually a small minority of the population.

.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-fight-dems-house/

GOP gerrymandering creates uphill fight for Dems in the House

 

[Que]

It's fun when they are voted out of power in a state, they howl about gerrymandering and seem to forget that the redistricting is necessary to remove the gerrymandering that they instituted to cling to power when they did not have a legitimate mandate.

I have yet to hear a Democrat acknowledge that "Gerry" for whom gerrymandering was named, was from Massachusetts, that bastion of Conservatism.

 

[cowslinger64]

It's fun when they are voted out of power in a state, they howl about gerrymandering and seem to forget that the redistricting is necessary to remove the gerrymandering that they instituted to cling to power when they did not have a legitimate mandate.

I have yet to hear a Democrat acknowledge that "Gerry" for whom gerrymandering was named, was from Massachusetts, that bastion of Conservatism.

I can see yet another of my posts was lost on you. I only responded to his silliness.

Perhaps you can come up with an even older, even less relevant study to prove me wrong.


I'm going to bed. Goodnight Mr. IQ Test

 

[CandiCame]

I don't self-report as liberal, either. Like you've mentioned, most people don't. I don't know why that shocks the OP. But it's like... you don't post anything at all to back up any of your claims, so. Who the hell knows.

 

[1sickbastard]

I don't self-report as liberal, either. Like you've mentioned, most people don't. I don't know why that shocks the OP. But it's like... you don't post anything at all to back up any of your claims, so. Who the hell knows.

It's not about backing up the claim, it's about making the claim then shifting the burden of proof so the claim never has to be substantiated in the first place.

And it explains a good share of the posts/threads started by the wingnuts on this forum and a great deal of modern day politics.

 

[Que]

Are there people that are unaware of, or arguing against the common knowledge fact that there are far less people labeling themselves as liberal than conservative in this country?

There are no polls in the last 50 years showing anything different than that.

I trust even the lowest informed posters here have heard of Gallup?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/180452/liberals-record-trail-conservatives.aspx

The above is the best number you will find. 24%.

1 in 4 people in America like your rabidly liberal ideas. It doesn't take Gerrymandering to win when your opponents have so few in numbers. Liberals win as the OP has suggested by politics of division by recruiting voters from the Gruber- identified useful idiots. 35% of Americans basically have no idea and are easily swayed by advertising and a good campaign. Vote only for the Presidential elections. Mid-terms are when issue voters turn up. Presidential elections and the seats up for grabs at that time are decided by cult of personality.

At present that 24% is an all-time high because Obama has made being liberal "cool." For now.

People identifying as "liberal" or "conservative" as opposed to "moderate" does not directly translate to Republican or Democrat. Republicans have become less conservative, Democrats more liberal. People willing to admit to being a Democrat to a pollster is at an all-time low. Obama is personally popular, but the idiotic defense of his policies has damaged the brand.

Over the past 22 years, Americans' ideological bent, or at least their willingness to associate with certain labels, has changed in subtle ways. Although the "liberal" moniker remains the least favorite, it has enjoyed the most growth, while "conservative" is up slightly and "moderate" has waned. But to a large extent, these changes reflect opposing ideological shifts within the parties, not national trends. That helps explain how there could be a record proportion of liberals at a time when Democratic identification was at a long-term low. Likewise, even though 2014 was a strong election year for the Republican Party, Gallup found no increase in conservatism in 2014 compared with 2013. All of this happened at the same time that political independence was peaking, which is to say that ideological polarization and the strength of the two major parties don't necessarily go hand in hand. In fact, one may undermine the other.

 

[JustaSCOUNDREL]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-fight-dems-house/

GOP gerrymandering creates uphill fight for Dems in the House

As of course, we all know, gerrymandering, is only done by conservatives. Not a single soul from the other side would stoop so low low as to try to stack the deck in their own favor.

Naw, no liberal would ever do something like that!!!!!

 

[about_average]

As of course, we all know, gerrymandering, is only done by conservatives. Not a single soul from the other side would stoop so low low as to try to stack the deck in their own favor.

Naw, no liberal would ever do something like that!!!!!

Nice to see you didn't read the linked article.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

getting a liberal to admit they are liberal is about as unlikely as getting one to loan you a dollar.

Loan me a dollar.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't self-report as liberal, either. Like you've mentioned, most people don't. I don't know why that shocks the OP. But it's like... you don't post anything at all to back up any of your claims, so. Who the hell knows.

There ARE fewer number of folks self-identifying as a liberal.

This is a victory for Saint Gipper's attempts to repurpose the word "liberal" as an epithet 30+ years ago.

Scratch beneath the surface, though, and ask questions about individual policies. You'll find very few "conservatives" are supportive of AJ and Ishmael's "Fuck 'em, let Grandma eat cat food!" ideology.

 

[Pookie]

People label themselves as a lot of things. It doesn't mean they are. A lot of factors play a role in self-identification. Reality doesn't always play a major role in that either. Often self-identification is the result of things like peer pressure and such, and not so much on a person's real views. Some self-identification is just based in ignorance. Some is just self-serving.

"We don't need socialist medicine like Obamacare, but don't you dare touch my medicare!"

 

[PeteHulbert37]

People label themselves as a lot of things. It doesn't mean they are. A lot of factors play a role in self-identification. Reality doesn't always play a major role in that either. Often self-identification is the result of things like peer pressure and such, and not so much on a person's real views. Some self-identification is just based in ignorance. Some is just self-serving.

"We don't need socialist medicine like Obamacare, but don't you dare touch my medicare!"

You paid for medicare out of your paycheck for years so you'd have healthcare when you retire. Obamacare is you paying for someone else's healthcare.

I have never understood why democrats don't like being referred to as liberal. I am a republican and don't mind being called a conservative. You can even call me an evil conservative, and I won't get offended. You can even call me a right winger. I don't care. I own my shit. Liberals go bananas when you call them what they are. I don't get it.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think she meant to say medicaid...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

...

I have never understood why democrats don't like being referred to as liberal. I am a republican and don't mind being called a conservative. You can even call me an evil conservative, and I won't get offended. You can even call me a right winger. I don't care. I own my shit. Liberals go bananas when you call them what they are. I don't get it.

They reserve for themselves the right to control language and definitions. They label.

 

[Que]

They reserve for themselves the right to control language and definitions. They label.

Because their ideas appeal to less than 1/4 of the population- mostly those that hope to benefit from, or be in charge of the re distributive process (some pigs being more equal than others), they are continually re-branding. It is like GM calling their trucks "Industrial Grade." When that, too, becomes a laughingstock, they will call it something else.

You get similar numbers whatever the label. "Progressive" is waning in usage, I don't know what their next new label for their tired ideas will be.

 

[Pookie]

You paid for medicare out of your paycheck for years so you'd have healthcare when you retire. Obamacare is you paying for someone else's healthcare.

I have never understood why democrats don't like being referred to as liberal. I am a republican and don't mind being called a conservative. You can even call me an evil conservative, and I won't get offended. You can even call me a right winger. I don't care. I own my shit. Liberals go bananas when you call them what they are. I don't get it.

They're both "socialism". Redistribution of wealth and such. The money taken from paychecks "today" pay for others medicare "today". The same will happen when you're on medicare. You'll likely draw more in benefits than you actually paid in as well.

Assuming all democrats are liberals is just as silly as assuming all republicans are conservatives. Political philosophy and party identification are far from being the same thing. Most people have a mix of liberal and conservative views. Talk to a "conservative" or a "liberal" enough and you find that out, especially in a "neutral" setting. I'm liberal about a lot of things but conservative about others. I'm willing to bet you are to some degree as well.

 

[Pookie]

They reserve for themselves the right to control language and definitions. They label.

Just as you do, AJ. Just as everyone else. Don't pretend like you're someone special.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Because their ideas appeal to less than 1/4 of the population- mostly those that hope to benefit from, or be in charge of the re distributive process (some pigs being more equal than others), they are continually re-branding. It is like GM calling their trucks "Industrial Grade." When that, too, becomes a laughingstock, they will call it something else.

You get similar numbers whatever the label. "Progressive" is waning in usage, I don't know what their next new label for their tired ideas will be.

I thought it was pragmatic centrism...

 

[Pookie]

I think she meant to say medicaid...

Medicaid as well.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Just as you do, AJ. Just as everyone else. Don't pretend like you're someone special.

You're all socialists...

 

[cowslinger64]

Because their ideas appeal to less than 1/4 of the population- mostly those that hope to benefit from, or be in charge of the re distributive process (some pigs being more equal than others), they are continually re-branding. It is like GM calling their trucks "Industrial Grade." When that, too, becomes a laughingstock, they will call it something else.

You get similar numbers whatever the label. "Progressive" is waning in usage, I don't know what their next new label for their tired ideas will be.

You got up early to post that crap? That is the most ridiculously overused term out there, and most misused. Why would someone like you that doesn't even HAVE a job worry so much about the rich? Who's paying for your healthcare again? Me?

While your entire post was rather much garbage.... that stood out to me. It's obvious you haven't been paying attention, and the re-distribution you whine about didn't come OFF the top, it went TO the top.

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/

A new study shows that the gap in the wealth that different American households have accumulated is more exreme than any at time since the Great Depression


=============

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014...ars-of-income-inequality-in-america-in-graphs

look at the graph in that one especially.


==============


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...n-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/

U.S. income inequality, on rise for decades, is now highest since 1928

 

[Pookie]

There ARE fewer number of folks self-identifying as a liberal.

This is a victory for Saint Gipper's attempts to repurpose the word "liberal" as an epithet 30+ years ago.

Scratch beneath the surface, though, and ask questions about individual policies. You'll find very few "conservatives" are supportive of AJ and Ishmael's "Fuck 'em, let Grandma eat cat food!" ideology.

Hiding behind labels is so much more fun though. It's like you belong to an exclusive club. It gives you that warm and fuzzy. I'm a conservative! Just like my buddies!

 

[RobDownSouth]

They reserve for themselves the right to control language and definitions. They label.

Tell us again why it's okay for you and Ishmael to say "nigger", but we should all get a case of the vapors if someone says "RentAGook".

Smacks of a duh-bull standard to me.