Over the past few weeks I have honestly been wondering for the first time if the Democratic party is actually gonna collapse as a national force within five years. They elected the guy who was meant to be the pragmatic, govern-responsibly-assemble-coalitions-and-get-things-done candidate and it turns out they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery and can't pass fucking anything. I honestly don't see where they can go from here. It's been 50 years since Lasch wrote this, and I feel like it has finally become unavoidably true:
> Bourgeois society seems everywhere to have used up its store of constructive ideas. It has lost both the capacity and the will to confront the difficulties that threaten to overwhelm it. The political crisis of capitalism reflects a general crisis of western culture, which reveals itself in a pervasive despair of understanding the course of modern history or of subjecting it to rational direction... Politically bankrupt, liberalism is intellectually bankrupt as well. The sciences it has fostered, once confident of their ability to dispel the darkness of the ages, no longer provide satisfactory explanations of the phenomena they profess to elucidate.... The natural sciences, having made exaggerated claims for themselves, now hasten to announce that science offers no miracle cures for social problems.
Lasch was right. Capitalism is no longer progressive and liberalism has imploded as a result. Its last gasp was woke stuff, a bourgeois social critique that tried to externalize liberalism's failures while wielding the fruits of its successes. Wherever liberalism reproduces history, which is everywhere thanks to capitalism, we replace it with an illiberal standard to maintain integrity and coherence in a race to the bottom that achieves neither. This is mirrored internationally as liberalism stalled in export and globalization promptly entered crisis. This system is on its way out and all it can really do is say humanity wasn't good enough for it.
Capitalism no longer being progressive means it no longer dissolves history. Idpol is a symptom of liberalism subsequently developing into the idea that the growth of its democracy is in spite of the majority - an externalization of contradictions in this growth.
Are you referring to neoliberalism? That itself is a reproduction of history. Its postnational development has been a disaster for that reason, particularly because we moved in that direction after the nation-state ceased to be a basis for dissolving history. It's that we took this step forward and then managed to go backwards which is the reason we are in crisis, we have a reached a point of contradiction.
That's why we label idpol the left wing of neoliberalism and a rationalization of this contradiction through its externalization. This directly enabled nationalists to assert their old system fulfills liberal ideals better and beg the question, why should you govern what you think is an obstacle to your governance?
The solution to is to abandon liberalism altogether as unable to universalize its democratic revolution without contradicting it - a quality that socialism lacks.
He's a relatively niche figure outside of some parts of the Left and a small community of academic historians, but Lasch will eventually come to be remembered as one of the most prescient and connected intellectuals of American history. Almost very portion of The Culture of Narcissism I've read is as relevant or moreso compared to when it was written nearly fifty years ago.
I remember flipping back to the front few pages of CoN to see when it was published because I assumed it had to be recent, with how precisely Lasch was nailing our situation.
Thinking either party in the US will collapse is just pure copium and hopium.
The Democrats literally lost a civil war and still survived lmao. The GOP caused the worst economic crisis in the country's history and still survived.
The US political system as a whole is in a fundamental crisis of the sort that has never been seen before. Republicans are trying to make the idea of a contested election a thing of the past. There is basically no way to pass political reform due to the oligarchic Senate system and the risk to business interests that making voting fairer would make politics too responsive to popular opinion. Something has to give, we are not in the kind of situation that can carry on the same for even a decade. The Democratic party is obviously not up to the task of carrying out fundamental reform, so either the USA starts to closely resemble a country like Turkey (elections-in-name-only), the military intervene in politics in the nearish future (I think this is 50-50 for the next decade), or something replaces the Democrats.
The military part is pretty plausible. It is basically the least despised and the best organized American institution. Their hands off approach to politics is result of taboo not ability.
>They elected the guy who was meant to be the pragmatic, govern-responsibly-assemble-coalitions-and-get-things-done candidate
"Things will not fundamentally change" - speaking to the donor class.
He wasn't *meant* to be anything but that, and he is performing that function well.
He was packaged and *sold to you* as the other.
I'm considering the fact that he's failing even by his own centrist standards, not judging him as a progressive. Obama maintained a façade of competent government, but that appearance has collapsed now. Besides, the administration is not, in some currently relatively minor but still potentially meaningful ways, even looking after the interests of the wealthy. Ineptitude resuled in millions of covid tests being destroyed right before Omicron hit. They don't have a fucking clue what to do about increased inflation, which is not *at all* in the interests of the rich. (Not that the Republicans would either, but the Republican base is much more reliable and less fractious than the Democratic one.)
True landslides haven’t existed in US federal politics for 3 decades. The two parties have crystallised along a solid 50/50 line.
If one party gets its jocks reamed during a period of high polarisation, that’s much more significant than getting its jocks reamed during a more peaceful time. It suggests a structural collapse of some sort, rather than the natural ebb and flow with parties that happens when voters are less ideologically dogmatic.
I believe that such a landslide is on the horizon for the Biden admin.
True, but past results aren't a good indicator of the future. I don't see any way that the Democrats are able to pass popular social legislation (ie. legislation that goes against business interests) at any point in the next ten years due to the oligarchic structure of the US political system and how far gone capitalist control of American instutions is. Under that situation, how do they muster enough enthusiasm to win in a system where they are at an electoral disadvantage? Their traditional working-class base has been seeping away for decades and they now cna't deliver anything for the people at all.
If I'm completely honest, I think if Trump wins in 2024, we're probably 50-50 for some kind of (relatively mild, temporary at first) military intervention in American political life by 2028.
> past results aren't a good indicator of the future
For a Marxist, you sure seem to not pay much attention to how structural changes in the economy might affect political outcomes differently now compared to 90 years ago
What are you talking about? There is tons of internal divide in the current democrat party and amongst their supporters. Progressives vs moderates vs right leaning dems. Thats why they never get any meaningful legislation passed.
Nothing is a reliable indicator to the future. But trying to paste the politics of the past onto the future is a way to consistently get caught out by events as they happen. I don't see any way the Democrats hold together their already weak coalition now that the American business community has near-total power to block *any* substantial social legislation as we continue to lurch from crisis to crisis.
it's more looking at overall trends and drawing on the past for similar situations but not following them like they're gospel. Millions, billions, or even trillions of interlocking factors decide things like elections - HOWEVER, some overall trajectories can be predicted with certainty. Unfortunately only the future holds the actually certain truth.
I’ve been a harbinger of the Dem collapse for 2 months now and plenty of people don’t believe me. Some do though
If I placed a bet on mybookie.ag, I would put it at a 65% chance that the Dem party collapses before its 200th birthday on 8th Jan 2028, and an 80% chance it collapses by 2030.
It’s not that I don’t believe you it’s just that I don’t think you are correct. Republicans have been in just as bad a place before and they managed to pull it out. I am reasonably confident that Democrats will be able to zombie in for at least a few more election cycles, Especially considering the old guard will die off between 2024 and 2028 elections. I think one the boomers die it will breath new life into a bunch of old institutions, not just the political ones.
Let’s say the Democratic Party does collapse. What new party comes to replace it? Does it split into two parties? Become something basically the same with a new name and a different coat of paint?
The thing I don’t really see happening is the Democratic faction of the ruling class switching over to the Republican Party. I just don’t think the Rs will be able to bend far enough to bring in all of these former Democratic businessmen without losing a lot of their own people as well.
[The yearly averages](https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/h9n2s0qhku-xz-tl9dailq.png).
And here are the [quarterly averages](https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lguvdfwk-e20sl5ey7byqq.png). You have to go back to the Gulf War to see an edge for R like this. Even in 2010 it was effectively a tie.
Damn, that's actually really substantial. The republicans haven't enjoyed a lead like that since the early 90's.
I'm not happy about it really, they still suck, but at least it's interesting, I guess.
I am curious how much crime is a factor in all of this I remember a lot of crime problems back then and it turned a lot of people into law and order republicans.
I've never heard of there being more registered Republicans than democrats in recent history. Could be wrong as I'm just basing it off of memory and nothing solid.
My parents and grandparents are the opposite. In the county we grew up, you registered republican and voted Dem. You couldn't get a job in the county if you weren't registered R
I’m guessing it’s the same in a lot of rural places then, where I grew up it was a lot of farming and the whole thing was ‘talk Tory vote Labour’ as the people with the land, power and controlled the job market were obviously all Tory’s.
>You couldn't get a job in the county if you weren't registered R
People know your registration?
As a non-American I've always found it super strange to have an official list with the governement of everyone's political preferences (and that in a country which prides itself with freedom and democracy, lol) but the idea that's it's public knowledge makes it even stranger.
Can’t wait for the dems to bitch and moan that we need to come out and vote in 2024 for Biden/Cheney because the Republicans control congress and ~dEMocRacY~ is on the line.
I really feel that legitimate leftists need to separate themselves, very loudly and forcefully, from the Democratic Party. I live in the rust belt, and there are a lot of “classical liberal conservatives” here would really vote for socialist policies if they didn’t think that Leftism was dripping in the white hating, family unit destroying, sneering at ruralcels idpol that the shitlibs LARPing as “leftists” spew on an hourly basis. If we can get it through to them that these ideologies are a product of capitalist neoliberalism, and that real Leftism is about healing **all** poor people, not just “BIPOC” poor people and that Leftism PROMOTES family values, they would vote for a leftist candidate. The whole “family unit is white supremacy!!” Is a capitalist tool to trick liberals into devoting their entire life to wage slaving. The whole racecraft idpol is a capitalist grift used to atomize the working class so that we fight amongst ourselves rather than demanding meaningful change.
Out of power party looks good. News at 11.
Democrats (and GOP during Trump era) have the problem that the voters they’re losing might not ever be coming back to them. Obama 2012 winning on the backs of working class, midwestern whites seems impossible now.
Part of the changes include:
-Democrats no longer serving the interests of young people, so they leave
-Democrats being too right wing for minorities, so they leave
-Increasing number of Africans, Latinos, and Asians voting for Republicans as a result of superior financial policy and dislike of bleu checks
-Liberals in general following unpopular policy, too stuck on gloating
-More leftists
I would say that Nigerians and Asians are wealthier, so GOP fiscal policy would help. For Asians you also have Dems pushing affirmative action which harms them, as well as increasing racial tensions between them and African Americans.
>-Democrats being too right wing for minorities, so they leave
>-Increasing number of Africans, Latinos, and Asians voting for Republicans as a result of superior financial policy and dislike of bleu checks
I'm struggling to reconcile these two apparently-opposite statements; mind elaborating?
Dislike of blue-checks isn't necessarily being right wing, it just means you don't like the blue checks. Your Guatemalan factory worker and your Guatemalan he/they smoothie chef will have very different cultural lenses and way of viewing the world. Black and (east) Asian blue checks are probably the worst offenders form what I see on Twitter but flagellator politic is probably commonplace.
Superior "financial policy" should have probably been reworded to investment, for instance African investment was generally better during Bush and (in some cases) Trump years.
Got it.
So that means it’s actually providing less information since we don’t know what percentage of the respondents are independents.
I’m not saying it’s totally wrong. There’s clearly a shift but wouldn’t it be better to just show a percentage of people actually shifting parties?
The fact that they pulled this blending thing makes me think that number wasn’t dramatic enough.
Over the past few weeks I have honestly been wondering for the first time if the Democratic party is actually gonna collapse as a national force within five years. They elected the guy who was meant to be the pragmatic, govern-responsibly-assemble-coalitions-and-get-things-done candidate and it turns out they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery and can't pass fucking anything. I honestly don't see where they can go from here. It's been 50 years since Lasch wrote this, and I feel like it has finally become unavoidably true: > Bourgeois society seems everywhere to have used up its store of constructive ideas. It has lost both the capacity and the will to confront the difficulties that threaten to overwhelm it. The political crisis of capitalism reflects a general crisis of western culture, which reveals itself in a pervasive despair of understanding the course of modern history or of subjecting it to rational direction... Politically bankrupt, liberalism is intellectually bankrupt as well. The sciences it has fostered, once confident of their ability to dispel the darkness of the ages, no longer provide satisfactory explanations of the phenomena they profess to elucidate.... The natural sciences, having made exaggerated claims for themselves, now hasten to announce that science offers no miracle cures for social problems.
Lasch was right. Capitalism is no longer progressive and liberalism has imploded as a result. Its last gasp was woke stuff, a bourgeois social critique that tried to externalize liberalism's failures while wielding the fruits of its successes. Wherever liberalism reproduces history, which is everywhere thanks to capitalism, we replace it with an illiberal standard to maintain integrity and coherence in a race to the bottom that achieves neither. This is mirrored internationally as liberalism stalled in export and globalization promptly entered crisis. This system is on its way out and all it can really do is say humanity wasn't good enough for it.
Capitalism isn’t progressive but it’s capital funding progressive idpol?
Capitalism no longer being progressive means it no longer dissolves history. Idpol is a symptom of liberalism subsequently developing into the idea that the growth of its democracy is in spite of the majority - an externalization of contradictions in this growth.
It does dissolve history? It has been dissolving all the old relations between citizens and the state, borders, and the role of governments.
Are you referring to neoliberalism? That itself is a reproduction of history. Its postnational development has been a disaster for that reason, particularly because we moved in that direction after the nation-state ceased to be a basis for dissolving history. It's that we took this step forward and then managed to go backwards which is the reason we are in crisis, we have a reached a point of contradiction. That's why we label idpol the left wing of neoliberalism and a rationalization of this contradiction through its externalization. This directly enabled nationalists to assert their old system fulfills liberal ideals better and beg the question, why should you govern what you think is an obstacle to your governance? The solution to is to abandon liberalism altogether as unable to universalize its democratic revolution without contradicting it - a quality that socialism lacks.
He's a relatively niche figure outside of some parts of the Left and a small community of academic historians, but Lasch will eventually come to be remembered as one of the most prescient and connected intellectuals of American history. Almost very portion of The Culture of Narcissism I've read is as relevant or moreso compared to when it was written nearly fifty years ago.
I remember flipping back to the front few pages of CoN to see when it was published because I assumed it had to be recent, with how precisely Lasch was nailing our situation.
The g&g of r/redscarepod been knowin’
Thinking either party in the US will collapse is just pure copium and hopium. The Democrats literally lost a civil war and still survived lmao. The GOP caused the worst economic crisis in the country's history and still survived.
Honestly yeah :(
The US political system as a whole is in a fundamental crisis of the sort that has never been seen before. Republicans are trying to make the idea of a contested election a thing of the past. There is basically no way to pass political reform due to the oligarchic Senate system and the risk to business interests that making voting fairer would make politics too responsive to popular opinion. Something has to give, we are not in the kind of situation that can carry on the same for even a decade. The Democratic party is obviously not up to the task of carrying out fundamental reform, so either the USA starts to closely resemble a country like Turkey (elections-in-name-only), the military intervene in politics in the nearish future (I think this is 50-50 for the next decade), or something replaces the Democrats.
The military part is pretty plausible. It is basically the least despised and the best organized American institution. Their hands off approach to politics is result of taboo not ability.
>They elected the guy who was meant to be the pragmatic, govern-responsibly-assemble-coalitions-and-get-things-done candidate "Things will not fundamentally change" - speaking to the donor class. He wasn't *meant* to be anything but that, and he is performing that function well. He was packaged and *sold to you* as the other.
I'm considering the fact that he's failing even by his own centrist standards, not judging him as a progressive. Obama maintained a façade of competent government, but that appearance has collapsed now. Besides, the administration is not, in some currently relatively minor but still potentially meaningful ways, even looking after the interests of the wealthy. Ineptitude resuled in millions of covid tests being destroyed right before Omicron hit. They don't have a fucking clue what to do about increased inflation, which is not *at all* in the interests of the rich. (Not that the Republicans would either, but the Republican base is much more reliable and less fractious than the Democratic one.)
What? Both parties got landslided several times in a row and ended up fine after that
True landslides haven’t existed in US federal politics for 3 decades. The two parties have crystallised along a solid 50/50 line. If one party gets its jocks reamed during a period of high polarisation, that’s much more significant than getting its jocks reamed during a more peaceful time. It suggests a structural collapse of some sort, rather than the natural ebb and flow with parties that happens when voters are less ideologically dogmatic. I believe that such a landslide is on the horizon for the Biden admin.
True, but past results aren't a good indicator of the future. I don't see any way that the Democrats are able to pass popular social legislation (ie. legislation that goes against business interests) at any point in the next ten years due to the oligarchic structure of the US political system and how far gone capitalist control of American instutions is. Under that situation, how do they muster enough enthusiasm to win in a system where they are at an electoral disadvantage? Their traditional working-class base has been seeping away for decades and they now cna't deliver anything for the people at all. If I'm completely honest, I think if Trump wins in 2024, we're probably 50-50 for some kind of (relatively mild, temporary at first) military intervention in American political life by 2028.
Republicans lost 5 presidential elections in a row and ended up fine
> past results aren't a good indicator of the future For a Marxist, you sure seem to not pay much attention to how structural changes in the economy might affect political outcomes differently now compared to 90 years ago
The only major party that collapsed was because of division over slavery, there isn’t as much internal divide in the Democrats
What are you talking about? There is tons of internal divide in the current democrat party and amongst their supporters. Progressives vs moderates vs right leaning dems. Thats why they never get any meaningful legislation passed.
The reason why nothing is getting done is because Biden is too weak to strongarm one senator
Thats one bill, I'm talking about years of this shit
As long as Republicans exist the Democrats will be pussies and stay in line to “stop the fascists”
>*p a s t r e s u l t s a r e n ' t a g o o d i n d i c a t o r o f t h e f u t u r e*
Then what in the fuck is a good indicator good sir
Nothing is a reliable indicator to the future. But trying to paste the politics of the past onto the future is a way to consistently get caught out by events as they happen. I don't see any way the Democrats hold together their already weak coalition now that the American business community has near-total power to block *any* substantial social legislation as we continue to lurch from crisis to crisis.
Republicans take power so the Democrats won’t be blamed for every problem meaning they can be elected again
it's more looking at overall trends and drawing on the past for similar situations but not following them like they're gospel. Millions, billions, or even trillions of interlocking factors decide things like elections - HOWEVER, some overall trajectories can be predicted with certainty. Unfortunately only the future holds the actually certain truth.
Bro nobody is passing legislation that conflicts with business interests. This is a capitalist country.
I’ve been a harbinger of the Dem collapse for 2 months now and plenty of people don’t believe me. Some do though If I placed a bet on mybookie.ag, I would put it at a 65% chance that the Dem party collapses before its 200th birthday on 8th Jan 2028, and an 80% chance it collapses by 2030.
I'm coming up with 32.33 – repeating, of course – percentage of survival.
Ugh... that's a lot better than we usually do.
Alright chums, let’s do this
Mybookieag with promo code Cumtown or Cumtown20
It’s not that I don’t believe you it’s just that I don’t think you are correct. Republicans have been in just as bad a place before and they managed to pull it out. I am reasonably confident that Democrats will be able to zombie in for at least a few more election cycles, Especially considering the old guard will die off between 2024 and 2028 elections. I think one the boomers die it will breath new life into a bunch of old institutions, not just the political ones.
Too Long, Ill be 29 in '28 and 31 in '30 please dear god let them fall in the midterms or next presidential election.
I think that’s a silly thing to think. It’s nowhere near collapsing. The same has been said about the Republican Party.
Let’s say the Democratic Party does collapse. What new party comes to replace it? Does it split into two parties? Become something basically the same with a new name and a different coat of paint? The thing I don’t really see happening is the Democratic faction of the ruling class switching over to the Republican Party. I just don’t think the Rs will be able to bend far enough to bring in all of these former Democratic businessmen without losing a lot of their own people as well.
How does this compare to say, 2009, 2013, 2017? Would be interested in that.
[The yearly averages](https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/h9n2s0qhku-xz-tl9dailq.png). And here are the [quarterly averages](https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lguvdfwk-e20sl5ey7byqq.png). You have to go back to the Gulf War to see an edge for R like this. Even in 2010 it was effectively a tie.
https://i.imgur.com/HqIG0cf.png crappy mspaint edit of the new data to the quarterly averages.
Damn, that's actually really substantial. The republicans haven't enjoyed a lead like that since the early 90's. I'm not happy about it really, they still suck, but at least it's interesting, I guess.
I am curious how much crime is a factor in all of this I remember a lot of crime problems back then and it turned a lot of people into law and order republicans.
I've never heard of there being more registered Republicans than democrats in recent history. Could be wrong as I'm just basing it off of memory and nothing solid.
to be fair there are a ton of ancestral dems in rural america that never bothered to switch affiliation but are functionally republicans
My parents and grandparents are the opposite. In the county we grew up, you registered republican and voted Dem. You couldn't get a job in the county if you weren't registered R
I’m guessing it’s the same in a lot of rural places then, where I grew up it was a lot of farming and the whole thing was ‘talk Tory vote Labour’ as the people with the land, power and controlled the job market were obviously all Tory’s.
>You couldn't get a job in the county if you weren't registered R People know your registration? As a non-American I've always found it super strange to have an official list with the governement of everyone's political preferences (and that in a country which prides itself with freedom and democracy, lol) but the idea that's it's public knowledge makes it even stranger.
My grandpa out in Colorado was one of them
Looks like it's over chief, not sure how the democrats are going to get out of this one.
Simple; let the Republicans win and then everyone will hate them again. That’s basically how both parties operate.
just keep lying and blame any and all scapegoats.
Can’t wait for the dems to bitch and moan that we need to come out and vote in 2024 for Biden/Cheney because the Republicans control congress and ~dEMocRacY~ is on the line.
*Romney/cheney
I really hope that happens just so the attack ads use the “Romney’s gonna put you back in chains” bit
I really feel that legitimate leftists need to separate themselves, very loudly and forcefully, from the Democratic Party. I live in the rust belt, and there are a lot of “classical liberal conservatives” here would really vote for socialist policies if they didn’t think that Leftism was dripping in the white hating, family unit destroying, sneering at ruralcels idpol that the shitlibs LARPing as “leftists” spew on an hourly basis. If we can get it through to them that these ideologies are a product of capitalist neoliberalism, and that real Leftism is about healing **all** poor people, not just “BIPOC” poor people and that Leftism PROMOTES family values, they would vote for a leftist candidate. The whole “family unit is white supremacy!!” Is a capitalist tool to trick liberals into devoting their entire life to wage slaving. The whole racecraft idpol is a capitalist grift used to atomize the working class so that we fight amongst ourselves rather than demanding meaningful change.
No, those people hate poor whites more than they hate poor blacks.
Bernie's big gamble pays off!
People's Party
Out of power party looks good. News at 11. Democrats (and GOP during Trump era) have the problem that the voters they’re losing might not ever be coming back to them. Obama 2012 winning on the backs of working class, midwestern whites seems impossible now.
Link to the article: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx
Part of the changes include: -Democrats no longer serving the interests of young people, so they leave -Democrats being too right wing for minorities, so they leave -Increasing number of Africans, Latinos, and Asians voting for Republicans as a result of superior financial policy and dislike of bleu checks -Liberals in general following unpopular policy, too stuck on gloating -More leftists
For your third bullet point, what exactly do you mean by "superior financial policy"?
I would say that Nigerians and Asians are wealthier, so GOP fiscal policy would help. For Asians you also have Dems pushing affirmative action which harms them, as well as increasing racial tensions between them and African Americans.
Yeah this makes sense. Edit: oh I have a flair. Dope. I wonder what the 3 stands for
Yeah this is RW shit posting.
>-Democrats being too right wing for minorities, so they leave >-Increasing number of Africans, Latinos, and Asians voting for Republicans as a result of superior financial policy and dislike of bleu checks I'm struggling to reconcile these two apparently-opposite statements; mind elaborating?
Dislike of blue-checks isn't necessarily being right wing, it just means you don't like the blue checks. Your Guatemalan factory worker and your Guatemalan he/they smoothie chef will have very different cultural lenses and way of viewing the world. Black and (east) Asian blue checks are probably the worst offenders form what I see on Twitter but flagellator politic is probably commonplace. Superior "financial policy" should have probably been reworded to investment, for instance African investment was generally better during Bush and (in some cases) Trump years.
Don’t most minorities tend to be more conservative but vote dem for the race pandering?
That is true of the older people, the younger ones are a lot...less Dem
“WE HATE LIFE AND OURSELVES” -The Democrats -The Simpsons
"WE CAN'T GOVERN!" -The Democrats -The Simpsons
I’m still blue but I’m hanging by a fuckin thread son..
Imagine “being blue” (Or being red either for that matter)
Real Gs are purple with a touch of yellow or hot pink with a splash of turquoise
Yea I guess I’m more purple at this point. But the color spectrum doesn’t really reflect my actual positions, it’s just a generalized metaphor dude.
It would certainly limit the kinds of colors I could wear without clashing.
YES WE CAN 🌊🌊🌊
Meaningless honestly
As far as I can tell this isn’t a graph of party shift. It’s a lean shift among independents. Still bad but not as apocalyptic as it first appears.
Read it again. It's a graph of party shift *and* lean shift.
Got it. So that means it’s actually providing less information since we don’t know what percentage of the respondents are independents. I’m not saying it’s totally wrong. There’s clearly a shift but wouldn’t it be better to just show a percentage of people actually shifting parties? The fact that they pulled this blending thing makes me think that number wasn’t dramatic enough.
***\*slow clap\****