2020 Elections

[marshwiggle]

how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way.

I don't think there are as many of those as you seem to think there are. In fact, I rather doubt there are more of them than there are very left- or even right-leaning potential Democratic voters. Catering largely or exclusively to the interests of this tiny slice of the electoral pie at the expense of those other constituencies, which the Democrats take for granted--which seems like the strategy, just like it was in 2016--looks to me like cutting your nose off to spite your face. As someone whose nose was actually cut off (yes, literally), I know a thing or two about that scenario.

So what happened to all of the people who voted for Obama (twice!)? I doubt there were a lot of far-right white supremacists among them. Did vast numbers of them get "supressed" for Trump to win? Or were there any significant number who switched? If so, those are the ones to investigate.

Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist".

Where have you been the last several months? Protestors have been assaulted and arrested en masse. In New York state, a judge recently ruled they could be held without charge indefinitely (rather than for 24 hours), because there were "too many to process and charge". Shouting "BLM" is a surefire way to have the police gas you, beat you down, drive their vehicles into you, club you in the pregnant belly, etc.

That illustrates my point; anyone saying "BLM" is clearly oppressed and mistreated. By definition.

[Parasaurolophus]

So what happened to all of the people who voted for Obama (twice!)? I doubt there were a lot of far-right white supremacists among them. Did vast numbers of them get "supressed" for Trump to win? Or were there any significant number who switched? If so, those are the ones to investigate.

My understanding is that ~9% of Obama voters voted Trump, 7% didn't vote, and 3% voted third party.

Of the 9% that switched to Trump, I'm not convinced that they're accurately described as 'moderates' who can be appealed to with straight-down-the-centre policies. Between Comey's ratfucking and Clinton's image problem, I rather suspect you snag a significant chunk of them.

Crucially, if you campaign and govern for that 9%, or give the impression that's only, or primarily, what you care about, you're excluding everyone else who votes for you. Or, rather, taking their support for granted. And that can easily backfire.

That illustrates my point; anyone saying "BLM" is clearly oppressed and mistreated. By definition.

Uh. By action, not definition. Their speech is being met with state-sanctioned violence. If you want to show how unoppressed they are, don't gas them or beat them down or arrest them. Or, you know: kill them for no good reason.

[marshwiggle]

So what happened to all of the people who voted for Obama (twice!)? I doubt there were a lot of far-right white supremacists among them. Did vast numbers of them get "supressed" for Trump to win? Or were there any significant number who switched? If so, those are the ones to investigate.

My understanding is that ~9% of Obama voters voted Trump, 7% didn't vote, and 3% voted third party.

Of the 9% that switched to Trump, I'm not convinced that they're accurately described as 'moderates' who can be appealed to with straight-down-the-centre policies. Between Comey's ratfucking and Clinton's image problem, I rather suspect you snag a significant chunk of them.

Crucially, if you campaign and govern for that 9%, or give the impression that's only, or primarily, what you care about, you're excluding everyone else who votes for you.

Of course you can't "only", or even "primarily" campaign for them; but you can avoid policies so focused on one end of the political spectrum that they feel excluded. Since when did "moderate" become an epithet?

Or, rather, taking their support for granted. And that can easily backfire.

That illustrates my point; anyone saying "BLM" is clearly oppressed and mistreated. By definition.

Uh. By action, not definition. Their speech is being met with state-sanctioned violence. If you want to show how unoppressed they are, don't gas them or beat them down or arrest them. Or, you know: kill them for no good reason.

On the right, there are lots of people (including Trump) who will claim to be Christians because it will score points with that audience. Similarly, on the left there are lots of people who will claim to be feminists, anti-racists, or whatever buzzphrase of the day will score points with that audience.

There was an editorial cartoon in the paper in 1991. It showed a big white guy with a TV on his shoulder, in front of the broken window of an electronics store. He's shouting "JUSTICE FOR RODNEY KING!" It was a priceless cartoon, because it illustrated the point. When there is some sort of popular movement, people can pretend to claim it as justification for all kinds of stupid things, whether it makes any sense or not. In Seattle in the CHOP (or CHAZ, or whatever), a couple of months ago, there were two black teenagers shot by the "security forces" (who I think were white). One of them died. How did that exhibit the degree to which "Black lives matter"??????

As I indicated, anyone rioting or looting will say "BLM" because it will make all kinds of politicians afraid to confront them, whether they give a toss for any black people or not.

[quasihumanist]

But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

That's valuing their own life at 50 times that of the person who has a 2% chance of being a criminal.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

That's valuing the life of the criminal less than a TV set.

[dismalist]

But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

That's valuing their own life at 50 times that of the person who has a 2% chance of being a criminal.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

That's valuing the life of the criminal less than a TV set.

Deterrence, man, deterrence! :-)

[Sun_Worshiper]

(1) A small amount of rioting happened (your article is from Sept. 6), and a very small amount continues to happen in a few blocks of dt portland.  It is nevertheless a small and isolated issue and hardly the most pressing one in America, a country that is rapidly closing in on 200,000 COVID deaths and suffering through a major recession.

The public attention span is very short. The situations that get the public attention closest to election day are what matters. A couple of months ago, Biden was up by 10-15 points on Trump; Trump's awful handling of covid was a big factor. However, the polls have gotten a lot closer. If the rioting was gone completely, it wouldn't be useable.

(2) You say "mostly cities with democratic leadership have rioting," which must be a response to me pointing out that rioting is very limited.  The way you are phrasing this conveniently diverts from my actual point: The vast majority of cities with Democratic leadership don't have rioting.  I would also note that the President is a Republican, and his followers are engaged in much of the civil unrest, so I assume you must be similarly upset about that? 

What matters is who voters think is responsible.

(3) The media is not perfect, and I never said it was.  However, media is holding leadership across the board accountable: Protests have been widely covered by the media (I would say excessively so) and it has been widely reported that Portland, for example, has Democratic leadership.  It has also been widely reported that Trump is amping up the tensions in an effort to change the subject away from COVID.  So the people are getting information from media that they can use to decide whether to reelect their leadership, at the local, state, and federal levels.  This is exactly the mechanism by which media can hold leaders accountable in a democracy.

For the record, I don't like Trump. If I were an American, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2016, and wouldn't in 2020. But it's kind of like watching a train wreck to see how oblivious most Democrats and Democrat supporters seem to be about what matters to the middle-of-the-road voters who could go either way. As long as they keep claiming anyone who votes for Trump must be a racist (or whatver other type of bigot you prefer), then they just alienate those people, who may indeed vote for Trump out of spite.

Where the riots occur, all the rioters have to do is shout "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" or wear BLM shirts and officials will be loathe to arrest them for fear of not appearing sufficiently "anti-racist". Most ordinary voters (including most ordinary *black people) can see through that scam and will avoid voting for politicians who are either too clueless to see it or too spineless to deal with it.

(About 80% of black people are NOT in favour of defunding the police.)

(1) I agree that what matters is how voters feel, so to speak.  And if you look at my initial post you will see that my whole point is that voters are buying the myth that rioting is the most serious issue in the US.  So I guess we agree.

(2) You just showed me an article a few posts ago saying that ~50 people were arrested the other day in Portland, so obviously yelling BLM isn't preventing arrests.  In fact, the police (over)reaction to BLM protests is arguably what spurred sustained protests/rioting.

(3) Polls have not actually gotten a lot closer.  Look at 538 average and you'll see that Biden's standing in the polls has been remarkably steady.

[Parasaurolophus]

Since when did "moderate" become an epithet?

As soon as it became synonymous with 'everything is fine, we don't need to change anything'. For me, that was in the early aughts, in the face of repeated shrugging of shoulders about climate change. The exact timing may have been different for others. For others, maybe it was the realization that 'moderates' enable authoritarianism, and aren't actually very tolerant at all.

There was an editorial cartoon in the paper in 1991. It showed a big white guy with a TV on his shoulder, in front of the broken window of an electronics store. He's shouting "JUSTICE FOR RODNEY KING!" It was a priceless cartoon, because it illustrated the point. When there is some sort of popular movement, people can pretend to claim it as justification for all kinds of stupid things, whether it makes any sense or not.

These editorial cartoons were common throughout the civil rights era. There's a famous one of MLK telling an official he's planning another peaceful protest tomorrow while in the background, there's some property damage. Those cartoons are part of an old propaganda effort to deny people rights because their expressions of outrage don't conform to your desires. There is no form of protest that's acceptable to these people. They're all roundly condemned on one pretext or another.

More generally, imagine you applied this principle to other things. For instance, democracies would be undesirable and evil and bad because the US has used its democracy to cage children and overthrow legitimate governments. It's a stupid principle. The generalization is a bad one. And it's bad precisely because it ignores salient features of the case.

In Seattle in the CHOP (or CHAZ, or whatever), a couple of months ago, there were two black teenagers shot by the "security forces" (who I think were white). One of them died. How did that exhibit the degree to which "Black lives matter"??????

It indicated that Black lives do not, in fact, matter much. It indicated that any number of inanimate objects or white feelings matter more. And that's wrong.

As I indicated, anyone rioting or looting will say "BLM" because it will make all kinds of politicians afraid to confront them, whether they give a toss for any black people or not.

And yet they keep being gassed, assaulted, wrongly imprisoned, killed, etc. by arms of the state. That's pretty clear evidence that the state is not afraid to confront them. Time and time again, weapons > speech.

[writingprof]

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

Are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police are criminals?  Or are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police would have otherwise gone on to murder someone?  The former is obviously false.  The latter is unknowable.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

I can't speak for others here, but my own belief is that the very best thing is for me to shoot the criminal who's taking my TV.  I see no reason to involve the police, unless it's so they can pin a medal on me after we fill out the justifiable-homicide paperwork.

[jimbogumbo]

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

Are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police are criminals?  Or are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police would have otherwise gone on to murder someone?  The former is obviously false.  The latter is unknowable.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

I can't speak for others here, but my own belief is that the very best thing is for me to shoot the criminal who's taking my TV.  I see no reason to involve the police, unless it's so they can pin a medal on me after we fill out the justifiable-homicide paperwork.

First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Second, I'm not sure I believe you even own a gun.

[Parasaurolophus]

Third, what quasihumanist said was that the 2% chance is that (1) the person is a criminal AND (2) is likely to shoot the cop. Not that 2% of people actually shot by police are criminals, or would have killed someone.

[nebo113]

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

Are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police are criminals?  Or are you suggesting that only two percent of the people shot by police would have otherwise gone on to murder someone?  The former is obviously false.  The latter is unknowable.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

I can't speak for others here, but my own belief is that the very best thing is for me to shoot the criminal who's taking my TV.  I see no reason to involve the police, unless it's so they can pin a medal on me after we fill out the justifiable-homicide paperwork.

First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

But if he or she does own a gun, I foresee harm to his or her own body parts, rather than the TV or the thief.  Unless there's a barn door nearby.....
Second, I'm not sure I believe you even own a gun.

[marshwiggle]

But, seriously, your last line ought to be "I guess it's better for the police to shoot criminals than for criminals to shoot us."  That actually is what most people believe.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot someone just to avoid the 2% chance that the person is a criminal and will shoot them.

That's valuing their own life at 50 times that of the person who has a 2% chance of being a criminal.

Most people believe that it's better for police to shoot a criminal just to keep the criminal from taking their TV.

That's valuing the life of the criminal less than a TV set.

There is a lot of ridiculous misuse of statistics here.

1) Even if 2% of the population are criminals, NO-ONE advocates police randomly shooting 2% of the population. Even if people think it's OK for the police to shoot in certain circumstances, those will involve the person having done something concerning. For instance, when police use sirens and lights to signal motorists to pull over, the vast majority will do so immediately. A few (perhaps through cluelessness) will delay, and a VERY few will accelerate and try to evade the police. The latter situation is the one which suggests the person may be a criminal, and so the most people will think the police are justified in being suspicious.

2) If someone is stealing a TV, and the police call for them to stop, if the person stealing the TV refuses to stop, then that person is valuing his own life less than  the TV.

Also, something like 75% of police have never fired their weapon. I would also imagine most people have never been in an interaction with a police officer with a drawn weapon. It is a tiny fraction who have been in an interaction with a police officer with a drawn weapon, and the vast majority of those are likely in situations in which the person is actively engaged in (not merely suspected of) criminal activity.

The 2% "chance the person is a criminal" is totally meaningless in any practical sense and completely misleading.

[writingprof]

First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Friend, I don't keep my TV in the yard.  If someone breaks into my house to steal it, I have both a moral and a legal right to kill him.  (Or her!) 

[jimbogumbo]

First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Friend, I don't keep my TV in the yard.  If someone breaks into my house to steal it, I have both a moral and a legal right to kill him.  (Or her!)

Don't know where you live. But as an example, not in Washington State (just the first item in the list fRom the search).

https://kimatv.com/news/local/pulling-the-trigger-when-is-use-of-deadly-force-legal-part-one

[writingprof]

First, I don't think there is a state in this nation in which stealing a TV is justifiable homicide.

Friend, I don't keep my TV in the yard.  If someone breaks into my house to steal it, I have both a moral and a legal right to kill him.  (Or her!)

Don't know where you live. But as an example, not in Washington State (just the first item in the list fRom the search).

https://kimatv.com/news/local/pulling-the-trigger-when-is-use-of-deadly-force-legal-part-one

Ah, yes.  I live in the benighted Trump-supporting part of the country, where all fetuses are cherished and all "B"lack people are shot by the police on sight.  We may have removed the Confederate flag from our public spaces, but it still flies in our hearts.

But, seriously, I appreciate the Washington State article.  It mentions TV-theft as a specifically insufficient reason to shoot a home-invader, but it also concedes the crucial points:

Washington state is a . . . state involving no duty to retreat, meaning that when you're in your home you can protect yourself and others and can in fact use deadly force to do so if you believe that you or someone with you is in imminent danger of bodily harm

The reality that we look at it is whether we can disprove self-defense.

Since the other party is dead, good luck disproving my claims about my state of mind.