Skip to main content

View Diary: An ideological realignment driven by demography (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not as judgmental as you (0+ / 0-)

    Most people unconsciously discount ideological views of nonwhites.

    I am certain that the word "unconsciously" has a meaning. You can look it up.

    As for whether an ideological shit is underway, I think so and if you believe the demographic argument I present, then it seems undeniable to me.

    Of course, you can ignore that Mike Dukakis got the same percentages of the various slices of the electorate that Obama got (except of course with regard ti African Americans), and not that Obama won by 3 and half and Dukakis lost by 8.

    If that means nothing to a commenter like Sides, then political science might not  by what he is engaged in.

    •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

      Unconscious racism is racism. And accusing someone of thinking, unconsciously or not, that whether one's ideology matters is a function of their ethnicity or skin color is calling them a racist. And doing that when nothing they've said or done provides any basis for the accusation is despicable.

      As for whether ideological and/or demographic shifts are underway, none of that is relevant to the question of whether 2008 or 2012 were realigning election. 2008 was not: realignments last more than 2 years, so 2010 proved that it wasn't. 2012 was not: The Democrats didn't regain the House, and didn't see any dramatic increases in the Presidential or Senate national popular votes, so it wasn't.

      If the ideological and demographic ground is shifting in ways that you and I both hope to see (and we both think it is, though we may disagree on magnitude and speed) then that has implications for whether 2014 will be a realigning election (probably not) or maybe 2016 or 2020. But 2012 was not, and calling John Sides names doesn't change that.

      •   Meh (0+ / 0-)

        Our society is racist.

        •  Yes it is (0+ / 0-)

          but calling specific individuals racist without any basis is offensive.

          •  Denying the basics is wrong (0+ / 0-)

            If Dems had won by shifting white working class voters, Sides would not have ignored the ideological implications.

            I won't be bullied into not recognizing this this by you.

            Go sell that crap somewhere else.
             

            •  The only one denying anything here (0+ / 0-)

              is you.

              So stop whining about supposed bullying when you're the one calling people names without justification.

              You've made it very clear that you don't understand Sides's post. But that's no excuse for insinuating that he's a racist. Your attacks say nothing about him. But they say a lot about your character.

              •  Sides swims in the same society as everyone else (0+ / 0-)

                is the point I made. It is valid.

                You call that "calling people names."

                Go sell that somewhere else.

                Do not try and bully me, or anyone else, from recognizing the racial nature of our society.

                That says a lot about YOUR character.

                •  OK, I'll keep feeding you rope (0+ / 0-)

                  as long as you want to keep embarrassing yourself.

                  I'm bullying you? Seriously? Grow up. Nowhere in this thread have I said anything that could remotely be characterized as bullying. I've simply pointed out that you've misunderstood the concept of alignment and your attacks on Sides are baseless and outrageous. You, on the other hand, are calling people racist simply for disagreeing with you. That, I suppose, could be characterized as verbal bullying.

                  If you're going to make harsh and unfair attacks on people, expect to get called on it. And don't whine and cry like a baby when you are. It's pathetic. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. If you can't take the "heat" when someone calls you out, get off the front page of dKos.

                  As for my supposedly trying to "bully" you into not recognizing societal racism, you might want to scroll up a few posts to where you wrote "Our society is racist," and I (apparently in an attempt to bully you into denying it) wrote "Yes it is." See how I bully people into denying things by...agreeing with them! About those things!

                  Care to dig yourself any deeper?

                  •  So you just levelled a character attack (0+ / 0-)

                    on everyone, except of course, John Sides, according to you.

                    What makes John Sides especially invulnerable to this societal racism exactly?

                    What's funny of course is you think you are digging me a hole.

                    Instead, you hysterical defense of Sides is revealed to be just that, irrationally hysterical.

                    FTR, no one called Sides a racist. Instead what was pointed out is that Sides suffers from the common malady of not considering the significance of the ideological views of people of color.

                    For some reason, that statement, I think undeniable to anyone  not desperate to deny it, set you off to unimaginable levels of outrage.

                    It made you sick, you wrote.

                    You think I am the one digging holes here?

                    You have some holes all right - in your head.

                    •  Bored now (0+ / 0-)

                      You're no longer even trying to make sense.

                      Character is an individual trait. So observing that society is racist says nothing at all about any individual, and therefore attacks no one's character.

                      Your claim that Sides neglects "the significance of ideological views of people of color" is false, and -- given that I have now explained to you repeatedly why it is false -- willfully ignorant on your part. One last time: Sides did not address ideology because ideology -- of anyone, regardless of color -- is not relevant to the question of whether 2012 was a realigning election. It clearly wasn't, and anyone (looking at you) who thinks otherwise, doesn't understand the definition of realignment, can't read election returns, or has Karl-Rove-on-election-night-level delusions about the results.

                      Your stubborn attempts to claim that Sides thinks that only white people's views matter are offensive -- whether you want to admit that's tantamount to an accusation of racism or not -- because they are so obviously without basis.

                      At this point, it's clear that you are either incapable of understanding these points, or simply too prideful to admit your error.  So you're going to keeping digging a deeper hole until you come out on the other side of the planet. I have no wish to follow you through the molten core.

                      Bye.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site