[News] Post a D&D Picture

Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.

If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.

And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.

That doesn't say anything about how she interprets them. It's about how she polls, not what she thinks of the results. The gallup results back up her tweet.

One is (supposedly) the representative of all Americans and the other is the representative of New York's 14th Congressional district.

That Cletus in Kansas doesn't like AOC matters not.

The tweet she is referring to has since been deleted.

The important thing is that republicans who hate trump and trumpers have something to bring them together again: Distaste for an outspoken woman.

OG_slinger wrote:

One is (supposedly) the representative of all Americans and the other is the representative of New York's 14th Congressional district.

That Cletus in Kansas doesn't like AOC matters not.

This is a quote from reference to the actual f*cking Gallup poll results linked in the article:

Ocasio-Cortez is also underwater in her net favorable ratings among men (-24), whites (-24) and adults aged 55 and older (-22).

On a net basis, Ocasio-Cortez performs best among Democrats (+41), of whom a majority (56%) now view her positively, and nonwhites (+20). Meanwhile, her net ratings are slightly negative among independents (-5) but slightly positive among women (+4) and Ocasio-Cortez's own age cohort of adults aged 18 to 34 (+5).

It lines up not-surprisingly well with her statement.

Edit: correction.

Same ol’ conservative playbook. You don’t need to be accurate, all you have to do is raise concerns. Then, when called on it, claim people are trying to read your mind and put words in your mouth.

Rinse, repeat.

The dogs will hear the whistle.

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D14AIsMXQAAEnAd.jpg:large)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/rqQaHJy.png)

The numbers next to "women", "Nonwhites" and "18 to 34" all look positive to me.

Yonder wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/rqQaHJy.png)

The numbers next to "women", "Nonwhites" and "18 to 34" all look positive to me.

The point of that chart is that her favorability is evaporating, even in the "women" and "18-34" categories, yet she seems to try and spin it as a win. (just like Trump)

If the dog whistle stuff is directed at me, I'm not sure how that applies. Over-use of the whole dog whistle analogy seems like an easy way to put nasty words in the mouths of people you don't like, and demonize them to your hearts content, without actually having to bother to look at what they are saying.

-3 and -7 percentage points is a very small shift to describe as "evaporating". What it looks like to me is that she's very unpopular with Republicans and whites, which is presumably the demographics that overlap with her small decline in support among women and people aged 18-35 (white Republican women, and white Republican young people).

But again: what the f*ck do her national numbers matter? She's not a national representative. The comparison to Trump seems like a stretch in more ways than one.

If only all these white Christian men were brave enough to stand up to Trump and Pence as they are to a freshman representative.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

But again: what the f*ck do her national numbers matter? She's not a national representative. The comparison to Trump seems like a stretch in more ways than one.

They matter, because for better or worse, she's been made into a figurehead/boogeyman (delete per your party affiliation). She's got the spotlight and she's driving the discourse.

They matter because they show that (entirely unsurprisingly), the Right Wing Noise Machine remains perfectly capable of drumming up hatred for a non-white woman.

Nomad wrote:

If the dog whistle stuff is directed at me, I'm not sure how that applies. Over-use of the whole dog whistle analogy seems like an easy way to put nasty words in the mouths of people you don't like, and demonize them to your hearts content, without actually having to bother to look at what they are saying.

It's directed at you because you are bending over backwards to discuss all the ways in which you could squint at AOCs words and cast aspersions on them, while seeming kinda sorta almost plausibly reasonable. AOC said something 100% verifiable accurate, you flew in and heavily implied but didn't say outright that she was lying, and now you're talking about all the ways in which AOC was wrong but not actually wrong.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

-3 and -7 percentage points is a very small shift to describe as "evaporating". What it looks like to me is that she's very unpopular with Republicans and whites, which is presumably the demographics that overlap with her small decline in support among women and people aged 18-35 (white Republican women, and white Republican young people).

Yup. AOC's most unpopular with--shock--conservative white dudes over 55 and people with only a high school education. The same demographics that voted for Trump.

From the survey crosstabs you can see that self-described Republicans and Conservatives *really* dislike AOC. That's very likely because the handful of "news" sources they consume talk endlessly about how the freshman Representative trying to turn America into a socialist hell.

Republicans
Favorable: 5%
Unfavorable: 73%
Heard of, no opinion: 7%
Never heard of: 15%

Conservative
Favorable: 9%
Unfavorable: 68%
Heard of, no opinion: 7%
Never heard of: 15%

Yonder wrote:
Nomad wrote:

If the dog whistle stuff is directed at me, I'm not sure how that applies. Over-use of the whole dog whistle analogy seems like an easy way to put nasty words in the mouths of people you don't like, and demonize them to your hearts content, without actually having to bother to look at what they are saying.

It's directed at you because you are bending over backwards to discuss all the ways in which you could squint at AOCs words and cast aspersions on them, while seeming kinda sorta almost plausibly reasonable. AOC said something 100% verifiable accurate, you flew in and heavily implied but didn't say outright that she was lying, and now you're talking about all the ways in which AOC was wrong but not actually wrong.

I get that I’m the personification of all things hated about republicans on this board due to the fact that the vitriol against anything not on the far left has driven almost everyone else with even a slightly center-right lean away, but as I have stated before, I’m not a republican. I’m not a fan of Trump. I don’t support the wall. I think universal healthcare is the way to go. The things you accuse me of could be rightfully said of most of the far right mob you wrongly associate me with.

I brought the poll issue up because I think the left is setting itself up for a fall in throwing so much support behind an untested and inexperienced political celebrity. (much like the right did with Trump) It’s not just me that’s concerned either.

Nomad wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Nomad wrote:

If the dog whistle stuff is directed at me, I'm not sure how that applies. Over-use of the whole dog whistle analogy seems like an easy way to put nasty words in the mouths of people you don't like, and demonize them to your hearts content, without actually having to bother to look at what they are saying.

It's directed at you because you are bending over backwards to discuss all the ways in which you could squint at AOCs words and cast aspersions on them, while seeming kinda sorta almost plausibly reasonable. AOC said something 100% verifiable accurate, you flew in and heavily implied but didn't say outright that she was lying, and now you're talking about all the ways in which AOC was wrong but not actually wrong.

I get that I’m the personification of all things hated about republicans on this board due to the fact that the vitriol against anything not on the far left has driven almost everyone else with even a slightly center-right lean away, but as I have stated before, I’m not a republican. I’m not a fan of Trump. I don’t support the wall. I think universal healthcare is the way to go. The things you accuse me of could be rightfully said of most of the far right mob you wrongly associate me with.

I brought the poll issue up because I think the left is setting itself up for a fall in throwing so much support behind an untested and inexperienced political celebrity. (much like the right did with Trump) It’s not just me that’s concerned either.

And yet, Trump seems to be working out just fine for who the right actually is instead of who the right says it wants to be.

Nomad wrote:

I brought the poll issue up because I think the left is setting itself up for a fall in throwing so much support behind an untested and inexperienced political celebrity. (much like the right did with Trump) It’s not just me that’s concerned either.

As the article clearly points out, ideological rifts and factions within parties are common (and have been since political parties were created). Probably more so with the Democrats because they're an actual big tent party and have to represent a much more diverse electorate than just white Christians like Republicans do.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that what AOC is doing is bringing ideological fervor and a self-consuming quest for political "purity" to the Democratic party like the House Freedom Caucus did to the GOP. What AOC (and others) is doing is proposing very Democratic things: big solutions to big problems.

It also helps that AOC represents the future of both the Democratic party and America: she's not a white dude and, like Millennials and Generation Z, holds very progressive views on issues and the role of government.

And those moderate Democrats should probably spend more time reading the room. There's not a whole lot of desire by Democrats to make bipartisan compromises with a political party that is simultaneously in the pockets of the rich, businesses, white supremacists, the Russians, and probably the Chinese, and who have completely surrendered to the orange idiot because they're all afraid that if they don't they'll be primaried.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/y0ALfa7.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/PgrSnh3.jpg)

The first part of the issue is that AOC accurately characterized a description of her being "underwater" as being only as accurate as the definition of "everyone". While her numbers among women, non-whites, and 18-34-year-olds have declined, they're still positive and so hardly underwater.

The second part of the issue is that it seemed you were implying that she was misrepresenting a claim made about her, when in fact she had not. According to the poll, and not her interpretation of it but an almost-verbatim reference to the poll's authors' interpretation, she is net-positive among several subgroups, which supports her point that the de facto categorization of "everyone" lines up with white-men-as-default.

That's it. It's very straightforward. Her tweet isn't an interpretation of poll numbers, but--again--is a quote from the poll's interpretation of the numbers. From the canonical source. To compare it to Trump's flagrant and willful mischaracterization of polling and other metrics is at best disingenuous.

Secondly, and the core of it for me is this: Who gives a damn what a freshman congressperson's poll numbers are nationwide?

Seriously. Who cares? Yes, she's on the national stage because she's young, smart, vocal, vibrant and, frankly, gorgeous. BUT SHE'S A FRESHMAN CONGRESSWOMAN IN POSSIBLY THE SAFEST DISTRICT IN THE COUNTRY. She can be far left, that's pretty much her job. Moderates are going to hate that but that's a D problem.

Why the media spotlight? Because mentioning her gets ratings.

But more than that and the actual problem is that attacking her and moving the focus to AOC instead of the 20 or so viable democratic PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES is part of the republican strategy for 2020. It's incredibly evident that this is the plan. So Nomad, when you buy into this childish bullsh*t about the poll numbers of a politician that represents %0.001 of the country, all you're managing to do is perpetuate the political strategy of the side you claim not to represent.

I like her, I think she's great and I'm glad she's advocating for solutions (and forcing moderates to pick sides) but she's not the party. Not yet. Worry about AOC in 6 years when she's old enough to run for president or if she starts heading up important committees. Anyone who thinks otherwise is at best easily distracted and at worst actively attempting to mislead people.

oilypenguin wrote:

I like her, I think she's great and I'm glad she's advocating for solutions (and forcing moderates to pick sides) but she's not the party. Not yet. Worry about AOC in 6 years when she's old enough to run for president or if she starts heading up important committees. Anyone who thinks otherwise is at best easily distracted and at worst actively attempting to mislead people.

I'd disagree. If she is forcing moderates to pick sides, House members are up for re-election every two years. She may be in the safest district in the country, but a lot of those moderates--especially fellow freshman--are not.

Whatever else, Nomad is bringing up a question worth asking: how do Democrats hold on to their gains in the House next election? And that means asking the question of whether the whole country wants progressives and Democrats gave them what they wanted, or whether the 2018 election was the American electorate doing its usual thing of being wildly inconsistent and rebuking its own recent choices? Or something more complex than just Socialists vs. DINOs.

tl;dr: she might just be one congressperson from a safe district, but it's fair to ask if she's a good proxy for the general question of why the Democrats won so big in 2018 and how to make 2020 an extension of that wave and not a backlash to the backlash.

edit: oh, and one other thing:

But more than that and the actual problem is that attacking her and moving the focus to AOC instead of the 20 or so viable democratic PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES is part of the republican strategy for 2020. It's incredibly evident that this is the plan. So Nomad, when you buy into this childish bullsh*t about the poll numbers of a politician that represents %0.001 of the country, all you're managing to do is perpetuate the political strategy of the side you claim not to represent.

Let's be honest: EVERYONE is moving the focus to AOC instead of those other candidates. It's not just some republican strategy. Plenty of Democrats think the more people see her, the better for Democrats. She sure seems to think so, otherwise why the heavy social media presence? Or at least are talking more about her than they are about those candidates because she excites them more than other candidates. The news media sees a heck of a story.

I mean, we can't go around thinking she's the future of the party, and then be shocked when she get the kind of coverage that you would expect of someone that looks like the future of the party. Her visibility isn't some plot hatched in a republican think tank. People are interested for the same reason *we* are interested, and she's sure not turning away from the coverage herself, either.

These disagreements are just psychic turbulence resonating back from the future date when Eternal OmniPresident Ocasio-Cortez completes the rune circle and the geas binds her into office.

ruhk wrote:

These disagreements are just psychic turbulence resonating back from the future date when Eternal OmniPresident Ocasio-Cortez completes the rune circle and the geas binds her into office.

This is a much better well actually.

ruhk wrote:

These disagreements are just psychic turbulence resonating back from the future date when Eternal OmniPresident Ocasio-Cortez completes the rune circle and the geas binds her into office.

I have wondered if you could put someone in a rocket that went around the sun a bunch of times and then claim they're a year older for every time they made the round trip...

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
ruhk wrote:

These disagreements are just psychic turbulence resonating back from the future date when Eternal OmniPresident Ocasio-Cortez completes the rune circle and the geas binds her into office.

I have wondered if you could put someone in a rocket that went around the sun a bunch of times and then claim they're a year older for every time they made the round trip...

They could claim it, but in fact they'd be younger due to special relativity.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
ruhk wrote:

These disagreements are just psychic turbulence resonating back from the future date when Eternal OmniPresident Ocasio-Cortez completes the rune circle and the geas binds her into office.

I have wondered if you could put someone in a rocket that went around the sun a bunch of times and then claim they're a year older for every time they made the round trip...

They could claim it, but in fact they'd be younger due to special relativity.

Sure, but they'd have the requisite number of trips around the sun.

oilypenguin wrote:

Secondly, and the core of it for me is this: Who gives a damn what a freshman congressperson's poll numbers are nationwide?

Thank you. I overlooked the rational dissonance. As some sort of bellwether, yeah, her numbers are interesting or curious. But there are so many more-pressing issues and considerations for Gallup to be spending their time on.

muraii wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

Secondly, and the core of it for me is this: Who gives a damn what a freshman congressperson's poll numbers are nationwide?

Thank you. I overlooked the rational dissonance. As some sort of bellwether, yeah, her numbers are interesting or curious. But there are so many more-pressing issues and considerations for Gallup to be spending their time on.

Not to argue semantics--because that's not my style--but by definition a bellwether would be a pressing consideration.

I think the rational dissonance here is how, all of a sudden, AOC is not a figure of national importance.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Not to argue semantics--because that's not my style--but by definition a bellwether would be a pressing consideration.

I think the rational dissonance here is how, all of a sudden, AOC is not a figure of national importance.

The rational dissonance is thinking that political bellweathers still work.

Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Not to argue semantics--because that's not my style--but by definition a bellwether would be a pressing consideration.

I think the rational dissonance here is how, all of a sudden, AOC is not a figure of national importance.

The rational dissonance is thinking that political bellweathers still work.

That wouldn't be rational dissonance, that would just be a case of being wrong.

And hey, it's possible. Just if you think political bellwethers don't work, then they don't work whether the supposed bellwether is a first term Representative or the Speaker of the House.