3 ms·

Consensus looks a lot more like 66% than squeaking past 50%. You are vastly underestimating the number of Americans who do not think like you do. All other thi

Consensus looks a lot more like 66% than squeaking past 50%. You are vastly underestimating the number of Americans who do not think like you do. All other things aside, that's going to make politics (and the necessary work to change laws you disagree with) difficult.

pm90 8y ago
I disagree. In an election with 2 historically unpopular candidates, for one of them to win 3 million more votes sounds like consensus to me.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  Then you don't understand the word consensus. It's also interesting you quote the raw differental - "a two percent difference" sounds much less compelling.
  - pm90 8y ago
    > It's also interesting you quote the raw differental - "a two percent difference" sounds much less compelling. I want to point out the nature of the arguments you are making here. Its either in deliberately bad faith, or you are genuinely confused about these things. The latter is ok while the former isn't. Your comment in response to my statement about the consensus was to state that the 2016 presidential election indicated there was no consensus on these topics. Presidential elections are not a good way to gauge consensus on individual topics, and there have been many studies which have found the reason for choices weren't the issues I pointed out, but more racial fears of immigrants and minorities. I should have probably replied with this to your original comment. Despite this, and unpopular candidates in both parties, the one that supported the issues I mention still won by 3 million votes. That is why I point to it as being "consensus". Now, what you are doing, is to argue on the technical definition of consensus. Sure, that 2% differential does not sound like a compelling consensus if you ignore the context in which people voted. However, like I said, its still not the best way to gauge it. A much better way to gauge consensus is by polling and here are the numbers: * 62% for pot legalization http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-su... * 66% support legal path for DREAMERS https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583402634/npr-poll-2-in-3-support-legal-status-for-dreamers-majority-oppose-building-a-wal https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583402634/npr-poll-2-in-3-sup... * 75% favor larger tax on corporations https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tax/three-quarters-of-americans-favor-higher-taxes-for-wealthy-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSL2N1MM024 https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tax/three-quarters-of-am...
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      Part of your argument is that a Presidential candidate receiving ~48% rather than ~46% of the popular votes cast (~29% vs 28% of eligible voters overall) indicates that there is "consensus" on three isolated elements of disagreement between the candidates/parties? That fails to match substantially any of the definition of consensus, IMO: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus To me "consensus" requires something more like 90+% agreement if there are possibly valid arguments for the opposition. There's consensus that we stop at red lights. There's consensus that we wear coats outside on cold winter days. There's consensus that regularly smoking tobacco is harmful. There's consensus that the Earth is not flat. IMO, there are strong arguments for a lot of things I believe in, but I don't assume/presume consensus on them and would not introduce a 48-46 or 29-28 finding as evidence of consensus.

pm90 8y ago

I disagree. In an election with 2 historically unpopular candidates, for one of them to win 3 million more votes sounds like consensus to me.

oh_sigh 8y ago
Then you don't understand the word consensus. It's also interesting you quote the raw differental - "a two percent difference" sounds much less compelling.
- pm90 8y ago
  > It's also interesting you quote the raw differental - "a two percent difference" sounds much less compelling. I want to point out the nature of the arguments you are making here. Its either in deliberately bad faith, or you are genuinely confused about these things. The latter is ok while the former isn't. Your comment in response to my statement about the consensus was to state that the 2016 presidential election indicated there was no consensus on these topics. Presidential elections are not a good way to gauge consensus on individual topics, and there have been many studies which have found the reason for choices weren't the issues I pointed out, but more racial fears of immigrants and minorities. I should have probably replied with this to your original comment. Despite this, and unpopular candidates in both parties, the one that supported the issues I mention still won by 3 million votes. That is why I point to it as being "consensus". Now, what you are doing, is to argue on the technical definition of consensus. Sure, that 2% differential does not sound like a compelling consensus if you ignore the context in which people voted. However, like I said, its still not the best way to gauge it. A much better way to gauge consensus is by polling and here are the numbers: * 62% for pot legalization http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-su... * 66% support legal path for DREAMERS https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583402634/npr-poll-2-in-3-support-legal-status-for-dreamers-majority-oppose-building-a-wal https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/583402634/npr-poll-2-in-3-sup... * 75% favor larger tax on corporations https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tax/three-quarters-of-americans-favor-higher-taxes-for-wealthy-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSL2N1MM024 https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-tax/three-quarters-of-am...
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    Part of your argument is that a Presidential candidate receiving ~48% rather than ~46% of the popular votes cast (~29% vs 28% of eligible voters overall) indicates that there is "consensus" on three isolated elements of disagreement between the candidates/parties? That fails to match substantially any of the definition of consensus, IMO: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus To me "consensus" requires something more like 90+% agreement if there are possibly valid arguments for the opposition. There's consensus that we stop at red lights. There's consensus that we wear coats outside on cold winter days. There's consensus that regularly smoking tobacco is harmful. There's consensus that the Earth is not flat. IMO, there are strong arguments for a lot of things I believe in, but I don't assume/presume consensus on them and would not introduce a 48-46 or 29-28 finding as evidence of consensus.