3 ms·

Only counting white women is misleading but I can see the point there. But 36% is definitely not "SO many": it doesn't win an election of two parties, and that

Only counting white women is misleading but I can see the point there. But 36% is definitely not "SO many": it doesn't win an election of two parties, and that was the whole premise of GP. >Do you take issue with the premise? Do you consider the finding not to be meaningful? Just wanted some elaboration. It's a bold claim given with no data.

midoridensha 4y ago
I never claimed that "SO many" equaled a majority. 36% is more than one-third, which seems like a lot of people to me, and not really that far from a majority; it doesn't take that much to get (1/2 - 1/3) (one-sixth) to change their minds.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >and this is a democratic system "SO many," if defined as less than 50%, is irrelivant given a democratic sysyem with only two parties. Therefore "SO many" must refer to more than 50%.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    I feel like I always have this argument with American liberals: in your mind, a minority of voters can simply be ignored, even if they're 49.9% of the vote, because "there's only 2 parties so those voters don't matter". And then when things change slightly, you get a fascist elected into power and you're shocked because you preferred to ignore those voters.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    36% knowingly voting for a known fascist and attempted insurrectionist is pretty scary, no matter how you slice or pendanticize it. What else do they support, fascists tend to turn to violence when they can't win elections.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Yep, this is exactly my point. But any time I talk to American liberals, they just hand-wave it away because that group of people is less than 50%. "They're not a majority of the population, so they're nothing to worry about!!" Talk about the 2016 and 2020 elections and American liberals will claim that Trump voters were a tiny, tiny minority (rather than less than 2% difference as it was in reality). Hitler was elected by a minority of the population, but American liberals seem to have forgotten that. It's becoming easy to see how leaders like Hitler come into power. If Trump had been much more competent and destructive than he really was, the US would be really screwed right now, while American liberals would still be sitting around whining about how "gerrymandering" got him elected by a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. (Yes, I know gerrymandering only affects elections for the House members. American liberals don't: they routinely blame gerrymandering for governor's elections and Senatorial elections.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
snovv_crash 4y ago
30% of a large population group is a very large number! It's just US first-past-the-post politics that somehow convinces people that anything less that 49.9% is somehow insignificant, and 50.1% is somehow a vast majority (I exaggerate, but you get my point).

midoridensha 4y ago

I never claimed that "SO many" equaled a majority. 36% is more than one-third, which seems like a lot of people to me, and not really that far from a majority; it doesn't take that much to get (1/2 - 1/3) (one-sixth) to change their minds.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>and this is a democratic system "SO many," if defined as less than 50%, is irrelivant given a democratic sysyem with only two parties. Therefore "SO many" must refer to more than 50%.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  I feel like I always have this argument with American liberals: in your mind, a minority of voters can simply be ignored, even if they're 49.9% of the vote, because "there's only 2 parties so those voters don't matter". And then when things change slightly, you get a fascist elected into power and you're shocked because you preferred to ignore those voters.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  36% knowingly voting for a known fascist and attempted insurrectionist is pretty scary, no matter how you slice or pendanticize it. What else do they support, fascists tend to turn to violence when they can't win elections.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Yep, this is exactly my point. But any time I talk to American liberals, they just hand-wave it away because that group of people is less than 50%. "They're not a majority of the population, so they're nothing to worry about!!" Talk about the 2016 and 2020 elections and American liberals will claim that Trump voters were a tiny, tiny minority (rather than less than 2% difference as it was in reality). Hitler was elected by a minority of the population, but American liberals seem to have forgotten that. It's becoming easy to see how leaders like Hitler come into power. If Trump had been much more competent and destructive than he really was, the US would be really screwed right now, while American liberals would still be sitting around whining about how "gerrymandering" got him elected by a tiny, tiny, tiny minority. (Yes, I know gerrymandering only affects elections for the House members. American liberals don't: they routinely blame gerrymandering for governor's elections and Senatorial elections.)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

snovv_crash 4y ago

30% of a large population group is a very large number! It's just US first-past-the-post politics that somehow convinces people that anything less that 49.9% is somehow insignificant, and 50.1% is somehow a vast majority (I exaggerate, but you get my point).