I'm reading "Hillary Clinton Accepted Her Loss, but a Lot Has Changed Since 2016" by Lynn Vavreck, a political scientist at UCLA (NYT).
With both parties nationally viable, victory is always within reach, and this has calcified our politics — making voters less likely to try out the other side and making every election critical.... There is less chance for new or dramatic events — like a global pandemic, a social justice movement or an insurrection — to change people’s minds.... [I]t’s polarization plus....
Calcification has four parts: an increasing similarity among voters within each party in terms of issue positions, ideology and characteristics; an increasing distance between the two parties on these same things; the rise of issues turning on fundamental identities — of race, ethnicity, gender and religion — to the top of voters’ priorities; and the rough partisan balance between Democrats and Republicans in the electorate.
Posts
61 comments:
In what universe has Hillary accepted her loss?
The same one in which Bill is her faithful spouse?
"making voters less likely to try out the other side"
If the red wave materializes, that would refute the claim, right?
My problem with voting recently will be that I’ll be in support of A, but the candidate who also supports A, supports B, C, and D, which I am against. Meanwhile, I’m really for E, and neither party cares about E. I’ll just leave it to the rest of you to make and deal with these messes.
Hillary Clinton accepted her loss??? On what planet?
Her Russia hoax poisoned our politics like I've never seen in my increasingly long life (I turned 67 today).
Okay, I'm not paying for this shit.
But when did Hillary accept her loss?
I'm just trying to imagine what she said.
"Donald Trump is my president."
"Donald Trump is the president of the country, although he is not my president."
"Donald Trump is definitely the president after the ridiculous and insane coup he pulled off."
"All I'm saying is they didn't count the votes right. I mean, he's the president, I guess. That's what they say."
"I accept the results of the election. And the motherfucker is not the president."
"It all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. And what the word "accept" is. And what the word "election" is. Because, let me tell you, sketchy stuff happens all the time!"
"He's the president, okay, because Vladimir Putin put his ass in the White House. I accept that shit."
"He's the Russian splooge stooge in the White House."
"I accept that our country was a Nazi state for four years, and we're never going back to that again."
Desiccation. The progressive collusion was exposed, the people ignore the sociopolitical publishers, navigate the steering engines, and will now offer consent to sustain or abort the "burden"... uh, regime.
"You can run the best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you." Hillary Clinton, USAToday, May 6, 2019.
When you start your essay off with a lie, it's hard to believe anything else you say.
"the rise of issues turning on fundamental identities — of race, ethnicity, gender and religion — to the top of voters’ priorities"
Huh? For the left, sure. The rest of us are voting for a country that works, beginning with the price and availability of goods and services.
Poli-Sci Prof needs to admit that (1) Hillary didn’t accept her loss and (2) for good or bad Trump was a different choice for voters.
Trump has upended the GOP. Big Corporations and the Uber-wealthy are Dems now.
Working class is solidly GOP now. And they aren’t interested in becoming soldiers or cops anymore.
Trump also accelerated the Dems descent into Progressivism. Covid and BLM just continued it.
Elections are decided in the suburbs.
Diversity [dogma]... of color, class, blocs, gender-correlated sex, and amoral, ethical, and selective religions.
A global pandemic through missteps taken by choice, social justice anywhere is injustice everywhere, and modern social contagion through affirmative action.
One group lives in a bubble and the other in the real world. The bubble is non permeable on both sides.
an increasing distance between the two parties on these same things
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness? Social distancing between mother, father, and baby... Fetal-Baby... Person of Pink? Increasing. Progressive. [unqualified] Monotonic. One step forward, two steps backward.
"Hillary Clinton Accepted Her Loss, but a Lot Has Changed Since 2016"
Absolutely. Everything except the 'accepting her loss' part. I love jokes on election day!
Garbage premise from someone disconnected with reality.
There is a massive realignment in our political system that is anything but calcified. They wish that Black and Hispanic people would stay monolithic, but it isn't going to happen.
We have a working class party and an globalist oligarch party. Republican/Democrat is over.
But they cannot accurately describe what is going on because it destroys their narrative.
Here's the problem: I know that the Democrats will always vote for more government and government taking more of my money. They will never evaluate if the last time we got more government was effective or if the money was wisely spent. I can very safely say there's no reason to ever consider a Democrat.
The Republicans are another story, but I've been disappointed enough that in general I'll vote for a 3rd party candidate or write in someone's name. The Republicans aren't known as the "stupid party" without reason.
I grew up a Republican. However, when the GOP nominated Bob Dole and Bush, I realized they weren't serious about their platform, either. The last time I saw any meaningful progress was the Contract with America (very interesting Podcast w/ Newt Gingrich and Jordan Peterson here.).
"...the rise of issues turning on fundamental identities — of race, ethnicity, gender and religion..."
Is this historically accurate? Truely a rise? From what baseline?
This seems to ignore the history of ethnicity and religion in America, in relation to politics.
No she didn’t and hasn’t! Lynn Vavreck Is an idiot or she assumes readers of the Times are idiots. (Yes, we should accept the likelihood of “and.”)
“Hillary Clinton accepted her loss, but…”
Stopped reading right there. Starting off with that lie let’s me know the rest of this is gonna be bullshit too.
Really? The epidemic didn't influence people's votes?
The idea that America is a 50-50 polarized country and that parties concentrate on bringing out their bases, rather than swaying swing voters who aren't there, has been around for a long time. 20 years?
This theory just looks like a "calcification" of known reality. It "reifies" the existing situation and makes it look more absolute and restrictive of political possibilities than it really is.
...the rise of issues turning on fundamental identities — of race, ethnicity, gender and religion — to the top of voters’ priorities...
Sure, keep believing that.
It's the "fundamental identities" part that is the problem. If more Americans fundamentally identified as Americans living in the best society ever, and not hyphenated-Americans living in the worst of all civilizations ever, the existing divisions would be much easier to manage.
Hillary Clinton Accepted Her Loss
That statement is rather odd.
I was just wondering what position we would be in if Biden and the democrats not stolen the election.
1. We would still be energy independent, the world would be richer for it.
2. We would not have allowed the illegal population of Houston Texas to invade our country.
3. I know inflation would be cut in half easily.
4. Because of the above the stock market would not have cratered.
5. We would have another non-affirmitive-action judge on the supreme court.
6. I expect we would be dismantling the DOJ/FBI.
not sure of:
- Ukraine would not have invaded because Trump would have recognized their red lines and the Biden Ukraine corruption would have been exposed.
- North Korea would probably not be shooting ballistic missiles over Japan again.
- The middle east would be building on the Abraham Accords.
- We would be out of afghanistan but certainly in a more orderly fashion and possibly still have control of an airbase there.
- Europe would definitely be paying more for defense now.
- Re re-hosting of businesses would have accelerated.
- We wouldn't have a woke military run by a transvestite.
Man, if only.
We have the other thing in Illinois. We have one party rule. It is worse.
I wondered when, exactly, Hillary accepted the outcome--given that she was still crying "stolen" in October 2020--when I got to the 4th graf and the contention that Al Gore conceded the 2000 election “the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy.”
Right. And also the supreme court decision denying him yet another recount that a post-inauguration recount found he'd have lost anyway.
It's great being a pundit these days, especially if you're a PhD who uses the honorific "Dr" in front of your name. You can assume that people's historical illiteracy, even for the recent past, will be filled by your tacit appeal to authority.
Everything is parody.
Since Hillary accepted her loss? When did that happen? I know she made some kind of statement mouthing the words, but she never accepted it (just like Al Gore has never accepted his loss).
"Hillary Clinton Accepted Her Loss..."
Really? When and where. Because I have a lot of memories of her going on and on about the Russian bots and how she got more votes but was robbed and how Trump was not and "never will be" a legitimate president. She's an unrepentant election denier, like most DC democrats, more of whom have refused to certify elections than ever done by Republicans.
DNC-Media hacks are such good little soldiers, the new prudes, hiding their election denialism under the cloak of invisibility that only comes with controlling the Narrative. Does she even know the truth about Hillary? Hard to say. I sure hope a lot has changed since 2016 because now after 40 years Republicans are finally not barred by law from poll watching and spending money on election integrity. Many people overlook that asymmetrical advantage Democrats had, being able to keep their rivals away from what they were doing in the counting rooms and voting areas.
Let me translate.
The leftwing professor is worried that the voters on the Center-right are no longer "Open minded" and willing to listen to the MSM, the Left and Establishment. And further worried, that white voters and/or Christian voters (especially male white voters) are now voting based on their race and/or religion, just like Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Asians, etc.
IOW, the professor had no problem with blacks voting 90% Democrat based on the race, or Jews voting 75% Democrat based on their religion, but when Christians or whites do it, well Nellie Hold your horses. We don't want that sort of thing going on!
Hispanic voters and African American men may beg to differ.
There is less chance for new or dramatic events — like a global pandemic, a social justice movement or an insurrection — to change people’s minds
There is less chance for new or dramatic events -- like ...
* a massive illegal immigration
* violent riots in many cities
* a significant increase in crime
* a huge inflation of the currency
* the export of tens of thousands of jobs to foreign countries
* the suppression of free speech on the Internet and elsewhere
* a widely spread skepticism about election integrity
... to change people’s minds.
“Accepted her loss”
She never did and my rule is that if you can’t get past the first sentence without reading a blatant lie…
Vavrick speaks of and for the Left. Issues deriving from identity, etc., are not "rising in voters' priorities" except on the Left; the Right and Center are concerned with the economy, crime, schools, the border, etc, and Republicans are becoming less like each other and more diverse with respect to ethnicity, religion, class, etc. It is the Laptop Elite and the Democrats who are becoming more and more "calcified" around hyper-progressive ideology. Typical Leftist projection.
Ridiculous. Hillary hasn't accepted her next loss let alone her last.
So that $40 million FBI excursion by Weissmann (Mueller was senile) was "accepting her loss?" Gee, what a new idea !
Interesting that a good number of the usually lockstep NYT commenters are pushing back in the assertion.
When did accepting and conceding an election defeat become a requirement? Nothing is required of the also-rans. Gracious or ungracious in defeat changes nothing.
"... a political scientist at UCLA ..." = a communist propagandist.
The partisans are roughly equally divided, that's about the only thing I agree with.
Clinton, obviously, that's a laugher.
There are plenty of people who aren't all that political, who do listen to arguments and do change their votes, which is why the party in power changes regularly. I can see why the casual partisan might think people aren't susceptible to conversion--they live in a bubble and their arguments aren't nearly as persuasive as they think they are. Plus they're often jerks.
Michael said...Republicans are becoming less like each other and more diverse
That's true. Today, the Republicans are a big tent party. Democrats? Not so much.
She certainly captures the mindset of the push to shred the children in my state.
“Accepted her loss”
More than 48 trimesters of witch hunts, warlock trials, impeachments, insurrections, intimidation., and speaking truth through projection. Democracy dies in Spring.
We wouldn't have a woke military run by a transvestite.
Swing is in the air.
Hillary clinton set up and used a Private Server while head of the State Department.
Russian Cash flowed to her family foundation during that time.
Hillary and Rachel Maddow birthed the "Trump is a Russian Asset" BS.
Hillary Clinton openly stated that Trump was an illegitimate president
"Accepted her loss" = "allow me to poison the well."
Whatever else this nitwit wrote, who cares. She's a poli sci professor and NYT contributor. She is nothing but a progressive Democrat using the cloak of higher education and legacy media to launder her partisanship. She's just an opinion machine, and her opinions are rejected by at least half of the country.
On the other hand, she touts herself as an expert. So be in awe. This beacon of political insight wrote a book on the 2016 election, which, leading up to the election, was tentatively titled "Shattered," as a nod to Hillary shattering the glass ceiling. Oops. I guess all her education wasn't worth shit when crunch time came. After the election, she re-titled it "Identity Crisis." CRISIS!
Not to mention that she's a Brown's fan, so obviously her judgment is questionable, to say the least.
Blogger Patrick Henry said...
The last time I saw any meaningful progress was the Contract with America (very interesting Podcast w/ Newt Gingrich and Jordan Peterson here.).
I agree, great discussion!
One thing, in particular, that I found very interesting is that Newt said one of the keys to the large success of the Contract with America was strictly limiting the platform to those issues that had 70%+ support. Given the media's bias and willingness to lie in service of Democrats, you need to start with 70% support to end up at 55% approval after all the lies are told. If you start at 55% approval for your ideas, the media's lies will whittle it down to 40%. And with the opposing party occupying the White House, you're not going to succeed with your policies unless the President sees clearly that rejecting the policies will be damaging to his re-election prospects.
Listen up Republicans.
Hillary Clinton accepted her loss? Only when she was dead drunk on Chardonnay--or maybe when her brain got "calcified" from too much vino. Otherwise, I think not.
Haven't read all the comments. Has anyone pointed out that Hillary has not accepted her loss? I seem to recall she has not.
/sarc
Admiral Rachel Levine isn't a real admiral.
Her high school football teammate Mark Milley isn't a real transvestite, so far as anyone knows.
Trump "accepted the results of the election" in the same way Clinton did, and with less reason to. If what HRC did is accepting the results, Democrats should probably stop calling Trump an "election denier"
There's a notion that Hillary called Trump and conceded defeat, and somehow that equals "accepted the loss". You have to ignore the historical record by a third party that had her on election night claiming the election was stolen by Russian interference. You also have to ignore the 3 years the DoJ spent trying to prove that point for Hillary, and the information since then that the DoJ's evidence was paid for by the Hillary campaign. You have to understand, a Russia company bought about $100,000 in Facebook ads, most of which argued against police harassment of blacks which later led to the BLM movement, because some of those ads supported MAGA concepts. That right there is hard evidence that Russia interfered with the election. Also ignore the multi-billion dollar mainstream media of the US admitting in 2020 they would do everything to stop Trump, but that's not influencing to steal an election.
Alas, I came to take issue with: "the rise of issues turning on fundamental identities — of race, ethnicity, gender and religion — to the top of voters’ priorities;" The top voter priority is the economy, which has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. The second is Health care, which has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. Third is typically the response to the coronavirus, which also has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. Many polls show Supreme Court picks next; that's number 4 and I concede probably has to do with those things. It is followed by immigration, which only to the left has to do with race and ethnicity, but to those that then answered national security, illegal immigration has more to do with national security. You wouldn't want Russian marketeers crossing the border illegally to buy Facebook ads.
WHEN did she accept her loss?? As late as 2019, she was STILL claiming he was an illegitimate President. Liars...all of them. Trying to rewrite history. We aren't blind, and we aren't stupid.
Just more of that Russian disinformation that Hillary pays for.
pantsuited pantload
with the crazed jack elam eyes
becankled be gone
No doubt Hillary and Nanxi will be huddled together tonight. They'll probably go through two five-liter boxes of Chardonnay all by themselves.
I would like her to define precisely what she means by "accepted her loss."
pantsuited pantload
with the crazed jack elam eyes
becankled be gone
ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
I love "jack elam eyes" as well as "pantsuited" and "becankled."
Poetry kill!
Why does anyone mention a Clinton let alone write about them. Forget them!
It depends on the semantic interplay of "accepted", "her", and "loss". How bleat you, NYT? Meh.
Along with this calcification has been a collapse of a broad liberal worldview that sees truth in many corners. It has been replaced by a left-leaning worldview that is rigid, authoritarian, and aggressive. As I learned long ago on Althouse: there is a difference between being liberal and just being on the left. Conservatives are more hardened and combative because they are reacting to what is happening on the left.
Now the NYT's is telling you to breath like a baby to get over your election stress. No bias there. Poor pitiful progressives are going to riot.
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1590118240654696449?s=20&t=xnifL6dgCxQNEvw9BQg9Cw
Hil is still alive? She was supposedly at death's door in '16.
Science.
"Calcification"
A word that means that a significant portion of the electorate might be changing their voting pattern.
Apparently.
How does one even begin to talk to people who think like that?
One does so by ignoring their blather, and founding one's arguments on facts and principles. Don't fight on terrain your opponent has tried to imagine into being.
Post a Comment