Jump to content

The ABF Classic Film Series Thread: Michael Clayton (2007)

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 15.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr. Hoopah!


  • AF89


  • Aleksandr sportolli


  • Leon Troutsky


42 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Except the data isn’t just about elections and it’s not just about midterms.  Stimson’s data includes thousands of surveys asking about government spending across numerous issues on a quarterly basis.  That’s not “assumptions about the electorate”...it’s literally facts about what the public wants regarding liberal/conservative policies over time and across numerous presidencies.  So it transcends specific elections or even presidencies.  It’s as close to a universal dynamic as we’ll find.  Again, look at the data.  You’re arguing against the facts.

Also, polling wasn’t available before WWII and I’m not sure anything prior to the 1960’s really applies to today’s politics anyway.  It’s weird to say “things changed since the 1980s and also why don’t they include data from over 100 years ago.  


a universal dynamic corresponding to a series of elections that number less than a dozen. 

it's absurd, dude. utter hubris.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Of course midterms are driven by more than the public mood.  The point is that the public shifts away from the party in power once that party begins enacting its agenda.  There’s also the “surge and decline” theory related to turnout, which is what you’re getting at.  Just like the economy also drives presidential elections.  

But what the data does show very clearly is that the public begins wanting more conservative policies when Democrats pass their agenda and they want more liberal policies when Republicans are in charge and pass their agenda.  And that absolutely influences elections and explains a good bit of the fluctuations we see every few years.  

What it’s not, however, is the public wanting more government spending and other big government policies than what Obama and Dems offered.  And the other polls absolutely show that only a small minority of the public felt like Obamacare didn’t go far enough.

absolutely nothing you've shown demonstrates that the public will inevitably respond to a given policy in specific way, because nothing about the data presented suggests that the public responds to the actual ideological thrust of policy at all, merely a superficial partisan one. moreover, nothing you've shown precludes the public from positively responding to public policy changes beyond the scope of the extremely limited and exceedingly neoliberal aims of the democratic party in the post-reagan era. you're essentially saying that because only a small minority of the public felt like obamacare didn't go far enough, it must follow that a greater portion of the public would have opposed even bolder action, or that any bold action would have resulted in the same or greater portion of the public that felt like it was "too liberal". this is not knowable

you have absolutely no idea who's mind might have been changed by radical action that greatly improved the lives of millions and millions of people, especially given how narrow the ideological focus of the democratic party has become. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

Some of it was lower Democratic turnout.  But Independents also voted for Republicans 56-37%...


They went for Democrats by almost the same margin in 2006.  And while turnout is big, those swings among independents are as big or bigger in terms of the outcome.  Those independents didn’t shift to vote GOP in 2010 because they wished Obama had passed M4A or had even liberal/progressive policies than what he passed.  

and you have no idea whether or not the independents that showed up in 2006 were the same as the ones in 2008 or that the ones in 2008 were the same as the ones in 2010. you know, as well as i do, that party identification is fluid. you have no idea from this "swing" that democratic-leaning independents didn't merely stay home because the democratic supermajority spent two years twiddling their thumbs. painting '08 and '10 independents as the same voters is disingenuous as ****.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carter said:

Well I sold my 839 Dogecoin for about $33. Bought that much for about $10 to start with. Not bad. I rolled it over into AMC, which I already had shares of. Gonna call this one more of a long term hold. My line of thinking is that even if we don’t get a short squeeze on it in the short term, there will be a lot of demand later on when covid is behind us.

I’m not in too deep regardless.

Crypto is actually occupying a large portion of my attention span now. Holding ETH and LTC currently but waiting for dips to go in for anything significant. If BTC drops a good bit I will jump all over that one too. 🤑

Sold too quick homie. Doge is up 30%, and my other stocks are all bouncing up too (APHA, SNDL, and Subaru).


Get into weed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Mr. Hoopah! changed the title to The ABF Classic Film Series Thread: Michael Clayton (2007)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...