Be careful you don’t catch the Bitcoin fever Hooky. Before you know it, you’ll be talking to a Speedway clerk explaining the importance of Bitcoin.
Polymarket
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Polls mean absolutely nothing unless you’re 10-15 points ahead. Clinton was up 7 with a week to go and lost. No one knows until the votes are counted.
Oh, it’s not just the Dem hierarchy. I’ve talked to some of these people - and, honestly, the ones I know aren’t barking lunatics. They’re every bit as pissed at the old guard GOP — probably even more so.
That said, the guy does make some good points. He also makes some bad ones.
There are a lot of flavors of socialism, just as there are of Christianity. Socialism predates Marx; it's clearly there in the French Revolution and some attribute its basic tenants to Jesus himself (or Mazdak and the Khurramites, who I just learned about via the WCBC).
I think you can find quite a few people who genuinely embrace some form of socialism, but I'm struggling to think of an American politician or intellectual who would say they are Marxist. Do you have anyone in mind?
Marx had very specific theories about capitalism, economics, the philosophy of history, etc. that people don't understand, or if they do, wouldn't embrace.
Don't take my word for it, though. The Mises Institute agrees:
American Socialism Isn't Marxism—but It's Still a Problem | Mises Institute
To effectively counter this brand of American socialism, it is important to properly identify the problem, and to attack with precision.
There are a lot of flavors of socialism, just as there are of Christianity. Socialism predates Marx; it's clearly there in the French Revolution and some attribute its basic tenants to Jesus himself (or Mazdak and the Khurramites, who I just learned about via the WCBC).
I think you can find quite a few people who genuinely embrace some form of socialism, but I'm struggling to think of an American politician or intellectual who would say they are Marxist. Do you have anyone in mind?
Marx had very specific theories about capitalism, economics, the philosophy of history, etc. that people don't understand, or if they do, wouldn't embrace.
Don't take my word for it, though. The Mises Institute agrees:
American Socialism Isn't Marxism—but It's Still a Problem | Mises Institute
To effectively counter this brand of American socialism, it is important to properly identify the problem, and to attack with precision.mises.org
I know the difference.
As for an example, Richard Wolff comes first to mind. John Roemer at Yale.
Heck, Greece had a Marxist finance minister not terribly long ago. Yanis Varoufakis.
They’re not super common. But neither are they an endangered species.
Yep, Wolff is a good example. Not a politician, though, which is where I thought we were focusing.
If just general public, I'm sure for every Marxist in the academy, we can find a fascist in the forests of Tennessee. Here's a scary guy: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/august-kreis
We are in agreement, though, that there aren't many of these Nazi morons, and that in polite society it is much more acceptable to identify as a Marxist, especially in the academy. I just don't think you can get away with it in mainstream politics.
By the way, on the protean nature of the word fascism, just found this that you might appreciate:
Does American Fascism Exist?
For nearly a century, Americans have been throwing the term around—without agreeing what that means.
newrepublic.com
Yep, Wolff is a good example. Not a politician, though, which is where I thought we were focusing.
If just general public, I'm sure for every Marxist in the academy, we can find a fascist in the forests of Tennessee. Here's a scary guy: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/august-kreis
We are in agreement, though, that there aren't many of these Nazi morons, and that in polite society it is much more acceptable to identify as a Marxist, especially in the academy. I just don't think you can get away with it in mainstream politics.
By the way, on the protean nature of the word fascism, just found this that you might appreciate:
Does American Fascism Exist?
For nearly a century, Americans have been throwing the term around—without agreeing what that means.
It’s probably because many people believe that Marxism, like all flavors of socialism, is at least well-intentioned. Not too many people who aren’t fasicsts would look at fascism (properly understood) as being well-intentioned.
But socialists maintain that their intent is to improve the standard of living of people in the lower regions of the economic scale - which most people, understandably, view as noble, if misguided.
Like Orwell, I think the term “fascist” is a term that once had meaning, but is mostly now just used as a generic epithet.
It’s more common lately, because charges of racism have just lost their ability to put political or ideological adversaries on the defensive. I’m not even sure protean is the best word to describe it - as that suggests that its meaning is only shifting. I think I’d call it something more like amorphous.
Final 2020 poll was Biden +11. They had Biden +5 in Florida in October 2020. Florida. And Texas tied. 🤡🤡🤡
So you associate polling error with the ideology of the person or people who conduct the poll?
I mean, the WSJ’s final poll in 2020 was Biden +10. Sometimes a polling error is just a polling error.
Those polling errors are always in the same direction. Go look at the RCP polling from the last 2 elections.
And did you know that Trump has out performed his polling average in every single state both elections? That's 100 states and it doesn't happen by accident.
Something he said made me wonder: could Trump get tens of thousands of his supporters to move from California or Illinois or New York (or maybe firmly red states) to battle ground states?
I think he just might be able to do that if he had put in the effort starting a few months ago. That would be a game changer.
Lots of polls had Trump low in 2016 and 2020. Pretty much all of them to one degree or another, as I recall.
I’ve been told before that some hardcore Trumpers like to screw with pollsters by lying to them about their preferences, opinions, and intentions.
Sounds plausible. And many of the same pollsters were wrong about House and Senate races in 2022 - which is why the outcome looked a lot different than what forecasters like Cook Political were predicting.
Anyway, it’s silly to suggest that QPac is cooking their numbers, especially out of political or ideological favor. Their polls don’t affect election outcomes, after all. The only incentive they have is to be accurate - as that will get them more commissions and a better reputation.
