Should black citizens receive "special favors?"

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2019

At the Post, youth being served:
Yesterday, the Washington Post published a rather tangy analysis piece in its Outlook section.

The essay was written by Alexander Agadjanian. He was identified as a "research associate" in the "MIT Election Lab."

What made the essay so tangy? According to Agadjanian, Candidate Biden scores well among Democratic primary voters who exhibit sexism and racism. That's a rather unflattering claim to make about Candidate Biden, and about the Democratic electorate.

As noted, Agadjanian was identified as a research associate at the MIT Election Lab. As we suspected from reading his article, he's also a very young person. He graduated from college in June of last year (Dartmouth, class of 2018).

We've often noted the remarkable youth of many contemporary journalists. We'll guess that most Post readers wouldn't suspect that they're getting such tendentious analyses from people so young and so inexperienced when they thumb through the high-profile Outlook section.

As upper-end journalists go, Agadjanian is very young. Of course, that doesn't mean that anything he wrote in his piece was misleading or wrong.

That said, what made us suspect that he was quite young, even before we googled him up? It was his tendency toward true belief and shaky analysis in the regions of race and gender.

What did Agadjanian actually say about Candidate Biden and his supporters? Below, you see two passages which give the gist of his claims:
AGADJANIAN (9/8/19): Democratic voters who score high on a scale that measures sexism...gravitate toward Biden and Sanders and away from Warren and Harris—which is not shocking. But another Biden metric is more surprising and even paradoxical: He attracts the largest proportion of voters who score high on a scale that measures anti-black prejudice, while also garnering the most support, by far, among black voters.

[...]

Anti-black racial resentment also dictates, in different ways, preferences for Biden, Warren and Harris. All else being equal, Biden’s vote share increases by 27 points going from the least to the most racially resentful primary voter. Meanwhile, more racially progressive Democrats—especially racially progressive whites—side heavily with Warren, which makes sense, given her messages on the campaign trail, such as explicitly calling the U.S. criminal justice system racist. Anti-black prejudice, not surprisingly, dampens support for the leading black candidate, Harris. It appears not to affect backing for Sanders.
How strange! Agadjanian notes that Biden currently "garner[s] the most support, by far, among black voters" in Democratic primary polling. But in a highly unflattering appraisal, he also notes that Biden benefits greatly from "anti-black prejudice" on the part of primary voters.

The youngster treats this as a paradox. He never describes the extent to which the "anti-black prejudice" he alleges may be coming from Biden's black supporters themselves, although we'll guess that a substantial chunk of it could be.

The problem lies in the way this very young person determines "anti-black prejudice" on the part of Democratic voters. He describes his remarkably shaky method in this rather sad, rather youthful passage:
AGADJANIAN: To gauge anti-black sentiment, I made use of two questions designed to establish levels of racial resentment—questions that approach the issue of racism indirectly, in an attempt to prevent people from defaulting to answers that they know are socially preferred. One question probed whether the survey taker agreed that slavery and discrimination have made progress difficult for black Americans; the other asked whether blacks should learn to work and live without “special favors.” About 20 percent of likely Democratic primary voters scored on the higher end of these prejudice measures (that is, above the neutral point on the scales), but responses on the high and low ends still substantially predicted candidate choices.
Using pre-existing survey data, the youngster looked at voters' responses to two (2) questions. On the basis of voters' responses to those two questions, and on the basis of nothing else, this very young fellow began tossing claims of "racism," "prejudice" and "anti-black sentiment" around.

The youngster looked at answers to exactly two (2) questions! Sadly, one of the questions said this:

The question asked "whether blacks should learn to work and live without 'special favors.' ”

According to this very young person, voters' answers to that question helped us see if they're racist, or if they hold anti-black prejudice. Judgment was rendered on the basis of only two questions in all!

It's amazing to think that the Washington Post would publish such childish (if familiar) work. We say that for the following reason:

We don't know what the non-racist answer to that question is supposed to be!

Are liberals really supposed to say that blacks should be given "special favors?" We'll guarantee you that many black respondents answered that question in the "anti-black prejudice" way!

Are blacks supposed to be granted "special favors?" Is that really the current liberal/progressive/Democratic Party position?

Is that the way "affirmative action" is now supposed to be understood? Because that very much isn't the way progressive thinking has framed such matters in the past.

The use of this loaded question goes back decades in "social science" research. Perhaps the question was sensible, and was devised in perfect good faith, when it first appeared.

By now, the question functions as a trap, except among our truest believers. Just what is the progressive position supposed to be?

Are liberals and progressive really supposed to say that blacks should receive "special favors?" If so, please don't tell Donald J. Trump, because he could have a field day with such affirmations in the coming year.

Agadjanian's essay struck us as childish and silly. It also struck us, again and again, as the work of youthful true belief—of someone who hasn't yet broken free from the bubble-wrapped conceptual field invented by our assistant, associate and adjunct professors over the past many years, years which finally ended with Donald J. Trump in power.

(In our usual insightful manner, we began to "resist" the next day.)
.
Should black citizens receive special favors? Many black voters will quickly say no. Just a guess: that helps explain why you rarely see responses to such questions disaggregated by race.

MIT's youngster will register those black voters as part of Biden's anti-black support. At the same time, he'll express his puzzlement over the way Biden is supported by black voters and by anti-black voters at the same time.

We don't think much of either question Agadjanian used in this, the latest hunt to let us tribal true believers see Where The Racists Are. But that second question has been a stinker for decades. Our academics tend to be too bubble-wrapped to understand this point.

We'll offer one more opinion:

When newspapers like the Washington Post publish the work of very young people, they should consider saying so in their identity lines.

92 comments:

  1. Somerby isn't the only one questioning "our" ability to function in an advanced democracy. He *does* focus on the side ("our side") that he assumes has some ability to absorb the message, and many commentators take exception here.

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045

    And when Shawn Rosenberg says something similar, folks you might assume would be on "our side" get pretty steamed pretty quickly. Lot of anger . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the Politico article, Rosenberg says “Thanks to social media and new technologies, anyone with access to the Internet can publish a blog and garner attention for their cause—even if it’s rooted in conspiracy and is based on a false claim”

      And

      “Now that people get their news from social media rather than from established newspapers or the old three TV news networks (ABC, CBS and NBC), fake news proliferates”

      He apparently mourns the loss of “elite” gatekeepers in the age of social media and the internet. This does sound like Somerby. But what doesn’t sound like Somerby is that Rosenberg *doesn’t* solely blame “liberals.”...unless you think “elite” is a synonym for “liberal”, which is nonsense.

      Rosenberg argues for elitism as the protector of democracy. Interesting idea. It is certainly debatable. You on the other hand proceed from the assumption that Rosenberg and Somerby are correct and the commenters are ipso facto wrong. Perhaps you would argue for Twitter and Facebook to be shut down or censored in the name of protecting the citizenry?

      Also, you imply that only “our side” can understand this message and fix the problem, thus you dismiss an entire group of Others as imbeciles and ascribe agency only to liberals. A true liberal tries to exhort conservatives to be better. A totalitarian, on the other hand, decides what they should believe or what news they should receive.

      Delete
    2. These are excellent points, and I will be sure to give them a good deal of thought. Thanks.

      I tend to think that Somerby wants "our tribe" to look in the mirror before it dismisses the Others. I wouldn't wish to dismiss them myself, but I see how you might draw that inference.

      Can we agree that a good many folks on "our side" do dismiss the Others? I share in the frustration of trying to reach people who seem dead-set against listening, but I wouldn't want to turn around and stop listening myself.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps you would argue for Twitter and Facebook to be shut down or censored in the name of protecting the citizenry?

      That's right, Sparky. Because liberals and progressives are always in favor of censorship.

      Troll better, please.

      Delete
  2. "Should black citizens receive special favors?"

    Lol. Silly dembot, that Agadjanian fella.

    And isn't it peculiar that WaPo dembots are roughly of the same quality as our own resident Soros-dembots, spamming us from India?

    ...yeah, and what the fuck is a "black citizen" anyhow? I'm not familiar with the term.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When I was young, you could easily recognize racists. They belonged to the KKK. They refused to hire blacks. They espoused a belief that blacks are inherently inferior. They demanded legally segregated schools. They attacked blacks and even murdered them.

    Today, one can be judged a racist by the most trivial act or comment. It's unfair and unhealthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. You whole-heartedly support one major political party dedicated to keeping black people from voting, and they accuse you of racism.

      Delete
    2. It's easiest to play the race card and call the other side racists. It's intellectually lazy. One just drops the bomb and there is no more discussion or nuance. And sadly it allows Establishment power to continue to play the oldest trick in the book: divide and rule.

      But these lazy liberals who forgo nuance and research for playing the race card are only human. What are you going to do? They are doing the best with what they have.

      Delete
    3. When I was young, you could easily recognize people dedicated to keeping black people from voting, namely Southern Democrats. They used poll taxes that blacks couldn't afford and literacy tests that blacks couldn't pass. They beat up or murdered blacks who tried to vote. And, bottom line, they said they wanted to prevent blacks from voting and they did prevent blacks from voting.

      Today, blacks vote in record numbers. In 208 and 2012, a higher percentage of blacks than whites voted. So, @9:17 must deduce or imagine that Republicans are dedicated to preventing blacks from voting by something subtle.

      Delete
    4. Here’s the 4th Circuit’s conclusion about the North Carolina Republican state apparat’s attempt to disenfranchise black voters:

      In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.

      But take heart, Republicans don’t try to disenfranchise just black voters. They’ll go to just about any lengths to take the vote away from people who might vote against them. In time for the 2016 election, North Dakota Republicans passed a law requiring street addresses for registrants. You won’t be amazed to find that Indian reservations rarely have street addresses for their inhabitants.

      Unless of course, you’re an idiot like David in Cal.

      ————
      We hope you enjoyed this example of uncultured impudence and lower middle class ignorance™

      Delete
    5. Earth to establishment Democrats stuck in the blog bubble that has not been relevant since 2008:

      The bottom half of all U.S. households have 32% less wealth than in 2003. The top 1% have more than twice as much as they did then.
      https://on.wsj.com/32hOx3c

      Racism and Russia are the diversions they use to keep you from discussing that.

      What have Democrats done about that? Democrata and Republicans gave us that and that is the most important issue.


      Delete
    6. Racism is one of the reasons that the bottom half of households is the bottom half. It is not a diversion. Neither is Russia, since Russia is the reason we have Trump and one of the mechanisms sustaining the wealth of the top 1%.

      Delete
    7. Is that what they told you on the daily Kos?

      Russia is not the reason we have Trump. That has been made extremely and totally clear. And it's pathetic anyone would think otherwise at this point in time after all we've been through.

      You don't talk about racism in the context of those statistics and how Democrats and Republicans both are subservient to corporate power.

      Divided we are falling.

      I know, you're only human. you're just doing the best you have with what you've been given. All the best to you.

      Delete
    8. 10:05,
      So Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump, being a Democrat and Republican, are both subservient to corporate power? Is that your stance?
      And, if so, why vote for Trump in 2016, when as a Republican, he is just as bad as Clinton, a Democrat?
      It sounds like you agree with the corporate-owned media (hmm, we may need to look into that), that Trump's racism had absolutely nothing to do with people voting for him. So why, pray tell, pick a Republican to vote for over a Democrat if they are exactly alike?

      Delete
    9. It wasn't Trump's racism which got him elected. It was Hillary Clinton's lack of racism which got Trump elected. Checkmate, libs.

      Delete
    10. 10:05,
      The reason why the people of this country don't have universal healthcare is because they don't want their hard-earned tax dollars to benefit "the others".
      But you keep making believe racism is a sideshow. That'll surely work out for you.

      Delete
    11. 10:05,
      The people who read the Mueller Report are living in their own bubble.

      Delete
    12. "It's easiest to play the race card and call the other side racists. It's intellectually lazy. One just drops the bomb and there is no more discussion or nuance."

      It doesn't have to be this way. I've been asking for more discussion and nuance about the racism of Trump voters*, but all I get is Trump voters shutting down the discussion and accusing me of laziness.
      Are you sure it's those accusing racists of being racists who are shutting down the discussions?

      *As an example, explain the nuance of a non-racist, like Trump, having Stephen Miller be a top policy advisor.

      Delete
    13. Russia? Are you serious?
      If Russia had anything to do with Trump's election, would Trump have said this, “Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”, referring to Clinton's deleted emails?

      There's no reason to debate this with people who actually read the Mueller Report, they're living in their own bubble.

      Delete
    14. There is nothing in the Mueller report about Russia being responsible for Trump's election.

      In terms of Warren, I don't know that much about her. Obama, Clinton, Bush we're all obviously subservient to corporate power. All of DC is. Obviously.

      Trump positioned himself outside of that establishment and that is how he got the juice to get elected, that and the fact that Clinton herself was probably the worst candidate in history, an unappealing, horrible woman and war criminal who set such a horrible example for feminists and other women.

      10:58 you did not read the Mueller report and you don't know what you're talking about and you are inside your daily kos bubble which is just where they want you.

      Russia had nothing to do with Trump's election. If you want to talk about election interference, look at the corporate interference or interference from Israel.

      it makes sense you take the position you do. It's the oldest trick in the book. Cowboys and Indians. Cops and robbers. Good guys and bad guys. The only way that you can understand our current political structure is under those binary, storytelling terms. Your side is good, the other side is bad. But the reality is both sides are bad. Both sides have it in for you. Both sides are subservient to corporate power and only pretend to have your interests in mind. Both sides feed their audience garbage, like Russia, like the stupid Alabama weather map diversion that means nothing. All of that takes your eyes off the real game:

      The bottom half of all U.S. households have 32% less wealth than in 2003. The top 1% have more than twice as much as they did then.
      https://on.wsj.com/32hOx3c

      a topic which is never discussed here in the comments, never discussed on daily Kos etc. Just the way they like it. It's the oldest game in the book and it's working perfectly.

      Delete
    15. It would be interesting to see liberal's reaction to Melania if she behaved the same way Hillary did towards Bill's sexual rompings in the White House if Trump were to have done the same thing.

      Can you imagine if Trump spent his time spraying his cum all over every nook and cranny cranny of the oval office with a 22 year old girl? What would the reaction be? Further, how would they regard Melania if she were to have stood by him? Can you imagine?

      Your reactions would be extreme.

      But because you are in one team, it's okay. No problem. No metoo. Spray your cum everywhere you want. Wives, stand by your man. Stand by as he shoots his wad in the face of a twenty-two-year-old at work.

      If it was done by the other team though, it would be armageddon and your outrage is would be at a fever pitch.

      It's just how the game is played. Divide and rule. It's worked for centuries and it's working now again with us.

      Delete
    16. Its funny, the weird/daily Kos faux riposte about the Mueller report, this silly assertion that critics of it have not read it as if there is some secret in there that has any significance. The reality is the whole russiagate faux scandal was a dud. And worse, it wasted time and energy that could be spent on important, real issues

      There's nothing in the Mueller report that gives any evidence whatsoever that Russian interference had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election. But these juvenile liberal blogs who came to prominence in 2002 and now, decades later, have become irrelevant and extremely counterproductive, made up this meme that "you haven't read the Mueller report", acting as if there is something really in there. And course the truth is there is nothing in there and they have not read it themselves

      Delete
    17. Least surprising thing to happen in my lifetime, is watching Right-wingers wave away treason against the United States of America.
      I saw it coming in 2003, when they accused me of treason for not supporting the Iraq War.

      Every Right-wing accusation is a confession.

      Delete
    18. There's nothing in the Mueller report that gives any evidence whatsoever that Russian interference had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election.


      I don't think you're looking hard enough, Boris.

      Delete
    19. What is the evidence of treason?

      (Standing by for your flip, non response)

      Delete
    20. mm - please show me.

      Delete
    21. Any evidence of treason?

      Any evidence Russian interference affected the outcome of the 2016 election?

      Please hip me to it if you got it.

      Delete
    22. Vlad, let me help you out here:

      It's right there in the addendum, page 471A,

      "We have calculated with a margin of error of +-2.2%, Russian interference changed 762237 votes distributed relatively evenly among five midwestern states."

      There, satisfied now? Jackass.

      Delete
    23. 2:10,
      Preach it sister!
      The "Russians elected Trump" nonsense is another in a long line of excuse-making by the media, so they won't have to admit Trump voters are turned on by his bigotry.
      The Russia hoax is a convoluted nonsense alibi, but at least it is more plausible than some of the the other excuses (economic anxiety, a rigged economy, Wall Street and other elites running the country,etc).

      Delete
    24. Very sad on both your parts. I see you are happy to play the fool. Who on earth cares about economic anxiety, a rigged economy, Wall Street and other elites running the country?

      mm - do you have a link for that?

      Didn't think so. Feel sorry for you brother.

      Delete
    25. mm stoops to lying! Gawd. mm - you are lying - can't you see how compromised this Russiagate has made you? Sad.

      David is treasonous? You are a pathetic liar.

      Delete
    26. Anyway, you are just doing your best, self reflection is very difficult and admitting you have been fooled even harder. You all are not strong enough to do it. C'est normale.

      Delete
    27. Plenty of people care about those things, but Trump voters don't.
      It would be great to live in a fantasy world where Trump voters cared about that and not his bigotry.
      You know how easy it would be to push back on Trump's Wall Street and Elite Cabinet if they did?
      That's a fantasy world I dream of.

      Delete
    28. The gaslighting by the media is ridiculous. It wasn't Trump's bigotry, which you can plainly see. It was some convoluted story that's so hard to follow you can't see it.
      Ridiculous.

      Delete
    29. Trump's victory and presidency is a very hard thing for a lot of us to take. A very crushing and demoralizing event.

      Delete
    30. 6:33,
      I know. That's why the media created a safe space, where the reason for it can't be discussed.

      Delete
    31. It's hard to accept, hard to deal with.

      Delete
    32. mm - do you have a link for that?

      You're a damn fool, and I'm pretty sure we went around this merry-go-round once or twice before.

      Please check the Addendum A entitled, "MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS NOT IN OUR SCOPE AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ANSWER but WHICH WE WISH TO OPINE ON FOR THE BENEFIT OF INTERNET TROLLS" Jackass. Your statement,

      There's nothing in the Mueller report that gives any evidence whatsoever that Russian interference had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election.

      is completely meaningless. Wingnut bait.

      Delete
    33. 6:58,
      Wait until people realize Trump isn't an outlier.

      Delete
    34. So, no link? You're funny. Faced with no evidence or facts, you made it up. That is very pathetic.

      It's true - there is no evidence whatsoever that Russian interference had an affect on the election and when you look at the facts of the interference, it's obvious.

      There was interference but it didn't affect the outcome, unlike our interference in their elections - for instance in 1996.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-us-has-a-long-history-of-election-meddling/565538/

      You're the jackass actually. Your accusation is a confession. And you're a liar. And I know you are really suffering and really in pain and not really very well. I wish you the best. You'll be ok.


      Delete
    35. I feel sorry for you Daily Kos bubble boys. That sucks!! It sucks to be you. Gawd, it must be hell. Keep trying. You're not original thinkers. You're not leaders, you're followers.

      There is another way of looking at the world.

      Don't ever forget that.

      There is another way of looking at the world.

      Delete
    36. Nice job, 7:30.
      Now ask 2:10 for a link showing Trump voters care about the economy.
      I predict crickets.

      Delete
    37. Took me literally 5 seconds -

      https://www.bankrate.com/surveys/presidential-election-survey-july-2019/

      Delete
    38. There is another way of looking at the world.

      Delete
    39. I could give you thirty links but, I'm sorry to say, you are a dumb troll. Bye! There is another way of looking at the world!

      Delete
    40. This died in the wool Dem can sort it out for you - if you want, which you don't ;)

      https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/2016-election-working-class-trade-tpp-trade-democrats-214219

      Delete
    41. There was interference but it didn't affect the outcome,....

      How the fuck would you know, Boris?

      Explain, bozo, what would constitute evidence to you? Did you interview all the millions of voters and ask them if any of the myriad ways the Russian government interfered had any influence on their vote? Did you interview any of the 100 million or so eligible voters who didn't vote if the Russian interference somehow influenced their decision? You think they would even be aware of it?

      Tell me, do you know why I choose Coke over Pepsi? Did Coke's advertising influence me?

      Delete
    42. Word is that Trump voters,who are deeply concerned about the economy and aren't bigots dontchaknow, were all set to make a peep when Trump handed the Treasury to Wall Street.
      Unfortunately, they got distracted by an NFL player exercising his First Amendment rights during the same decade.

      Delete
    43. mm (faggot)

      Do you think Russian interference made a difference in the election? You were the one who suggested I didn't look hard enough. What did you mean by that? Now you say its undetectable. So what was it I was not looking hard enough for?

      There are careful analyses of what happened in the election, you can see how it changed, how the money poured in and from who and here is no sign of any Russian effect. There is analysis and proof of the corporate influence on the election and its effect on the outcome though that is very interesting.

      Russia is canard that helps the Dems in many ways - it takes the focus off their own shortcomings and protects precious provincials like yourself from facing the harder truth: there is massive interference in U.S. elections from the U.S. corporate sector, who pretty much buy the elections.

      You are afraid to face that fact. Why do you think that is?

      When you finish sucking your mother's dick, let me know. ;)

      Delete
    44. Obama had already handed the Treasury (his classmates) to Wall Street (his other classmates)

      https://www.commondreams.org/news/2009/12/13/obamas-big-sellout-president-has-packed-his-economic-team-wall-street-insiders

      Ya'll niggas are dumb as fuck.

      Delete
    45. Daily Kos and Lawyers Guns and Money make y'all dumb as fuck.

      Delete
    46. Of course we're as dumb as fuck. After all, we're so deeply concerned by the rigged economy being run by elites, we voted for a guy with a 5 decade history of stiffing his contractors. Lol

      GTFOH with your nonsensical gibberish.

      Delete
    47. 9:47,
      You have the worst case of economic anxiety I've ever seen in a woman.

      Delete
    48. The whiny little bitch at 9:47 is so worked up, she forgot to call me a "snowflake".

      Delete
    49. "In terms of Warren, I don't know that much about her."

      She's the one Trump and his voters, who are really concerned about the economy being rigged by the elites, call "Pocahontas", because she has the temerity to want to hold the financial service companies accountable for their crimes.
      If you want to know why people who hate the elites running the economy ridicule Warren for wanting to hold elites accountable for their crimes, ask 5:59 PM. Good luck.

      Delete
    50. "You're a liar. And I know you are really suffering and really in pain and not really very well. I wish you the best. You'll be ok. "

      ok? Is that all? He can win the Presidency with that kind of juice.

      Delete
    51. A person on the internet who looks at Trump's cabinet and still thinks Trump was elected by people concerned about an economy rigged against them, accused someone else of being "dumb as fuck."

      Q. How many Right-wing accusations are confessions?
      A. All of them, Katie.

      Delete
    52. Anon @9:42, You were the one who suggested I didn't look hard enough.

      Couldn't you tell I was being sarcastic? Couldn't you recognize that I was mocking you?

      I really don't understand why it is so important to you to make these sweeping categorical claims about something you have no way of being able to support.

      Delete
    53. Actually there's a lot of support for it. if you're interested, just look at the Facebook posts that were pushed by Russia. Have you done that? You can see how amateur they are and how silly it is to think that that had an effect on the outcome of the election compared to the dark money pushed in illegally by corporate and other interests and then you compare the amounts of money spent by Russia and the amounts of dark money and it's a joke.

      It'simportant because the hard to detect, sweeping categorical claims are being made by and pushed on liberals at the expense of claims that are quantifiable and real and more important.

      In other words, corporate power basically buys elections. are you ready to face that? Do you want to even talk about that? Do you even admit that that's true? Does that concern you in anyway? Would you rather keep sucking your mother's dick and speaking about russiagate instead? How long are you going to continue to be a fool, dumbfuck?

      Both parties, under the influence of this money have been shafting the lower and middle class.


      The bottom half of all U.S. households have 32% less wealth than in 2003. The top 1% have more than twice as much as they did then.
      https://on.wsj.com/32hOx3c

      Along comes Russiagate and it takes the people's eye off the ball. Russiagate is a joke. corporate interests buying elections, buying the politicians of both parties is not.

      Any time spent on the former over the latter is a waste of time. It's a divisive ploy. Divided we fall. Divide and conquer.

      You remember the old Bill Hicks joke about Democrats and Republicans right?

      Delete
    54. https://youtu.be/LK9m3Ncrchw


      Keep drinking beer moron.

      Delete
    55. Ultimately, the main objective of the Russian government was to split the Democratic coalition. To convince just enough weak minded progressives that both parties are equally working against the common man's interests. To discourage progressives from voting for either candidate.

      Kind of like what you're doing here. Adios, Boris.

      Delete
    56. " both parties are equally working against the common man's interests" That's true and very obvious. You don't need a Russian to show you that.

      The bottom half of all U.S. households have 32% less wealth than in 2003. The top 1% have more than twice as much as they did then.
      https://on.wsj.com/32hOx3c

      What did Obama do about that? What would have Clinton? If you want to keep a dick in your mouth, fine,

      Delete
    57. " both parties are equally working against the common man's interests"

      that's whole point man. I'm not Russian, I voted for Hillary. But that is the point you have to come to terms with. We all will soon one way or another. Both parties are equally working against the common man's interests because it is in corporate interests to do so and corporate interests own both parties - a provable, quantifiable fact. Hello?

      Both parties are equally working against the common man. That's why our shit is so fucked up, dumbass cumguzzler. Wake the f up.

      Delete
    58. What did Obama do about it? He got health care reform passed and he let Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy lapse. After 2010, what could he do with a Republican House hell bent on being against anything he was for. Hello? Where have you been in the last decade?

      Delete
    59. God, another daft commenter that doesn't research the matter and doesn't know what they are talking about.

      Another true believer!

      Another Daily Kos reader!

      Sooooo boring.

      The Affordable Care Act, at its best, lowered health care costs for the poor by modestly increasing taxes on the rich. The 2009 stimulus bill prevented millions of people from falling into poverty, and *some* of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were eventually allowed to expire.

      Everything else from the Obama years was a wash.

      Seriously, don't you people read? Do you go anywhere outside of the 2002 blogosphere? it's incredible how out-of-touch and misinformed you idiots are.


      Anyway, all this will become obvious to you over time.

      Sorry to have read all of your pathetic responses

      Delete
    60. Relax, Sparky. I don't read the DailyKos. The question was what did Obama do for the country. The answer is he did the best he could when the Republicans controlled the House for six of his eight years in office.

      Delete
    61. 2:11,
      The word "equally"is the tell that you're trolling.
      Also, the best thing you can do to reduce or rid corporate funding of our elections, is to vote for Democrats, who will replace the corporation friendly judges on the Supreme Court.
      As far as the 2020 Presidential election, Warren is your best bet to do so.

      Delete
    62. 2:11,
      Are you positing that both parties support the Citizens United case result equally?
      If so, can you explain how?

      Delete
    63. It's like all you idiots are smoking marijuana and pot. It's ruining your brain.

      Delete
    64. 10:55

      Yes, thank you for your kindergarten take on the matter.

      Delete
    65. 11:18 no I'm not "positing" that.

      I'm positing my dick into your mother's mouth.

      You're boring.

      You're stupid.

      Delete
    66. I'll gladly vote for Warren though, bowing to our contemporary God of lesser-evilism.

      Although I would be surprised if she won.

      Delete
    67. People want a strong man as President. Nobody wants some 70 year old, screeching bitty college professor. She has a small chance though. Trump has been erratic. Of course, he hasn't committed the atrocious war crimes Obama did but he's a bit of a joke so she has a chance.

      Everyone hates liberals. They have no balls or guts.

      Delete
    68. 11:52,
      I'd support your take on Obama, but , I think, since January 20, 2017, it's illegal to talk about drone strikes anymore.
      That's why I'm voting for the Democrat, so we can start talking about them (and the deficit--remember that one) again.

      Delete
    69. Obama is a war criminal for Libya and the 10's of thousands of dead he is is responsible for there. They are selling slaves openly on the streets there now. That was a fuck up. I like Obama too but that was a war crime. But you're right, we should talk more about Trump continuing the massive drone strikes (and Yemen). But you idiots are more interested in weather maps. Or I should say you are gullible enough to let mass media lead you around by the nose with b.s. like weather maps. Funny how it all works huh? Have a good day!

      Delete
    70. 11:52,
      More importantly, the 70-year old, screeching bitty college professor wants to hold the Establishment Elite buddies ofTrump, Mao, and the rest of the Republicans accountable for screwing over the citizens with their crimes.
      In 2:10's fantasy world, where Trump voters (who aren't the least bit bigoted) were at all concerned with government actors rigging the economy against them, she'd win in a landslide.
      Alas,...

      Delete
    71. 11:06,
      Yes. "Funny" is the word I'd use to describe the owners of the media having way more sway over what gets reported than Liberals.

      Delete
    72. 11:24 - the story goes a little bit deeper than you make it - she has to account for her ties to the establishment and her hypocrisy and lies too when convincing them. She could convince them and win though. And she has to get over being a woman - people prefer men. But we can agree to disagree. If you think the middle and lower class Trump voters are concerned about race and not trade and class, go for it. We've gone over and over it and I feel your arguments are weak, immature and full of logical fallacies. But you could be right. I can't convince you so there's no point in discussing it, especially with most of your responses being poor-thought out sarcasm. They are all a bunch of racists! Haha. So laughable but if that is what you think, I will not argue.

      If you want a candidate that will slaughter Trump and radically change the world, start looking into Yang. Listen to his interview on NYT today.

      Delete
    73. Yang, like Biden, thinks he can work with Republicans to benefit the citizens of this country.
      Sorry, but now is not the time to listen to someone that out of touch with reality.
      What's he going to do, get them to approve his Supreme Court nominee
      GTFOH, with that gullible nonsense.

      Delete
    74. 11:39,
      Right back at ya. Id love to be convinced that Trump voters are the least bit concerned about the economy, and the role corporations play in it. Unfortunately I have not seen or heard about these Trump voters showing any concern about Trump's cabinet, where you would expect them to object.
      Instead, Republicans support Trump at a 70+ percent clip.

      Delete
    75. I would examine your logic and assumptions further if you could. They are just a little bit out of whack. But I know it feels safe to stay where you are. Or maybe that logic and those assumptions are all you are capable of. Have a good one.

      Delete
    76. You mean beyond the fact that Trump's approval rating with 2016 Trump voters is in the high 70s percentage, even though he has larded his cabinet with Wall Street fat cats, fossil fuel executives, and grifters like demos running the Dept. of Education, not to mention his huge tax break to corporations sitting on piles of cash?
      I'll work on it.

      Delete
    77. I don't think Democratic candidates should cow-tow to the economically concerened Trump voters, by promising to put more and more corporate executives in positions of governmental power, just to get the votes of the Trump voters.

      In fact, I don't see how any Democrat gets elected running on a Republican platform.

      Delete
    78. If you are correct, we won't need luck.
      Who is going to vote for Trump?
      Not Democrats.
      Not Republicans who aren't turned on by his bigotry (almost all of them), nor the Republicans who are concerned about the economy (again, almost all of them) .
      So, Independents? Not enough of them to be meaningful.

      Delete
    79. Who is going to vote for Trump? How about the 40% of voters that started out approving of him and haven't wavered since? He'll no doubt lose the popular vote, but so what?

      "Republicans who aren't turned on by his bigotry" is called the empty set in mathematics.

      Delete
  4. "We've often noted the remarkable youth of many contemporary journalists. We'll guess that most Post readers wouldn't suspect that they're getting such tendentious analyses from people so young and so inexperienced when they thumb through the high-profile Outlook section."

    Since this person is part of the MIT Election Lab, he is probably a graduate student. Such students work closely with faculty and they are taught the most current methods and read the most current literature. That means that they are often more well-informed than their mentors in their specific areas of interest, and they are in training as experts. Graduate students also perform peer review and they publish research papers, which was probably the source of this article.

    Somerby complains that only two questions were used. The question about special favors is a coded summary of a belief widely held by people who are hostile to minorities. Someone subscribing to it can be presumed to subscribe to other associated beliefs, because these statements don't stand in isolation but are part of a belief system. Single words in that question convey larger meaning that evokes an entire context. So, "special favors" isn't confined to just the dictionary definition of that term, but includes a wide set of attitudes and beliefs about things like affirmative action.

    Somerby pretends he is a martian who has never participated in any discussion about race before, never read the news, never talked to real people about race. He acts like only the literal or "face value" of that question matters, as he pretends he doesn't know what the "right" answer might be.

    Somerby doesn't know anything about statistics, so he doesn't know about factor analysis and the fact that the answers to sets of questions might correlate and form a pattern that can be identified with people who feel and believe the same things. In that case, the answer on a single question from that group can be identified as the best predictor of how someone might feel about members of minority groups. If the responses are highly correlated, you don't need to present all of them and one can be used as a proxy for the rest. This is routine in the social sciences. But Somerby is undereducated about research and so he has no way to discredit this author except to blame his youth and say stupid things like two questions don't seem like much to draw a conclusion from.

    These questions are not trivial and it is certainly fair to draw conclusions from them. But don't take my word for it. Results like these go through peer review before they are released to the media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since this person is part of the MIT Election Lab, he is probably a graduate student. Such students work closely with faculty and they are taught the most current methods and read the most current literature. That means that they are often more well-informed than their mentors in their specific areas of interest, and they are in training as experts.

      That’s simply adorable. Really.

      Graduate students are the dogsbodies of academia. A PhD candidate about to defend his or her dissertation is likely to be more informed only on the details of the tiny slice of their particular study. And you’re right, they are in training as experts, but they’re not experts yet.

      Graduate students also perform peer review and they publish research papers, which was probably the source of this article.

      Having graduate students perform peer review is somewhat controversial because few graduate students are peers of the people who publish in most reputable academic journals, i.e., university faculty.

      The “research associate” came up with an odd result. Black voters and voters who are presumed to hate black voters both seem to support Biden. This is a warning signal that should penetrate all your blather about factor analysis, correlation, and predictors. Even a martian could figure out what’s wrong with the “special favors” question. It’s the analog of the campaign slogan of the homophobic side in the debate against marriage equality: “No special rights for queers.”

      The winners on that battlefield won by proclaiming, “We don’t want special rights; we want the same rights as straight people.” Would you venture that black voters are sick of hearing that black people get “special” treatment through affirmative action?

      Might they answer that black citizens should reject “special favors” for equal treatment? What does that do to the researcher’s “prejudice measures”?

      ————
      We hope you enjoyed this example of uncultured impudence and lower middle class ignorance™

      Delete
    2. You don't know what you are talking about.

      Delete
    3. Of course, @9:32A! Thanks for explaining it for me. Now at last I understand!

      Delete
  5. Hey Bob, look at this, more zombie cult rituals:

    "In Ms. Monopoly, the latest iteration of the board game, women will collect 240 Monopoly bucks when they pass “go,” while oppressive male players will collect the usual 200. Critics might think that the new rule is unfair and transparently sexist, but Hasbro, the game’s creator, strongly disagrees."
    https://www.rt.com/news/468478-monopoly-women-more-money-men

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hasbro disagrees. That means they're correct.
      Just like when you accuse Trump voters of being bigots, and they disagree.

      Delete