It doesn’t have to be scientific. There are simple features that can be noted and compared to give a general overview.
The data they compiled checks out anywhere you look for it.
I was responding to this
No one rejected the data. I think each of us pointed out some data points that were blue in a red state, or voice versa.
I’m left blurry eyed after all that. Seems to me it’s not that much about pitting state against state.
It’s about the Blue (Democratic) state of mind and the Red (MAGA) state of mind.
Blue Democrats, well, believe in democracy and the rule of law, civic responsibility and a commitment to make pluralism function along with that All American sense of Fair Play.
Red MAGA Republicans are basically a cult of grievance, that’s raised Donald the trump, to a mythical godlike status beyond all reason. With an aggressive disregard for all FACTS they find inconvenient for their self-serving ways. An even grosser disregard for Fair Play, and common decency towards those they disagree with, the American Constitution and all other American who don’t look like them! Lying and Gas-Lighting have become a way of life for them!
Disregard the sensationalistic title of this video, it’s content is what matters because I think Raskin did a good job of highlighting some of the supreme irony of the sanctimonious Boebert’s rhetorical BS and it speaks directly to the difference between today’s MAGA GOP’s US Representatives and Democratic Party’s Representatives.
It’s not that either Party has ever been perfect, but in these days, the GOP has gone so far beyond the pale and spirit of the American Way, it’s guaranteed to bring nothing but more pain and destruction upon ourselves as we move forward.
Especially since so many good citizens believe it’s none of their business, thus enabling the bad guys - YES MAGA is bad and destructive, with no redeeming value, simply a mindset that puts their personal self-interest, personal failures and sense of personal grievance above all else - a free rein.
It’s really a tragedy to watch this unfold and Americans seeming numbed out, rather than energized to stand up and fight save our nation’s democracy.
Oh and no he didn’t get close to “destroying” the GOP, but he did call them out the way they need to be called out.
What are blue and red data points?
Why is that, Election Day is the one time your opinion actually matters if you’re not a multi-millionaire or better?
It’s another one of those things I simply don’t understand, why that level of apathy?
Is it only immigrants who appreciate voting is a citizen’s civic duty.
Isn’t that what post #9 and #10 were all about?
I just gave you one. Wanton burning of fossil fuels is as you say a red “capitalist” hobby, whereas conserving fossil fuels and using green fuels is a blue "conservationist hobby.
Allow me to insert a touch of humor in discussion.
George Carlin had a novel perspective on voting.
(warning crude language)
Please forgive the language. The skit is hilarious.
I’m sorry Write, how I wish you’d stop reminding of me of that routine. You find it hilarious, but it makes me want to puke and then cry. One of those mini seminal moments in American history, not like the repeal of the assault weapons ban, but another tear in the fabric of American society.
Perfect example of one of those liberal hero’s, who turned bust, no hero or example, just another pretender. Though I guess that’s what that routine was about, Carlin self-justifying his own fall from youthful exuberance and ideals, his primal scream.
You know the more you post that video over here, the more my, at one time, mild feeling of dislike and discomfort with the old man Carlin, is turning into a loathing for that smug old rich pig character on that stage, with saliva spewing from his mouth.
1:55 “This country was bought and sold a long time ago, blah, blah”
Cry me a river.
Yeah, yeah and the guy with the gold makes the rules. So let’s embrace nihilism, resentment. Grown up people appreciate life is a balancing game, no body gets it like they want it to be, yet we lived in this land of plenty in every regard. Including a Constitution and The Rule of Law, and the laws of Democracy, Voting, Community involvement, awareness and engagement with current events and caring about influencing decisions.
Okay so the Scales aren’t balanced, gold is power, but in this country we were given a counterbalance - Good people have been elected and they have made a difference. But how can we hope for good people, when too few make the effort to stand behind them?
Carlin’s a lazy loser: “I can’t win so I don’t even want to try.” Look how he turned out, bitter, empty, wasted life, who cares how famous or rich. All too many I guess.
That’s why we’re are so screwed these days. John F. Kennedy’s death should have made it plain how much harder we needed to care and work and network and organize to ensure constructive future outcomes. But that lesson was lost to laziness and consumerism and our enjoyment of the big party during the latter half of the past century.
If people had taken life a bit more seriously, with a sense of responsibility toward our future and how our government operated, we wouldn’t be in this spiral toward oblivion we’ve created for ourselves. All of us with a share of the burden of guilt. Too few showed up, so what else could you have possibly expected Mr. Carlin.
The candidates are usually not inspiring.
Data is just data. It’s not “red”or “blue”, unless Lausten means something else by those terms.
We weren’t talking about the date. You said my opinion didn’t count and I’m saying, 1. it does count and 2. the journalists are not professional researchers. They are reporting and possibly putting their own spin on things. That’s what journalist do.
Perhaps you misinterpret his work a little. These performances were very carefully constructed as social criticisms.
Carlin was a humorist painting caricatures of the “angry underdog”. His routines were not the way he felt per se, but the way he observed others, just as you and I sometimes do.
He was known for his black comedy and reflections on politics, the English language, psychology, religion, and taboo subjects. His “seven dirty words” routine was central to the 1978 United States Supreme Court case F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, in which a 5–4 decision affirmed the government’s power to censor indecent material on public airwaves.
Don’t we sometimes imitate the complainers and their complaints to make a point?
It’s a spectrum. Braver Angels has taught me that most people have misconceptions about people who vote differently. People vote based on a few issues, then we associate them with the whole platform. Democrats are statistically worse at this. But, words still have meaning, the terms are in use.
Carlin said in an interview that he choose to stand on the sidelines and comment on how things were spinning down the toilet bowl. We need the “jesters” in the world, so I won’t judge him, but we need many more people who take the amger and turn it into action.
It’s not Carlin that’s the problem, it’s what people do when they leave the theater. If they simply parrot his words instead of getting the irony of the joke, then they just support the status quo. I think he was trying to wake up the apathy. He joked about the elite, but he message was also to the masses.
In a way I agree with what both of you say, then again . . .
Perhaps I could have been kinder and gentler, then again, I can’t help but be impacted by the result of the past half century where frivolity reigned, as if there were no tomorrow.
Tomorrow is here, and no one in particular is at fault, then again . . .
I like to keep the Middle East in mind. It’s easy to look at that situation, and to hear from any individual on either side of it, and see how just about any level of violence or suppressive political action can be justified based on something that happened their parents or ancestors. This can go all the way back to “Biblical” times.
It’s hard to see when it’s our heroes from childhood (I’m thinking of John Lennon for me), but the solution is definitely putting that aside, recognizing the mistakes and learning from them.
Again, the data is real regardless of the journalists reporting it.
True, that can be verified. The conclusions based on it are open to interpretation. I don’t think anyone has defined clear boundaries of red or blue policies. Plus, politicians change, so a current law might not have been enacted by the current legislators.
Journalists most certainly are professional researchers. In establishing facts, they follow scientific rigor and are required to “verify” new information from different sources.
Journalists and Scientists Have Different Roles, But They Share a Goal — An Informed Public
At their best, scientists and journalists both seek truth. This guiding principle enlightens research investigations, whether in the field and lab, or through legwork and interviews. Any type of research involves loads of background reading. In their articles, journalists and scientists both strive to set their own perspectives aside to consider other sides of an issue, with the understanding that new evidence could overturn a presumed truth.
The writing style they use differs greatly, with scientists favoring statistical analysis, passive voice and abundant journal references while journalists sprinkle their writing with anecdotes, quotes and real-world examples.
For writing to qualify as journalism, the writer should have no vested interest in the topic. In practice, a vested interest usually boils down to monetary terms—no payoff for a certain slant, no job with the organization featured, no stock in the company garnering the headlines. If conflicts exist, journalists are expected to mention them.
more… Arizona Water Resource Winter 2010 | Water Resources Research Center | The University of Arizona
The exceptions are the “muckrakers” from Fox and other alarmist publications but then they are not considered Journalists but Propagandists.
Regardless, I still take it with a grain of salt.
No they are not professional researchers. Have you ever heard of Faux News and yellow journalism? Reporters reports mean nothing. The actual research must be viewed, not the news article. While some sources of news are reliable, the actual research needs to be reviewed and even so, as Lausten said, it’s still open to interpretation, which can change as the politicians change. Politics, or rather Poli Sci (Political Science), is not a science that adheres to the scientific method. One can not take it as scientific gospel like we can Climate Change or gravity.