Changing political demographics in politics

[Value Buy]

Not sure if this is correct, but is good food for thought.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/changing-america-the-county-that-gave-clinton-only-5-votes/ar-BBEdTUU?li=BBnb7Kz

Interesting read, at least for me.

You do have to take it with a grain of salt.......remember we were told in 2008 that we would never see another baby boomer President and especially a right wing white guy in the White House ever again......due to changing demographics.

[billisonboard]

 worth the read

[billisonboard]

I am thinking about AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP 's frequent link, The Conservative Treehouse, and how apt a treehouse is as a metaphor for the current political environment.

[billisonboard]

[buystoys]

Jul 11, 2017 8:29:26 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

That is an interesting read, but it is not a new observation.  The growing physical political divide has been a concern for some time.  I say "concern", because we are all Americans, and to the extent that we vilify and dislike our brethren- without even knowing them- it is a bad thing, imo.

One point I that I think is salient, and indicative of a bad trend is the following:

To be certain, the internet and the rise of specialty media have contributed to those worsening feelings. Turn on Fox News or click on Breitbart and one is likely to see a story critical of Democrats; turn on MSNBC or head to Vox and one is likely to encounter negative information about Republicans.

There is little crossover in audience, even online: The Facebook research showed just 29 percent of news that shows up in someone's feed cuts across party lines, and only a quarter of the stories people click on runs counter to their own political beliefs.

"The days are gone when everyone queued up the nightly news on broadcast TV to consume their political information," said Mark Stephenson, a Republican data and demographics expert. "Now, voters have the ability to self-select sources, largely more and more digital in nature, which tend to reinforce and create the more partisan divide we now see."

This self selection of information is a dangerous thing I think, as a trend.  "Fake" news is not so much the result of a nefarious corporate media plot.  It is a result of the atomization of media and the personal selection of media "truths" that fit one's perspective and personal biases.  Most people do not seem to try to filter things to gain a true picture of what is going on, and that is very scary indeed.

I somewhat disagree with the bolded portion of your statement.  There have been WAY too many articles/news clips/reports just in the last six months based solely on "anonymous sources" or questionable logic.  The stories are run full blast by various media and then retractions are a single statement with no fanfare.  I don't think everyone is just clicking on "truths" that fit their personal bias as much as missing the retractions and continuing to think a falsehood is true.

I don't see the "fake" news as a corporate media plot, but I do see the willingness to run with questionable or unconfirmed stories fairly rampant now.  Media personalities are hungry for publicity and ratings.  That means they will phrase things in a manner to get clicks or views or tweets.  I don't see the news as reporting for the most part any longer, but I haven't for quite a while now.  That's why I tend to watch multiple channels and then throw out the hyperbole.  And that's another piece of the problem to me.  The hype and vitriol is intended to rouse people and it does.  It's not intended to have people think, it's intended to drive people to a specific view point.  It's marketing, not news.

[Deleted]

Anonymous sources aren't new. They have brought down countless numbers. It's whether the new source verifies with multiple sources, the veracity of the sources and the organization.

But anonymous sources aren't new. 

Have you watched Spotlight by any chance? 

[Deleted]

You must not actually read very widely... 

[buystoys]

Jul 11, 2017 9:58:41 GMT -5 oped said:

Anonymous sources aren't new. They have brought down countless numbers. It's whether the new source verifies with multiple sources, the veracity of the sources and the organization.

But anonymous sources aren't new. 

Have you watched Spotlight by any chance? 

I don't believe I said that anonymous sources are new, just that there have been a number of incorrect reports recently that have used "anonymous sources" as their basis.  The story is loudly proclaimed yet the retraction is a quiet little statement. 

I have not watched Spotlight, but I do know the story. 

[Deleted]

I'd say the retractions have been well covered, unlike Trumps which are nonexistent...

Watching the jr. shit unfold...

Spotlight is an excellent movie, so well done.

[buystoys]

I disagree with you on the retraction coverage, but we also see many things differently. 

I'll have to see if Spotlight is on my Amazon Prime and add it to my list.

BTW, I have it from several credible sources that Jayden K. Smith is a hacker. 

(And that last line IS meant to be a statement on how I am viewing many of these anonymous sources used today.  People are much too willing to hear something and pass it along as fact without checking the details out first.)

[Tennesseer]

Jul 11, 2017 11:08:30 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I disagree with you on the retraction coverage, but we also see many things differently. 

I'll have to see if Spotlight is on my Amazon Prime and add it to my list.

BTW, I have it from several credible sources that Jayden K. Smith is a hacker. 

(And that last line IS meant to be a statement on how I am viewing many of these anonymous sources used today.  People are much too willing to hear something and pass it along as fact without checking the details out first.)

[billisonboard]

What the internet has changed significantly is the speed and range which information (accurate and inaccurate) can travel.

[hurley1980]

Jul 11, 2017 10:00:33 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Jul 11, 2017 9:34:40 GMT -5 buystoys said:

I somewhat disagree with the bolded portion of your statement.  There have been WAY too many articles/news clips/reports just in the last six months based solely on "anonymous sources" or questionable logic.  The stories are run full blast by various media and then retractions are a single statement with no fanfare.  I don't think everyone is just clicking on "truths" that fit their personal bias as much as missing the retractions and continuing to think a falsehood is true.

I don't see the "fake" news as a corporate media plot, but I do see the willingness to run with questionable or unconfirmed stories fairly rampant now.  Media personalities are hungry for publicity and ratings.  That means they will phrase things in a manner to get clicks or views or tweets.  I don't see the news as reporting for the most part any longer, but I haven't for quite a while now.  That's why I tend to watch multiple channels and then throw out the hyperbole.  And that's another piece of the problem to me.  The hype and vitriol is intended to rouse people and it does.  It's not intended to have people think, it's intended to drive people to a specific view point.  It's marketing, not news.

but, they are not only willing to run with unvetted information to get ratings... they are VERY likely to run with it if it furthers their world view.  they'll run with any whisp of smoke against a republican.  but they'd need God himself to testify before they would run anything shading a democrat in a negative light.

that's why many of us are finally giving up on the "mainstream" media.  it's less the "false" information and more the massive, subconscious bias that just grates on you everytime you read something

The first bolded sentence....does Fox not do the same thing to democrats, but praise any republican?

Second bolded sentence....do you not consider Fox, with the highest viewership of any news network, to be "mainstream?" And if not, why?

[thyme4change]

Spotlight is great.

I am not a great reader, but the 97% of democrats are more liberal than the average republican and 92% of Republicans are more conservative than the average democrat thing? What the hell does that mean, and do they have anything to compare that to? I know they mentioned the north and south, but how are they measuring that?

Is the point that there used to be factions inside the parties that were different, or that people affiliqted themselves with whatever party according to peer pressure, but still held primarily beliefs that fit a different party?

I would HOPE that 92% of Republicans are more conservative than the average democrat, or what is the frigging point?

[Deleted]

Jul 11, 2017 14:08:26 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

The New York Times used to require two sources for each story. Now they no longer do. I think reinstating that standard would help.

Can you show me evidence of this? Thanks.

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2017 14:04:01 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Spotlight is great.

I am not a great reader, but the 97% of democrats are more liberal than the average republican and 92% of Republicans are more conservative than the average democrat thing? What the hell does that mean, and do they have anything to compare that to? I know they mentioned the north and south, but how are they measuring that?

Is the point that there used to be factions inside the parties that were different, or that people affiliqted themselves with whatever party according to peer pressure, but still held primarily beliefs that fit a different party?

I would HOPE that 92% of Republicans are more conservative than the average democrat, or what is the frigging point?

Here is basically how I would measure it. I would identify 20 or so issues where there is a fairly easily identified conservative and liberal stances, likely a 5 point system of Strong Support. Somewhat Support, Neither, Somewhat Opposed, Strong Opposed. (alternating stating them with conservative/liberal being pro/con). I would serve a randomly selected group of people on the issues and on whether they identify as Republican or Democrat. I would calculate the scores for each group and find the average score. Then use that to identify the percentages. Not sure how they did it.

I grow up and received my poli sci degree there. I did an internship with the Democrats in the Idaho Legislature. I then spent a good deal of my adult life in Western Washington. Used to be when I listened to Washingtonian Republican politicians, they would sound a lot like the Idaho Democrats I knew. The Democratic politicians were like no one I had heard in Idaho. Any more, the Washingtonian Republican politicians sound like the Idaho Republicans I used to know while the Democrats are even more left than they used to be.

[thyme4change]

It is no secret we are becoming less regionalized, given the advances in communication and the open platform the Internet provides everyone. I often wonder if that makes state's rights arguments more difficult. Having 50 sets of laws, rules and regulations seems so expensive. Is it worth it? Does getting rid of national regulations really help businesses that function in multiple states? Or does that not eliminate that much work as some states regulate stricter than the national code?

Just a random thought.

[billisonboard]

Jul 11, 2017 17:43:11 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

...

the only solution then, is to severely curb government power and leave each other be, as then the biased "news" is just gossip, without the real world policy implications that we have now where people believe they are getting an unbiased view of the world, and ask society and the government to act on that misinformed worldview (on both sides).

Not sure that we can remain a world power and have this low power government. But I can live with that.

[thyme4change]

The solution is to create critical thinkers who can recognize bias and get data from multiple sources. Betsy Devoss should be able to handle that by turning all the schools over to for-profit corporations.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 11, 2017 11:39:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What the internet has changed significantly is the speed and range which information (accurate and inaccurate) can travel.

And once the untruths have poured out of the bottle, it is hard to put it all back in.

[weltschmerz]

Jul 11, 2017 13:28:50 GMT -5 hurley1980 said:

Jul 11, 2017 10:00:33 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

but, they are not only willing to run with unvetted information to get ratings... they are VERY likely to run with it if it furthers their world view.  they'll run with any whisp of smoke against a republican.  but they'd need God himself to testify before they would run anything shading a democrat in a negative light.

that's why many of us are finally giving up on the "mainstream" media.  it's less the "false" information and more the massive, subconscious bias that just grates on you everytime you read something

The first bolded sentence....does Fox not do the same thing to democrats, but praise any republican?

Second bolded sentence....do you not consider Fox, with the highest viewership of any news network, to be "mainstream?" And if not, why?

FOX and Breitbart do exactly the same thing.
People will read that which conforms to their own worldview.

I read Breitbart on occasion. Scary stuff, especially the comment section.

[thyme4change]

Jul 11, 2017 20:03:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 11, 2017 11:39:19 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What the internet has changed significantly is the speed and range which information (accurate and inaccurate) can travel.

And once the untruths have poured out of the bottle, it is hard to put it all back in.

Before it was expensive to print something and difficult to distribute it. Now any moron can post anything, anywhere and someone will read it and believe it is a credible source.

[billisonboard]

Jul 12, 2017 12:50:45 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jul 11, 2017 20:03:43 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

And once the untruths have poured out of the bottle, it is hard to put it all back in.

Before it was expensive to print something and difficult to distribute it. Now any moron can post anything, anywhere and someone will read it and believe it is a credible source.

Hmmm. I wonder if this is true.

[formerroomate99]

Jul 11, 2017 15:35:25 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

It is no secret we are becoming less regionalized, given the advances in communication and the open platform the Internet provides everyone. I often wonder if that makes state's rights arguments more difficult. Having 50 sets of laws, rules and regulations seems so expensive. Is it worth it? Does getting rid of national regulations really help businesses that function in multiple states? Or does that not eliminate that much work as some states regulate stricter than the national code?

Just a random thought.

We still have a lot of differences in cost of living, job opportunities, and population density in this country.  Things that work great in the city are a disaster in the sticks, and vice versa.