On 30-Apr-24 4:08, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> Election lore has it that Republican voters are more devoted to
> voting and will (for instance) show up despite bad weather or it
> being a year without Presidential elections -- so, whatever makes
> voting easier/harder is presumed to help Dems/Reps, respectively.
>

Here in the UK, it is accepted wisdom that:
a) As they get older, many people tend to shift to the Right and vote
Conservative.
b) Older people are much more inclined to turn out and vote.

I don't think those two trends would be limited to the UK electorate.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 02:55:19 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:43:01 -0400, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 14:50:13 +1000, Peter Moylan
>><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27/04/24 14:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>
>>>It depends on what you're comparing with. Yes, CNN isn't right-leaning
>>>by US standards, but it is if you're comparing it with European TV.
>>>
>>>The right wing of Australian politics is roughly comparable with the
>>>left wing of US politics. Biden and Trump couldn't be elected here,
>>>because the parties they would fit into are the extreme ones that get
>>>hardly any votes.
>>
>>To me, the determination of "Left" or "Right" is made by which
>>commentators appear regularly and who is used in the panel
>>discussions.
>
>The shows with commentators are usually featuring "opinions"
>as well as news. If you don't know the commentators, you
>start in a hole. In the 1980s, there were shows that included
>both left and right commentators, but the moderator and the
>TOPIC would be relevant. I mean, whoever controls the
>agenda can control what bias is more effectively presented.
>
My use of "commentators" has misled. Jake Tapper and Erin Burnett are
both anchors (according the CNN roster) and commentators. An "anchor"
is expected to present the news item in a neutral manner. Both Tapper
and Burnett inject opinion. If a bombing is reported to have killed
10 Gazans, that's a neutral report. If the bombing is reported to
have killed 10 innocent Gazans, that's opinion.

>
>>
>>News items presented on CNN are the same news items that are presented
>>on Fox News. They are, in my opinion, presented with minimal bias on
>>both channels.
>
>"Fox News" has a news agency that is fair, they say. I don't
>watch it, or CNN. I assume that they cover most topics, so
>far as topics go. However, MSNBC noted that Fox banned
>from their news all reporting of their own defamation suit --
>the one where they ended paying $787 million to Dominion Voting
>Systems. Reportedly, one fellow who described himself as the
>Fox "media" reporter gave one report, in order to say that he
>was not allowed to say anything about the suit.
>
>MSNBC reported extensively on the daily revelations of what
>had been filed as Discovery for the trial. Competitors of Fox
>on the Right (except one, out of a dozen or so) were also
>essentially mum on the case. IMO, they feared to be 'tarred
>with the same brush', that is, producing Fake News wherein
>they supported the lie, knowing it was a lie, that the election
>was stolen; because that was what got them viewers.
>
>>
>>The commentators (Jake Tapper and Erin Burnett, for example) on CNN do
>>- in my opinion - come across as very leftish and flavor their
>>comments. The discussion panels are usually made up of very leftish
>>members with the exception of Scott Jennings as the token
>>ultra-conservative.
>
>I think it was for most of the Obama years at least, that Republican
>leadership pressed their politicians to refuse to appear on MSNBC.
>In 2016, Never-Trump people appeared a few times; despite their
>nominal message, they always included a tagline, that Hillary Clinton
>is a liar. I suspected their leadership demanded that; they were
>not yet ousted from the party.
>
>Republican guests had never been treated unfairly, I think, but
>the party rarely came out looking good from whatever they said.
>
>>
>>Scott Jennings is a conservative Republican and former G.W. Bush
>>operative (Special Assistant to the President, Deputy Director of
>>Political Affairs).
>
>Another example of bias-by-topic, even if you have panels,
>could be the contrast of covering "Jan. 6" or covering the
>Black Lives Matter protests during the time of the Jan. 6 hearings.
>
>News? MSNBC must have showed me the Jan. 6 people more
>than 100 times. I think Fox viewers did not see the videios or hear
>much about the Jan. 6 hearings. At that same time, Republicans
>were pretending that BLM /should/ be investigated; they advocated
>ignoring the Jan. 6 hearings as 'fair play' -- you don't give us our
>hearings, we will ignore your. That was a very clever propaganda
>ploy for preserving ignorance about Jan. 6. Fox, I heard, showed
>their viewers selected days of riots (Seattle, especially?) as often
>as I saw Jan. 6.

On 30/04/2024 at 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 30-Apr-24 4:08, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
>> Election lore has it that Republican voters are more devoted to
>> voting and will (for instance) show up despite bad weather or it
>> being a year without Presidential elections -- so, whatever makes
>> voting easier/harder is presumed to help Dems/Reps, respectively.
>>
>
> Here in the UK, it is accepted wisdom that:
> a) As they get older, many people tend to shift to the Right and vote
> Conservative.
> b) Older people are much more inclined to turn out and vote.
>
> I don't think those two trends would be limited to the UK electorate.
>

It might be "accepted wisdom" but I shifted left as I got older and
recognised the inequities of (e.g.) VAT, Poll tax, National Insurance rates.
Turn out and vote? Postal votes for ever.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT CUT CORNERS

On 01-May-24 15:02, Chris Elvidge wrote:
> On 30/04/2024 at 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 30-Apr-24 4:08, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>
>>> Election lore has it that Republican voters are more devoted to
>>> voting and will (for instance) show up despite bad weather or it
>>> being a year without Presidential elections -- so, whatever makes
>>> voting easier/harder is presumed to help Dems/Reps, respectively.
>>>
>>
>> Here in the UK, it is accepted wisdom that:
>> a) As they get older, many people tend to shift to the Right and vote
>> Conservative.
>> b) Older people are much more inclined to turn out and vote.
>>
>> I don't think those two trends would be limited to the UK electorate.
>>
>
> It might be "accepted wisdom" but I shifted left as I got older and
> recognised the inequities of (e.g.) VAT, Poll tax, National Insurance
> rates.
> Turn out and vote? Postal votes for ever.

As an aue poster you are clearly exceptional, and thus an exception to
this trend.

It has been _suggested_ that recent data shows that the 'shift towards
the Right' has not been happening in the most recent years and (leaving
the impact of the 'Reform' party to one side) as the older Tory voters
die off, they are not being replenished at the same rate.
I suspect this trend has been observed and reported on by people who
would want it to be true, so I treat it with some suspicion.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 1 May 2024 at 14:02:37, Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> wrote:
> On 30/04/2024 at 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 30-Apr-24 4:08, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>
>>> Election lore has it that Republican voters are more devoted to
>>> voting and will (for instance) show up despite bad weather or it
>>> being a year without Presidential elections -- so, whatever makes
>>> voting easier/harder is presumed to help Dems/Reps, respectively.
>>>
>>
>> Here in the UK, it is accepted wisdom that:
>> a) As they get older, many people tend to shift to the Right and vote
>> Conservative.
>> b) Older people are much more inclined to turn out and vote.
>>
>> I don't think those two trends would be limited to the UK electorate.
>>
>
> It might be "accepted wisdom" but I shifted left as I got older and
> recognised the inequities of (e.g.) VAT, Poll tax, National Insurance rates.
> Turn out and vote? Postal votes for ever.

Exactly the same for me. I'm 82.

On 2024-05-02 06:08:23 +0000, Bob Martin said:

> On 1 May 2024 at 14:02:37, Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> wrote:
>> On 30/04/2024 at 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 30-Apr-24 4:08, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>
>>>> Election lore has it that Republican voters are more devoted to
>>>> voting and will (for instance) show up despite bad weather or it
>>>> being a year without Presidential elections -- so, whatever makes
>>>> voting easier/harder is presumed to help Dems/Reps, respectively.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here in the UK, it is accepted wisdom that:
>>> a) As they get older, many people tend to shift to the Right and vote
>>> Conservative.
>>> b) Older people are much more inclined to turn out and vote.
>>>
>>> I don't think those two trends would be limited to the UK electorate.
>>>
>>
>> It might be "accepted wisdom" but I shifted left as I got older and
>> recognised the inequities of (e.g.) VAT, Poll tax, National Insurance rates.
>> Turn out and vote? Postal votes for ever.
>
> Exactly the same for me.

Likewise.

> I'm 82.

Not yet: I have to wait until next year.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

In article <l9goumFjc0kU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Martin
<bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
> On 1 May 2024 at 14:02:37, Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> wrote:
> > On 30/04/2024 at 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 30-Apr-24 4:08, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >>
> >>> Election lore has it that Republican voters are more devoted to
> >>> voting and will (for instance) show up despite bad weather or it
> >>> being a year without Presidential elections -- so, whatever makes
> >>> voting easier/harder is presumed to help Dems/Reps, respectively.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Here in the UK, it is accepted wisdom that: a) As they get older, many
> >> people tend to shift to the Right and vote Conservative. b) Older
> >> people are much more inclined to turn out and vote.
> >>
> >> I don't think those two trends would be limited to the UK electorate.
> >>
> >
> > It might be "accepted wisdom" but I shifted left as I got older and
> > recognised the inequities of (e.g.) VAT, Poll tax, National Insurance
> > rates. Turn out and vote? Postal votes for ever.

> Exactly the same for me. I'm 82.

Well, I'm 84 next week. I don't think I've shifted - but I think the
politicians have.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote or quoted:
>Well, I'm 84 next week. I don't think I've shifted - but I think the
>politicians have.

In a tune, which can be understood as dealing with the advanced
stage of life, Dylan croons:

|I know it looks like I'm moving, but I'm standing still
..

On Thu, 2 May 2024, at 09:15:03, charles posted:
>In article <l9goumFjc0kU1@mid.individual.net>, Bob Martin
><bob.martin@excite.com> wrote:
>> On 1 May 2024 at 14:02:37, Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net> wrote:
>> > On 30/04/2024 at 20:54, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> >> On 30-Apr-24 4:08, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Election lore has it that Republican voters are more devoted to
>> >>> voting and will (for instance) show up despite bad weather or it
>> >>> being a year without Presidential elections -- so, whatever makes
>> >>> voting easier/harder is presumed to help Dems/Reps, respectively.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Here in the UK, it is accepted wisdom that: a) As they get older, many
>> >> people tend to shift to the Right and vote Conservative. b) Older
>> >> people are much more inclined to turn out and vote.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think those two trends would be limited to the UK electorate.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It might be "accepted wisdom" but I shifted left as I got older and
>> > recognised the inequities of (e.g.) VAT, Poll tax, National Insurance
>> > rates. Turn out and vote? Postal votes for ever.
>
>> Exactly the same for me. I'm 82.
>
>Well, I'm 84 next week. I don't think I've shifted - but I think the
>politicians have.
>
Yes indeed, if you're talking policies. Policies are action plans in the
light of current circumstances, so are bound to change.

The British Conservative party (more fully, the Conservative and
Unionist Party) has always been a work in progress as far as policies
are concerned, and thereby survived as a political force longer than all
other parties in Britain, but Bernard Braine, in his 1948 book /Tory
Democracy/, is at pains to claim that while the party's policies may
well change as circumstances change, the principles remain firm. I just
have to remember what those principles are...I'd say democracy, and
respect for the freedom of the individual, well ahead of Statism.

Back in those days the great enemy at home was Socialism, which by the
dogmas of its politicians was wedded to state authority and all that
went with it, while the hope abroad was the ever-closer union of the
Colonial Empire with the leadership of, and trade with, the Mother
Country.

It's sort-of interesting how the Labour Party, nominally Socialist,
fervently rejected the EEC after Suez, while the Tories saw it as the
future for Britain. Roundabout and roundabout and roundabout we go...
--
Paul W

Den 28-04-2024 kl. 03:45 skrev Peter Moylan:
> On 28/04/24 04:43, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> To me, the determination of "Left" or "Right" is made by which
>> commentators appear regularly and who is used in the panel
>> discussions.
>
> Here's an interesting article on the differences between German
> conservative parties and American conservatives. By US standards, the
> German conservatives (which are not so different from conservatives in
> other European countries) sit on the far left on many issues.
>
> https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20211001-german-election

So different, it makes one wonder why Europe and the US are on the same
side in world affairs. More or less, at least.

I was, however, struck by the following quote from the article:

Smaller parties have a reasonable chance of a voice in
the Bundestag, since hte country’s finely-tuned system
of proportional representation means a threshold of just
5 percent of the vote.

"Just"? 5 percent seems quite exclusionary to me: The comparable limit
in Denmark is 2 percent. and it is a constant source of worry for
some parties that voters do not want to risk "wasting" their vote by
casting them for parties close to the limit.

> The article is taken from "The Political Compass", which over the years
> has been consistent in its classification of political parties as left
> or right, authoritarian or libertarian. It's interesting to compare the
> graphs for parties in different countries, and also how those parties
> have  changed position over the years.

/Anders, Denmark

Den 27-04-2024 kl. 17:56 skrev occam:
> On 25/04/2024 08:24, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> Aided by the long-term suicide of the Labour Party. As they drive more
>> and more people away it seems almost inevitable that yoi will get five
>> more yeas of Tory government.
>
> I'll take that wager with you. After four Tory Prime ministers (and
> three-and-a-half disasters)

Liz Truss didn't sit for long enough to be counted as more than
half a disaster?

> since Brexit, I'll wager good money that the
> Tories will not rule again for quite a while.

/Anders, Denmark

On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:47:49 +0200
"Anders D. Nygaard" <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Den 28-04-2024 kl. 03:45 skrev Peter Moylan:
> > On 28/04/24 04:43, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> To me, the determination of "Left" or "Right" is made by which
> >> commentators appear regularly and who is used in the panel
> >> discussions.
> >
> > Here's an interesting article on the differences between German
> > conservative parties and American conservatives. By US standards, the
> > German conservatives (which are not so different from conservatives in
> > other European countries) sit on the far left on many issues.
> >
> > https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20211001-german-election
>
> So different, it makes one wonder why Europe and the US are on the same
> side in world affairs. More or less, at least.
>
> I was, however, struck by the following quote from the article:
>
> Smaller parties have a reasonable chance of a voice in
> the Bundestag, since hte country’s finely-tuned system
> of proportional representation means a threshold of just
> 5 percent of the vote.
>
> "Just"? 5 percent seems quite exclusionary to me: The comparable limit
> in Denmark is 2 percent. and it is a constant source of worry for
> some parties that voters do not want to risk "wasting" their vote by
> casting them for parties close to the limit.

Imagine you're a support of the Liberal (democrats) in the UK; 30% of the
vote is often insubstantial enough to get hardly any representation in
parliament!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:

> Den 28-04-2024 kl. 03:45 skrev Peter Moylan:
> > On 28/04/24 04:43, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> To me, the determination of "Left" or "Right" is made by which
> >> commentators appear regularly and who is used in the panel
> >> discussions.
> >
> > Here's an interesting article on the differences between German
> > conservative parties and American conservatives. By US standards, the
> > German conservatives (which are not so different from conservatives in
> > other European countries) sit on the far left on many issues.
> >
> > https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20211001-german-election
>
> So different, it makes one wonder why Europe and the US are on the same
> side in world affairs. More or less, at least.
>
> I was, however, struck by the following quote from the article:
>
> Smaller parties have a reasonable chance of a voice in
> the Bundestag, since hte country's finely-tuned system
> of proportional representation means a threshold of just
> 5 percent of the vote.

It was 'finely tuned' to keep the communists out,
(and anything and everything to the left of the social democrats)
so 'finely-tuned' to be fundamentally undemocratic.

This turned out to be a very bad idea.
On one hand, nailing the door shut against the left
fostered extremism, and more extremism.
The rise and the violence of the RAF
(the Rote Armee Fraktion, aka the Baader-Meinhof gang)
might have been prevented with a more democratic constitution
and practice.
On the other hand, genuine, bona-fide democratic parties,
such as the Liberals or the Greens,
were too often kept out of parliament. [1]

Another bad effect is that Germany
has the most worthless parlemantarians of all of Europe.
There are far too many of them, (Germamy a huge parliament)
and in practice they function as little more
than a rubber-stamping machine most of the time.

> "Just"? 5 percent seems quite exclusionary to me: The comparable limit
> in Denmark is 2 percent. and it is a constant source of worry for
> some parties that voters do not want to risk "wasting" their vote by
> casting them for parties close to the limit.

Yes, the Danes are almost as stupid about this as the Germans.
I really don't see why they would need such a limit.
They are democrats at heart, (I think)
and they really shouldn't want to silence minorities,

Jan

[1] Brits and Americans are often confused when finding out
that in several European countries the so-called 'Liberals'
are in fact the 'conservative' party.

On 03/05/24 18:59, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 2 May 2024 21:47:49 +0200 "Anders D. Nygaard"
> <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Den 28-04-2024 kl. 03:45 skrev Peter Moylan:
>>> On 28/04/24 04:43, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> To me, the determination of "Left" or "Right" is made by which
>>>> commentators appear regularly and who is used in the panel
>>>> discussions.
>>>
>>> Here's an interesting article on the differences between German
>>> conservative parties and American conservatives. By US standards,
>>> the German conservatives (which are not so different from
>>> conservatives in other European countries) sit on the far left on
>>> many issues.
>>>
>>> https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20211001-german-election
>>
>>
>>>
So different, it makes one wonder why Europe and the US are on the same
>> side in world affairs. More or less, at least.
>>
>> I was, however, struck by the following quote from the article:
>>
>> Smaller parties have a reasonable chance of a voice in the
>> Bundestag, since hte country’s finely-tuned system of proportional
>> representation means a threshold of just 5 percent of the vote.
>>
>> "Just"? 5 percent seems quite exclusionary to me: The comparable
>> limit in Denmark is 2 percent. and it is a constant source of worry
>> for some parties that voters do not want to risk "wasting" their
>> vote by casting them for parties close to the limit.
>
> Imagine you're a support of the Liberal (democrats) in the UK; 30% of
> the vote is often insubstantial enough to get hardly any
> representation in parliament!

Australia's voting system includes no threshold. In practice, it turns
out that a party that gets 5% of the primary vote has some (small)
chance of getting a member into parliament, but with 2% they have
essentially no chance. Not because there's a barrier, but solely because
they're not getting enough votes.

How can a 5% party win any seats, I hear you ask. Partly it's because of
the distribution of preferences. Mostly, though, it's because the 5% is
a national average. Such a party might be getting a much higher vote in
just one electorate.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:
> The way it looks from outside the country is that Trump is out to wreck
> the Republican Party. I'm surprised that there's not a group of
> Republicans getting together to stop him from doing that.

There are several. Probably the largest is RVAT, who are the
public-facing side of the Republican Accountability PAC.
https://rvat.org/ https://www.ra-pac.org/

There are also some pretty high-profile twixxer accounts, such as
"Republicans against Trump" @RpsAgainstTrump

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

"Anders D. Nygaard" <news2012adn@gmail.com> writes:
> Den 28-04-2024 kl. 03:45 skrev Peter Moylan:
>> https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20211001-german-election
>
> So different, it makes one wonder why Europe and the US are on the same
> side in world affairs. More or less, at least.
>
> I was, however, struck by the following quote from the article:
>
> Smaller parties have a reasonable chance of a voice in
> the Bundestag, since hte country’s finely-tuned system
> of proportional representation means a threshold of just
> 5 percent of the vote.
>
> "Just"? 5 percent seems quite exclusionary to me: The comparable limit
> in Denmark is 2 percent. and it is a constant source of worry for
> some parties that voters do not want to risk "wasting" their vote by
> casting them for parties close to the limit.

Agreed. We're also 5% here, and I consider that to be one of the least
democratic aspects of the system. I'd be way happier if it were 2%, or
even 1% - if you have enough votes for 1 seat, why don't you dese4rve at
least one seat? It does nothing to keep the hitler party or the putin
party out of power, between them they're well over a third of the seats.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On Fri, 3 May 2024 13:53:41 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Den 28-04-2024 kl. 03:45 skrev Peter Moylan:
>> > On 28/04/24 04:43, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >
>> >> To me, the determination of "Left" or "Right" is made by which
>> >> commentators appear regularly and who is used in the panel
>> >> discussions.
>> >
>> > Here's an interesting article on the differences between German
>> > conservative parties and American conservatives. By US standards, the
>> > German conservatives (which are not so different from conservatives in
>> > other European countries) sit on the far left on many issues.
>> >
>> > https://www.politicalcompass.org/counterpoint-20211001-german-election
>>
>> So different, it makes one wonder why Europe and the US are on the same
>> side in world affairs. More or less, at least.
>>
>> I was, however, struck by the following quote from the article:
>>
>> Smaller parties have a reasonable chance of a voice in
>> the Bundestag, since hte country's finely-tuned system
>> of proportional representation means a threshold of just
>> 5 percent of the vote.
>
>It was 'finely tuned' to keep the communists out,
>(and anything and everything to the left of the social democrats)
>so 'finely-tuned' to be fundamentally undemocratic.

No, they didn't want the mistakes of the Weimar Republic to be repeated.
It should be easier to form a (new) government if there are not so many
different parties (see Belgium and the Netherlands recently).
By the way, I don't have the impression that Britain is less democratic
than the Netherlands just because there is less representation of
minority interests in the parliament.

Henning