On Nate Silver's blog about election forecasting, as a footnote to his article about election modelling, he noted the following (Nate was a Harris supporter by the way, but he works with people on all sides):
> Even though our forecast was near 50/50 for almost the whole race, there were certainly periods that were relatively better and w…
On Nate Silver's blog about election forecasting, as a footnote to his article about election modelling, he noted the following (Nate was a Harris supporter by the way, but he works with people on all sides):
> Even though our forecast was near 50/50 for almost the whole race, there were certainly periods that were relatively better and worse for Harris and Trump. Our narrative content followed accordingly, with about an even mix of newsletters that presented optimistic cases for Harris and Trump. (That was not true when Joe Biden was running, but that’s because Biden was way behind in the polls.) So I essentially got to perform a randomized control trial on how partisans in both camps reacted to good and bad news.
> And there was an asymmetry. Republicans are generally happy when you agree with them partway or half the time. Admittedly, the sorts of Republicans who encounter our work are not a representative sample, probably being on the moderate side — though you can find plenty of Trump supporters in the Silver Bulletin comments section.
> Democrats, however — and here, I’m not referring so much to Silver Bulletin subscribers but in the broader universe online — often get angry with you when you only halfway agree with them. And I really think this difference in personality profiles tells you a little something about why Trump won: Trump was happy to take on all comers, whereas with Democrats, disagreement on any hot-button topic (say, COVID school closures or Biden’s age) will have you cast out as a heretic. That’s not a good way to build a majority, and now Democrats no longer have one.
I've also seen research which indicated that liberals are substantially more likely to cut all ties with conservative family or friends, than vice versa. And on a more anecdotal level, I do not recall seeing tiktok and other social media filled with so many posts advocating "cutting off" anybody who voted for the winning side in 2020 as I'm seeing currently in 2024.
So yes, I agree that we have an across the board problem with, as you say, "extreme, borderline-psychotic discomfort with differing opinions.", but it's not evenly distributed across the spectrum.
And Nate's comment is more about being hostile to relatively objective information which only partly agrees with one's preferred reality, not about actual opposing subjective opinion. I think the hostility towards even objective facts which don't fit completely into one's preferred narrative which is surging on the left, is not unconnected to the hostility towards people with even slightly divergent opinions, like fellow Democrats who partially dissent but are then considered apostates.
I have come to the conclusion that on the whole (ie: not focusing on the extremes on either side), the left in the US has become more dogmatic and ideologically blinded than the right, a reversal since my youth.
The "people, and facts, must completely follow our prescriptions, not just provide partial support" mental dynamic can manifest in this way:
apostate: "I support LGBT civil rights like nondiscrimination in employment, transportation, housing, education, and financial dealings, and certainly I completely support safety. I support same sex marriage. I think adults should be able to transition without interference. I would never use a slur against LGB or T people. I enjoy my friends who are LGB or T. But I think that having anybody who subjectively identifies as a girl or women being allowed to compete in sports leagues built by and for biological women is going too far."
faithful: "You are a transphobic bigot and we need to destroy you if we can, for hating us and wanting us to die or kill ourselves"
Yes, that derives more on the full-on progressive side of the left rather than center left, but it also permeates and intimidates and is actively or passively accepted by a broad spectrum within the left in the US. A center left person in good standing might not INITIATE the response above, but they might stand by without objecting, look aside, or even join the mob supporting the "faithful" side above so as not to raise questions about themselves.
I moved from a lifelong progressive liberal and sometimes activist on many issues, to the independent middle (not wanting to join the opposite cult), but I would love to move back if sanity can be restored. That's not possible while strategies (like CRT or queer theory) are treated like sacred cows which cannot be questioned, even by people who share some of the nominal goals or values.
Trump has built a multi-racial multi-ethnic working class coalition which is not going to be "cancelled" by shaming and shunning. The Dems need to respond with something much stronger than calling 75 million voters misogynist and racist bigots to be cut off from contact with the righteous.
On Nate Silver's blog about election forecasting, as a footnote to his article about election modelling, he noted the following (Nate was a Harris supporter by the way, but he works with people on all sides):
> Even though our forecast was near 50/50 for almost the whole race, there were certainly periods that were relatively better and worse for Harris and Trump. Our narrative content followed accordingly, with about an even mix of newsletters that presented optimistic cases for Harris and Trump. (That was not true when Joe Biden was running, but that’s because Biden was way behind in the polls.) So I essentially got to perform a randomized control trial on how partisans in both camps reacted to good and bad news.
> And there was an asymmetry. Republicans are generally happy when you agree with them partway or half the time. Admittedly, the sorts of Republicans who encounter our work are not a representative sample, probably being on the moderate side — though you can find plenty of Trump supporters in the Silver Bulletin comments section.
> Democrats, however — and here, I’m not referring so much to Silver Bulletin subscribers but in the broader universe online — often get angry with you when you only halfway agree with them. And I really think this difference in personality profiles tells you a little something about why Trump won: Trump was happy to take on all comers, whereas with Democrats, disagreement on any hot-button topic (say, COVID school closures or Biden’s age) will have you cast out as a heretic. That’s not a good way to build a majority, and now Democrats no longer have one.
I've also seen research which indicated that liberals are substantially more likely to cut all ties with conservative family or friends, than vice versa. And on a more anecdotal level, I do not recall seeing tiktok and other social media filled with so many posts advocating "cutting off" anybody who voted for the winning side in 2020 as I'm seeing currently in 2024.
So yes, I agree that we have an across the board problem with, as you say, "extreme, borderline-psychotic discomfort with differing opinions.", but it's not evenly distributed across the spectrum.
And Nate's comment is more about being hostile to relatively objective information which only partly agrees with one's preferred reality, not about actual opposing subjective opinion. I think the hostility towards even objective facts which don't fit completely into one's preferred narrative which is surging on the left, is not unconnected to the hostility towards people with even slightly divergent opinions, like fellow Democrats who partially dissent but are then considered apostates.
I have come to the conclusion that on the whole (ie: not focusing on the extremes on either side), the left in the US has become more dogmatic and ideologically blinded than the right, a reversal since my youth.
The "people, and facts, must completely follow our prescriptions, not just provide partial support" mental dynamic can manifest in this way:
apostate: "I support LGBT civil rights like nondiscrimination in employment, transportation, housing, education, and financial dealings, and certainly I completely support safety. I support same sex marriage. I think adults should be able to transition without interference. I would never use a slur against LGB or T people. I enjoy my friends who are LGB or T. But I think that having anybody who subjectively identifies as a girl or women being allowed to compete in sports leagues built by and for biological women is going too far."
faithful: "You are a transphobic bigot and we need to destroy you if we can, for hating us and wanting us to die or kill ourselves"
Yes, that derives more on the full-on progressive side of the left rather than center left, but it also permeates and intimidates and is actively or passively accepted by a broad spectrum within the left in the US. A center left person in good standing might not INITIATE the response above, but they might stand by without objecting, look aside, or even join the mob supporting the "faithful" side above so as not to raise questions about themselves.
I moved from a lifelong progressive liberal and sometimes activist on many issues, to the independent middle (not wanting to join the opposite cult), but I would love to move back if sanity can be restored. That's not possible while strategies (like CRT or queer theory) are treated like sacred cows which cannot be questioned, even by people who share some of the nominal goals or values.
Trump has built a multi-racial multi-ethnic working class coalition which is not going to be "cancelled" by shaming and shunning. The Dems need to respond with something much stronger than calling 75 million voters misogynist and racist bigots to be cut off from contact with the righteous.