Best political parties books according to redditors

Because they stay within their echo chamber. Republican Noise Machine is a good read on it.

The book apparently is arguing that God has chosen Trump to save America. And HOLY SHIT look at the rating of the book and reviews on Amazon!! https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Chaos-Candidate-American-Unraveling/dp/0998216402

96% gave it 5 stars with 683 reviews!! (4.9 out of 5)

> I listen to a lot of AM talk radio (to study how they mange their base), and the rhetoric is just astounding.

And consider, so called "conservative talk radio" has been doing that since the 80's

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_talk_radio#Deregulation_of_talk_radio

Combine that with Fox News, Drudge Report, Breitbart, Twitter, Facebook, etc

Then add in the right wing politicians who have parroted the rhetoric and spin and lies

A large % of the country is brainwashed and needs actual deprogramming.. they are in a cult

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/movies/the-brainwashing-of-my-dad-review.html

https://www.amazon.com/Fox-Effect-Network-Propaganda-Machine/dp/0307279588/

https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Noise-Machine-Right-Wing-Democracy/dp/B000FVQV16

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5tkxq4/trumps_supporters_believe_a_false_narrative_of/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/opinion/republicans-hold-on-to-a-myth-to-hold-on-to-power.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-paints-a-picture-of-a-dystopian-america-that-doesnt-exist/2017/02/11/a1f3daaa-efc6-11e6-9662-6eedf1627882_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-supporters-see-a-successful-president--and-are-frustrated-with-critics-who-dont/2017/02/19/496cb4b4-f6ca-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html

She was a threat long before 2016 but if we just look at her attacks on We the People in 2016 we see:

Second signed agreement between HRC and the DNC promising to rig the election in exchange for funding:
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

DNC lawyers statement admitting to rigging the primary by asserting they get to do so because they are a private organization:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/31/1662843/-DNC-lawyers-say-it-can-pick-candidates-in-smoke-filled-back-room

After providing HRC with advanced information on upcoming debate questions, Donna Brazile admits to being aware of rigging of the primary in interview and in her NYT Best Seller:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders

Tom Perez admits the primary was rigged:
https://observer.com/2017/02/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-admits-democratic-primaries-rigged/

DNC emails admit to rigging the primary:
https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

77 Billion to One are the odds against a fair 2016 Democratic primary election according to a study done by a body of statisticians, attorneys, and technologists.  100 pages of peer-reviewed statistics determined the Margin Of Error on exit polls far exceeded U.N. maximums. These events occur where voting is electronic, they favor HRC, and impacted no other candidate regardless of party.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M1D0VY7/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Hillary Victory Fund - Money laundering, fraud, and campaign finance violations:
https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/democratic-parties-accused-of-funneling-84m-into-clinton-campaign/

I feel threatened.

Please enjoy some citations:

Second signed agreement between HRC and the DNC promising to rig the election in exchange for funding:
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

DNC lawyers statement admitting to rigging the primary by asserting they get to do so because they are a private organization:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/31/1662843/-DNC-lawyers-say-it-can-pick-candidates-in-smoke-filled-back-room

After providing HRC with advanced information on upcoming debate questions, Donna Brazile admits to being aware of rigging of the primary in interview and in her NYT Best Seller:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders

Tom Perez admits the primary was rigged:
https://observer.com/2017/02/dnc-chair-candidate-tom-perez-admits-democratic-primaries-rigged/

DNC emails admit to rigging the primary:
https://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/

77 Billion to One are the odds against a fair 2016 Democratic primary election according to a study done by a body of statisticians, attorneys, and technologists. 100 pages of peer-reviewed statistics determined the Margin Of Error on exit polls far exceeded U.N. maximums. These events occur where voting is electronic, they favor HRC, and impacted no other candidate regardless of party.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01M1D0VY7/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Hillary Victory Fund - Money laundering, fraud, and campaign finance violations:
https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/democratic-parties-accused-of-funneling-84m-into-clinton-campaign/

Well, the interesting part of the story is John Yob. He traveled with his wife Erica, and another couple (Ethan and Lindsey Eilon) from the mainland to the US Virgin Islands in late December or January. John, Erica, and Lindsey were elected as delegates, so they comprise half the delegation. John Yob is a Republican party campaign guy who worked for the presidential campaigns of Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and John McCain, along with various statewide campaigns in Michigan. He has a lot of experience working conventions in Michigan, and just published a book called "Chaos: The Outsider's Guide to a Contested Republican National Convention." Being a delegate doesn't just let him hang out in Cleveland and cast his vote, it lets him put motions on the floor, try to organize other delegates, and so forth.

There's a court case about whether Yob's people fall under the 90-day residency requirement to be able to vote and serve as delegates, and whether that restriction is even constitutional. It will be decided on March 22. If those 3 people are removed, then the alternates would replace them and Rubio would pick up a pledged delegate. But like I said, I don't think Yob wanted to be a delegate just so he could vote for his preferred candidate and hear a bunch of speeches.

In political science most of the literature on vote choice, at least in contexts with stable party systems, builds out of the loyalties people have to political parties. Partisanship creates what the authors of the seminal work The American Voter call a "perceptual screen" which filters information in ways that reinforce these ties. In other words, people first identify with a political party, then interpret the world in ways that support these views (think confirmation bias and motivated reasoning). This identification, moreover, typically [comes from parents](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/654.html] or other early social experiences.

Vote choice and candidate preference then follows from these loyalties. Loyalties to a political party is symbolically and psychologically meaningfully, much like supporting a sports team or adhering to given religious tenets. That's why you'll see people sticking by candidates regardless of information, among many other political phenomena.

See this in the NYTimes for a quick overview.

The reason it's always Texas has more to do with your size than your politics. Well, it's partly your politics. However, the liberals do the same thing with California. California and Texas are the largest buyers of text books in the country. No text book company wants to produce a Texas version, California version and Rest of America version.

So California and Texas set their requirements very stringently in order to buy text books because they know what they put in their textbooks will be the guide for the rest of the nation. They also allocate much more funding to make sure they're loyal customers in return for getting their ideology in text books.

The thing is, California is joke when it comes to managing money. Their liberal state government just wastes and wastes money. Texas is more organized and sees much more success because they're dedicated.

That's really the lynch pin of GOP success. They're much more organized because they have only one ideology. They cater to wealthy whites. To a certain extent it's wealthy white males.

The liberals get all the overflow. A white gay couple will have a much different agenda than a black heterosexual woman. Although, some gays are starting to vote for the GOP. This is both due to the fact that parts of the Republican party (mostly young) are accepting of marriage equality and partly because there are many gay couples now in their thirties and forties without children who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

If you're homosexual and already got the right to marry why wouldn't you start voting for the GOP? You're less likely to have children. You both likely work. Why would you want higher taxes? Why would you want to care about abortion? Granted, it's far from a pronounced trend. However, the GOP is winning over hispanics and homosexuals a lot faster than they're winning over blacks or women. The Hispanic thing is mostly because many of them come from strong Christian backgrounds. So they agree with the GOP when they say Christianity should be part of American life.

This stuff is really interesting. At least to me, but not so much at cocktail parties.

Further reading:

America's New Swing Region: Changing Politics and Demographics in the Mountain West


http://www.amazon.com/Americas-New-Swing-Region-Demographics/dp/0815722869

Red, Blue, and Purple America: The Future of Election Demographics

http://www.amazon.com/Red-Blue-Purple-America-Demographics/dp/0815783159/ref=pd_sim_b_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=115CNAB7JTFY76W1ZE9Y

Actually by and large swing voters do not exist. If you want to find out a little bit more about how people vote I suggest Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and Myths about American Voters. They have a chapter devoted to swing voting. A very basic explanation is that the media over hypes swing voters, thus many people believe that there is this mysterious group of people that vote on a whim. It's largely not true. People vote mostly vote along party lines.

This was an amazing overview. I need to read his book.

I think this is the one he refers to:
Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump Post Hill Press https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdo_t1_uJf.BbABPDKE2

Spez: link

Typically you vote the way your parents voted. National leadership of the Republican Party worked to integrate libertarians into the party throughout the mid-20th century, taking advantage of growing concerns about corruption stemming from the New Deal and from the economic alternatives to Keynesianism that began to blossom following the then-shocking success of a little-known, mostly-theoretical economist named F.A. Hayek (the link is to a really fun podcast detailing the rise of Hayekian thought in the US). Modern American libertarianism largely coalesced in its infancy around critiques of the theory and practice of the public policies put into place by the Democratic Party, which enjoyed uninterrupted rule for twenty years prior.

Libertarianism had been around in the United States a long time before this but not as a serious part of party politics until the mid-20th century. So essentially you get a generation of libertarians welcomed with open arms into the Republican Party. They came to conflict with pretty much every other wing of the party soon ( though they were mobilized as Republicans a whole generation before, say, Evangelicals ), but mostly I would say the momentum starts from there. The first generation of modern Libertarians were Republicans, and so their kids naturally will be, too.

> It's not sufficient to just throw the accusation out there.

Really? Big money interest did everything they could to discredit, steer, disconnect and smear the occupy movement. Banks and the FBI worked side by side. Hell the FBI even had plans to assassinate protest leaders.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coordinated-crackdown-occupy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584931/FBI-refuses-turn-documents-alleged-plot-extremists-assassinate-leaders-Occupy-movement.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wallstreet-protests-origins-idUSTRE79C1YN20111014

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/13/reuters_george_soros_is_secretly_behind_occupy_wall_street/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-movement-hijacked-newcomers/story?id=14691330

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/04/co-chairs-of-congressional-progressive-caucus-applaud-occupy-wall-street-protests/

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/10/dems_backing_occupy_wall_st_are_funded_by_wall_st/

You dont think the Repub warhawks hijacked Pauls movement?

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/11/rand_paul_tea_partys_been_hijacked_and_hoodwinked_by_false_conservative_donald_trump/

http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2011/02/14/cpac-victory-in-hand-ron-paul-takes-on-tea-party/

http://www.amazon.com/Tea-O-Conned-Hijacking-Exposing-Neoconservative-Infiltration/dp/1453797440


My comments arent "accusation", yours are just ignorant. Maybe all it takes is a few years to forget history? I would love to spoon feed you but uh, Learn to Google. Are people really that naive?

You are close.....

I'm reading this book now:
God's Chaos Candidate: Donald J. Trump and the American Unraveling

https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Chaos-Candidate-American-Unraveling/dp/0998216402/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481434389&sr=1-1&keywords=god%27s+chaos+candidate

This book.

If you think outfits like Fox News have ever made a serious attempt at being legitimately accurate and balanced you need to read David Brock's book The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How it Disrupts Democracy.

The guy is a former writer for right-wing newspapers and magazines that participated in dozens of orchestrated attacks on Democratic politicians and mainstream media over the years until he finally got sick of it all around 1998.

If you're really interested. That should get you up to speed.

https://youtu.be/cs6MaloWMpg

Check out his channel

Dan Bongino has been great and ahead of this more than any other that I have come across.

He's got a few books. This one is his latest

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_5ZiWDbCDFCZC8

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

There you go, I've gone down this road too many times with people who are too entrenched in their beliefs. If you think the Obama admin was capable of something like that I encourage you to check it out, if not then I will never be able to sway you.

Kill all Normies by Angela Nagle just came out. It's sort of love-hate but I think it was decent.

There's a book called The Rise of the Right that I am reading now. Only 50 pages in though.

I believe the image is pulled from a book “Gaming the Vote” by William Poundstone, using results from a 2000 paper by Warren Smith, hopefully someone can provide better links than I was able to.

synopsis: Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) returns to give Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) the Never Trumper view on culture wars, judicial festishization, and the all-important business of impeachment. Plus: a wacky game about pathological lying! Please consider checking out Rick’s new book Running Against the Devil: A Plot to Save America from Trump–and Democrats from Themselves; a title that we will almost certainly be fighting him about next time he joins the show.

show notes

http://www.amazon.com/The-American-Campaign-Presidential-Campaigns/dp/1585446289 (this will supplement your textbook)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Imperfect-Primary-Controversies-Representation/dp/0415995779/ref=pd_sim_b_6 (Most recent, and pretty dang good)

http://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Primaries-Dynamics-Public-Choice/dp/0691022836 (Still a classic despite the age)

http://www.amazon.com/Unconventional-Wisdom-Facts-American-Voters/dp/0195366832 (not specific to presidential elections)

http://www.psqonline.org/APSBooks.cfm?idbook=12121 (Selections of articles concerning the last few elections)

http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=22213 (Best work on presidential third parties that exists)

>that’s why they’ve denuclearized like 3 separate times now right?

How many times did they denuclearize in the last 50 years?

>Trade wars with our allies is objectively one of the fastest ways to piss off our allies. Guaranteed.

I don't care about our allies if they can't handle reciprocal tariffs. Same way they can't pay their shares of NATO or rise up to the Paris Climate Accord they all agreed to

>Trump winning the RNC isn’t a measure of his political negotiation skills. That’s just appealing to the largest portion of the stupidest population in the country.

So if it was so easy why didn't 16 of the RNC candidates do it after being in politics their whole lives? Your logic is only consistent in that it's completely inconsistent.

>Blaming Obama by citing a quote. Neato.

Correct, a quote where Obama claims that there's no way to rig an election, right before he flip flopped and began accusing Trump of rigging an election. Who was in control of the intelligence at the time Trump was still a candidate? (hint: It was Obama)

>If that were even remotely true, start your own investigation. You could have done that at any point in the last 2 years, that it hasn’t happened should tell you that they can’t. But that would require logic.

Why would Trump do that when he can wait for Mueller to come out with the report finding Trump didn't collude, and then start doing his own investigations? Meanwhile while Trump has come out on top of you clowns every time, there have been people doing that investigation. Although I know how people like you work, and you'll simply refuse to accept new facts that go against your views.

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

Oh and there's a sequel coming up

https://www.amazon.com/Exonerated-Failed-Takedown-President-Donald/dp/1642933414/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=EJCR20TMJYACQC2EJFGQ

Oh look that same ex-secret service member who wrote the books on the collusion between the Obama admin and foreign/domestic intelligence also has a daily podcast where he covers these same topics. Bet you will never allow yourself to listen to it

lol

>Keep hammering partisan divides though, because that's gonna solve everything,

he said, without a hint of irony or self-awareness.

Again, you fundamentally fail to grasp my point: it isn't about "association," it's about rhetoric and electoral strategy.

But hey, don't let the lack of any substantial research get in the way of your very-serious opinions. I mean, not when there are paparazzi photos that can tell you what to believe.

Not to forget the german Merkel version: Gründe, CDU zu wählen: endlich auf den punkt gebracht https://www.amazon.de/dp/152085885X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_U9n9yb2M412JS

Legislatures polarize. People do not.


And yes, legislatures (and the congress) have polarized substantially. DW-NOMINATE data on legislative voting behavior demonstrates a recent trend towards a highly polarized congress. Not all state legislatures are as polarized (see Shor-McCarty) but nationally this is certainly the case. DW-NOMINATE has put out this great video (you can see it on youtube here) that demonstrates the ideological movement of legislators in congress over time (from the 1st to the 111th legislature).

What we see amongst the voter however is maybe more of a faux-dealignment. Which is to say that people claim to identify less with either political party thusly, reporting themselves as being "independent". We can see this trend clearly in the surveys (see 2015 Gallup Poll).

However the prevailing models of electoral behavior cast a great deal of doubt on this being anything more than the electorate signally displeasure (perhaps over legislative polarization) while otherwise doing what they've always done. Campbell et al.'s The American Voter (which is the seminal electoral behavior work in contemporary american political science) argues that partisan identification is so stable that it is essentially inherited via a process of socialization and from one's own parents. They then go on to point out that all political preferences and decisions are then viewed through that inherited partisan lens. So while we see people self-reporting less affiliation with either party than we did before we don't see people behaving any differently. In fact, when we consider partisan leanings amongst independents (meaning: whether independents "lean democrat" or "lean republican") we don't see any added likelihood of the voters "switching" parties. In fact, we see most independents consistently vote for one party or the other based on their leanings in precisely the way Campbell's model suggested they would.


Sources:

DW-NOMINATE - national polarization data

Shor-McCarty - state polarization data

Campbell et al. 1960. The American Voter

Additional reading:

V.O. Key. 1966. Responsible Electorate

Its an old article. In 1995 the right wing noise machine was still fairly new.

Also, from 2004:

The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy

gaming the vote


^^
an awesome read detailing the advantages that numerous voting systems (including instant runoff) have over the plurality voting system that is commonly used in elections

Based on his Twitter feed, he seems to lean more Trump than Cruz, but honestly I think he just wants to be at the RNC because he lives for the idea of a contested convention that sticks it to The Man. He literally wrote the book on it.

They do. But look to the FBI and IG's report which confirms everything I am saying. Dan Bongino did a good job of cataloging all public releases from the FBI in his book. The obama admin engaged in textbook crime and they are getting a pass. They shouldn't. Not to mention a constitutional crisis. 4th Amendment violations.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

I keep seeing libertarians push IRV but every country with IRV still has a two-party-dominant system. The link that dkinmn posted perhaps explains why.

If you really want to fix the problem, go for range voting, or at least approval voting.

For an engaging in-depth look at the properties of various voting systems, read Gaming the Vote by William Poundstone.

Are you positing the premise that most voters select a candidate based on the relationship between their views and the policies the candidate espouses? In fact, only a tiny percentage of people vote this way. Most people vote strictly along party lines, even if they claim to be "independent," and during primaries respond only to name recognition and one or two valence issues, which are typically very abstract (e.g., small government, gun control reform, lower taxes). In addition, they are often wrong about their chosen candidate's actual opinions on these valence issues.

Academic sources:

Baldassarri & Gelman, "Partisans Without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion"
Fenno, Senators on the Campaign Trail: The Politics of Representation
Jacobson, A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People
Mair, Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations

This view, that issues have very little impact on the decisions of individual voters absent a rare systemic shock (such as the Great Depression, the Civil War, etc.), is called the Michigan Model, after its origin in the National Election Studies at the University of Michigan and the seminal text The American Voter. Some modern scholars have attempted to criticize this model, but statistically, it has generally held true. For a look at some of these attempts, one decent source is "Choice, Context, and Consequence: Beaten and Unbeaten Paths Toward a Science of Electoral Behavior" by Paul Allen Beck, excerpts from which are available on Google Books here.

Well, that would be a longwinded reply.

If you have a half hour, listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aevtHHULag

Read these two books with an open mind:

https://www.amazon.com/Russia-Hoax-Illicit-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0062872745

https://www.amazon.com/Spygate-Attempted-Sabotage-Donald-Trump/dp/1642930989

I understand these take some logical leaps as well, but I feel they're closer to the truth of the matter.

All I know is that this investigation impacted the mid-term results far more than any Russian interference impacted the 2016 election, and they better have something BIG for the damage that this has done to the country.

When patriarch of US Democratic Socialism playfully rousts about in communist kitsch, praises the Castro and the Sandinistas even going so far as hiss followers calling themselves [Sandernistas] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01LZE7B8M/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1), and posting things that praise for Venezuela on his website, I think one has to come to the conclusion that this was never going mainstream in the US. Don't be such a defeatest -- the Dem's have a real chance if they don't throw it away on idealogical non-starters.

Every single source is in his book Spygate.
But you don't really care about sources do you?

Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump https://www.amazon.com/dp/1642930989/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_QJU.BbD9W0QEC

>Not hard to win a game rigged in your favor

Hahaha how you say that with a straight face is beyond me.

If you wanna know the truth

Spygate