Progressive Politics

i'm still trying to wrap my head around the irony of forming a party against parties.

BE. INDEPENDENT. fuck, do the research. America's government was supposed to be against such things.

Nice

I mean the 69, not the 31% bigots

IIRC interracial marriage didn't get more than 50% support until the late 90s. In general public support lags behind progressive lawmaking.

That in addition to more 'nuanced' opinions on it. Does "Sure 'they' can do whatever they want, but none of my children are allowed!" count as support or not? It probably gets counted as support/opposition depending on what the poll asker wants, if they even get that granular.

I checked the first three and they all seemed the same or higher.

69 vs 85% for abortion according to your first link. Although clearly the number is from another source with different phrasing.

72 vs 68% according to your second source

And here's a source for 90% on #3 - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/90-percent-want-background-checks/

Anyway, I hate info graphics, too, but these hardly seem wrong or misleading.

I mean, "We're starting a new party! The Infograph Party!" was a loser to begin with. But coming straight out of the gate with "You're already a member, you just don't know it yet" naive dogmatism certainly isn't helping.

The militias are not well-regulated.

Yeah, I would be very careful how they word any mention of guns. It's very easy to get people arguing past each other even when they share very similar views, thanks to how groups like the NRA have mucked up 2A discourse.

A revolver, shotgun, or other firearms without magazines are fine for most hunting and self-defense cases. I don't have a problem with an 18yo buying one of these on their birthday. I do have major problems with a teen, or anyone really, coming in with zero history of firearm ownership and buying 1000 rounds and a semi-auto, high-powered weapon.

Owning guns to defend yourself against tyrannical government made sense a hundred years ago .... it wouldn't make a difference in modern times.

Probably poor branding, after years of being called a scam. Kind of like Obamacare v. ACA.

Yep. Even the gun control issue, which is the most conflicted on this thread, isn't a binary. What gun control? Background checks? Magazine restrictions? Firing mode restrictions? Barrel length restrictions? Round size/energy restrictions? Education, training, and/or storage requirements?

90% of people may agree that we need something, but they likely won't agree on what.

Since most are >50% and many are >75%, the crossover is probably large enough that it won’t make a difference

Most think about how they can’t afford a 2% increase in their taxes and forget about the $500 per month premium they won’t have to pay anymore

Persistent, heavy propaganda has convinced many Americans that Medicare is somehow worse than their current insurance coverage. It’s quite insane but that’s why this number is so low.

To put a fine point on it: the common lie in the media is that Medicare for all means you lose your current insurance. This is true, and it would be replaced by the much better and more affordable Medicare, but they never say this last part.

Na, it's real...

The thing is, most voters are low information voters. There are a hell of a lot of reliable republican voters who oppose the majority of their agenda, even before project2025...