Should anything be done about this?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The most annoying thing about these "debates" is they tend to consist mostly of just hurling strawmen at each other. It's weird seeing a "debate" where both sides are attacking something no one unironically ever claimed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Old Atlas has bigger problems, such as the presence of a rape apologist and a raging anti-Semite, than this. 

Several, actually.

As vile as those posters are they can easily be put on ignore. This nonsense derails threads, clogs up discussion and makes discussion of certain topics almost impossible. For example it should be possible to discuss how a traditionally Democratic rural county that voted for Trump narrowly is likely to vote in 2020 without it being bogged down by endless "HAR HAR #POPULISM" meming.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I get too the names aren't really the main problem but I don't understand what the hell the point of them is. It seems someone adopted one to make a point and then a big meme bandwagon developed and whatever that point is became completely obscure.

And yes I know I like to change my name but its always clear who I am, I've never been "Tina Smith/Doug Wardlow Voter" or "CO more Democratic than PA".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If my username "offends" people, I'll change it, fine. In the thread the OP posted, I gave my opinion in a pretty reasonable way, even if some disagreed with it. I've pretty much always responded to serious threads seriously. When my post does seem to use "strawmen," however, I'm citing actual arguments people have made, so perhaps people could get annoyed by the arguments themselves as well. I haven't even posted all that much in that particular board lately, since finishing the primary prediction threads (big time spam, I know.)

Either way, the presidential board has always been terrible. I can guarantee you that if the four of us were banned from the board, the quality wouldn't improve at all. If the quality were higher to begin with, maybe more posters would take it seriously, but come on. We're election nerds talking about a primary that is 8 months away and an election that is almost a year and a half away. Even seemingly good analysis based in data often ages very poorly and very quickly.

Honestly ignoring the questions as to why people don't like names like this, it's pretty silly fundamentally, why exactly do you need to advertise how likely you think a state is to flip in your USERNAME in EVERY SINGLE POST? I could also note how they make the forum slighly more difficult to read and threads a bit more difficult to follow, but I think I touched on the core issue above.

Now as far as the strawmanning goes, look at any thread where "populism" is mentioned, a word that has practically been stripped of all meaning here (not that its meaning was ever clear to begin with granted.) I have never once seen a single poster argue that if the Democrats adopted a platform along the ways of any definition of the word "populist" that they would start winning over longtime hardcore socially conservative Republicans, be able to win Steve King's district, or any other such examples which get bandied about to mock the notion. I've never even seen someone argue that the Democrats would be capable of winning all Obama counties again. The argument is simply that if the Democrats didn't get blown as bad as Hillary Clinton did in such areas, they would be able to win enough states to lock down the EC. This is basically what happened in many races in 2018, the fundamentals of the coalitions didn't change much, but it's really not too much to ask that any 2020 Democratic candidate be able to replicate the numbers of Tony Evers or Gretchen Whitmer. On the flip side I have never once seen anyone unironically say something like "The future of the Democratic Party is in the country clubs of Phoenix and Dallas" or say the best strategy would be for the Democrats to sell unions out completely to pander to millionaires in the Sun Belt. So if people would quit acting like there's a dichotomy of trying to win over Steve King's voters vs. making the Democratic Party a vehicle for country clubbers in sprawling suburbia that would go a long ways.

Another frequent strawmanning I see from the "clique" heatcharger mentioned is the notion that if anyone makes a comment that they believe a Senator or state or whatever is favored to win/lose or remain/flip that means that person and by extension the majority of the forum believes that's an absolute certainty, thus also leading to that pretty irritating "B-b-but..." meme if a single poll comes out that runs contrary to the narrative of any person who ever disagreed with them. Most of the time there isn't even a clear consensus on the topic at hand throughout the forum, yet many think any poll that comes out helping their prediction is proof they're an electoral genius standing against the tide.

Just a few examples. And yes, the presidential election forums have never been great, but these issues are way more pronounced and prominent than they have been in the past.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If my username "offends" people, I'll change it, fine. In the thread the OP posted, I gave my opinion in a pretty reasonable way, even if some disagreed with it. I've pretty much always responded to serious threads seriously. When my post does seem to use "strawmen," however, I'm citing actual arguments people have made, so perhaps people could get annoyed by the arguments themselves as well. I haven't even posted all that much in that particular board lately, since finishing the primary prediction threads (big time spam, I know.)

Either way, the presidential board has always been terrible. I can guarantee you that if the four of us were banned from the board, the quality wouldn't improve at all. If the quality were higher to begin with, maybe more posters would take it seriously, but come on. We're election nerds talking about a primary that is 8 months away and an election that is almost a year and a half away. Even seemingly good analysis based in data often ages very poorly and very quickly.

Honestly ignoring the questions as to why people don't like names like this, it's pretty silly fundamentally, why exactly do you need to advertise how likely you think a state is to flip in your USERNAME in EVERY SINGLE POST? I could also note how they make the forum slighly more difficult to read and threads a bit more difficult to follow, but I think I touched on the core issue above.

Now as far as the strawmanning goes, look at any thread where "populism" is mentioned, a word that has practically been stripped of all meaning here (not that its meaning was ever clear to begin with granted.) I have never once seen a single poster argue that if the Democrats adopted a platform along the ways of any definition of the word "populist" that they would start winning over longtime hardcore socially conservative Republicans, be able to win Steve King's district, or any other such examples which get bandied about to mock the notion. I've never even seen someone argue that the Democrats would be capable of winning all Obama counties again. The argument is simply that if the Democrats didn't get blown as bad as Hillary Clinton did in such areas, they would be able to win enough states to lock down the EC. This is basically what happened in many races in 2018, the fundamentals of the coalitions didn't change much, but it's really not too much to ask that any 2020 Democratic candidate be able to replicate the numbers of Tony Evers or Gretchen Whitmer. On the flip side I have never once seen anyone unironically say something like "The future of the Democratic Party is in the country clubs of Phoenix and Dallas" or say the best strategy would be for the Democrats to sell unions out completely to pander to millionaires in the Sun Belt. So if people would quit acting like there's a dichotomy of trying to win over Steve King's voters vs. making the Democratic Party a vehicle for country clubbers in sprawling suburbia that would go a long ways.

Another frequent strawmanning I see from the "clique" heatcharger mentioned is the notion that if anyone makes a comment that they believe a Senator or state or whatever is favored to win/lose or remain/flip that means that person and by extension the majority of the forum believes that's an absolute certainty, thus also leading to that pretty irritating "B-b-but..." meme if a single poll comes out that runs contrary to the narrative of any person who ever disagreed with them. Most of the time there isn't even a clear consensus on the topic at hand throughout the forum, yet many think any poll that comes out helping their prediction is proof they're an electoral genius standing against the tide.

Just a few examples. And yes, the presidential election forums have never been great, but these issues are way more pronounced and prominent than they have been in the past.

The only time most of any of us have used the word "populist" is to comment on the fact that it seems to have no real meaning anymore, other than a generic positive adjective for candidates people personally like. And I really haven't even done that much at all lately, either. The only example of the other "strawman" you mentioned that I can think of in my case is Biden, but there are people who literally do think he'll win 49 or 50 states, so I'm really not misrepresenting their argument, and just as they have every right to make it, I have every right to say why I disagree and think that it's premature to jump to such conclusions.

I'm all for a higher quality presidential board, but I also think people can lighten up a little bit. The occasional meme isn't going to kill anyone, even if they personally find it annoying and not funny.

Cite?

I've never seen anyone unironically claim this. So either:

-It hasn't been, and this is one of things people argue against because "they could see" someone making this argument, even if no one actually has or...
-It only appeared in a few posts, so some random troll or idiot newbie said it, and thus acting like it's a widespread serious belief worth mocking is indeed a strawman.

Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about from today, and perfect for illustrating why the "B-b-but"/"But Atlas told me..." meme is so absurd:

But Atlas told me the Democrat has no chance of getting Whitmer's map or winning Bay or Macomb counties!

I'm not going to dispute that it's entirely possible someone said this at least once, but this is not exactly a talking point I've seen too often or even at all in any discussions of Michigan here. This "clique" seems to have adopted the mindset that if anyone ever states a prediction they disagree with, that instantly becomes the "Atlas consensus" and worthy of mockery if any evidence to the contrary shows up. This results in a rather surreal situation where two opposite sides are mocking the "conventional wisdom" of the opposite prediction, when of course it's literally impossible for two opposing views to be "conventional wisdom".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well, here's one example:

There are more, and there's a thread in which many people think Biden winning all 50 states (including Vermont) is more likely than him not winning any. Just because you don't notice arguments made more than once doesn't mean that they aren't. And if the arguments of Biden winning 49-50 states are "ironic", how is that any different from what you're accusing other posters of doing?

That's the primary and its obviously just a map of how current polls stand, not a prediction.