How Partisan is Atlas?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How do you count posts like this one?

Richard Falk is a hero.

No he isn't, but he's also not even slightly relevant to whether the US government recognizes the Armenian Genocide or not. Keep your eyes on the ball, Fuzzy Bear.

The main point of the post is to vindicate a Democratic-led initiative in the House over against the Trump administration and its hardest core of Congressional handmaidens, but it also contains a pot shot at the anti-Zionist crowd. Personally, I'm going to count it as left-leaning overall.

Left: 23
Right: 4
Nonpartisan: 98

Many of the nonpartisan posts are still political, in the sense of being about politics or even defending or attacking specific political figures, just not on ideological grounds. For example, I'm counting this post as nonpartisan:

It'd be easier to list youngish, charismatic American politicians who didn't turn out to be some combination of reckless, oversexed, and stupid. That's why I'm not clamoring for Hill's head over this.

I'm also counting my sparring with IceSpear and Dingo Joe on the subject of rural America as non-ideological in character, although they might consider it right-wing, in which case my count of right-wing posts rises to 7.

Of my four right-wing posts, one is attacking JacobinAmerican from the right in the Armenian Genocide thread (in which I also attacked Fuzzy Bear from the left multiple times), and the rest are all about either religion or the British Labour Party or both.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One factor that isn't being accounted for here is the intensity of ideological sentiment within a post. For example, if I posted something along the lines of "corporations that aren't either worker-owned or consumer-owned cooperatives have no right to exist" (a position I do actually hold and have alluded to in the past), it would count the same as some random D avatar posting his nine thousandth variation on "Orange Man Bad", even though the sentiment contained would be much more pointedly leftist. I don't really think there's any objective way to operationalize this, and if the goal is to measure rhetorical evenhandedness rather than raw ideology then the difference doesn't matter nearly as much, but it is a factor to consider.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A quick explanation: While GeneralMacArthur is a Democrat and purportedly a left-winger on this forum, a clear majority of his posts attack Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard from a right-wing perspective. His defenses of Joe Biden pulled him back to the left end of the spectrum, but based on posting history alone, it appears that he goes after Democrats far more often than he attacks Republicans. I tried to be as fair and balanced as possible here, but he still ended up breaking the old partisanship record and nearly shooting into the 90th percentile.

Red avatars of Atlas-- will you guys trade him to us in exchange for Badger?

This does seem like it's bearing out your hypothesis, at least for me; with the exceptions of SawxDem, whom I like, and Yellowhammer, whom I don't, the 60th percentile in PPF seems to be forming a pretty clear line between posters I usually enjoy reading and posters I don't. This is especially clear with ExtremeRepublican/PLSIV, who has some truly horrifying views on e.g. environmental policy but whom I nevertheless mentally classify as "a good poster".

Can you do ChairmanSanchez? I'm interested to see if this can shed any light on why I can't help but like the guy despite the fact that by any objective standard he's a dyed-in-the-wool MAGA bigot. (Of course, that could also just be personal history; we joined the forum around the same time, have more or less been mutually personally supportive since that time, and have some similar life experiences.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Can you start doing the color-coding again? That made certain patterns easier to notice and interpret. And it was pretty to look at!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bump; I'm interested in seeing more of this.