Most annoying "normie" political takes ?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

What are some political takes commonly said by people who aren't as into Psephology as most Atalasians that you find very annoying ?

I think one common electoral take that I find very annoying is the idea that no persudable voters exist anymore and that all elections are simply turnout battles.

[TML]

For me, it's the notion that the most "electable" candidate is someone whose political positions are exactly halfway between the two parties as they are represented within the Washington DC establishment, when in reality, the political establishment is actually well to the right of where most ordinary Americans stand on many hot-button issues (especially economic ones).

[Alben Barkley]

BOTH SIDES BAD

[beaver2.0]

"The parties switched in 1964."

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Populism as an ideology rather than a rhetorical style.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The two parties are basically mirror images of each other with identical internal workings and only differ ideologically and thus the Democrats could totally nominate some weirdo like Trump.

Or that such a thing as "Reagan Democrats" exists today.

[RINO Tom]

This site’s shift toward evangelism and spewing talking points I’d expect from a cable news talk show guest are both making me appreciate that the “normies” are correct about more than things than not.

[Xing]

“Working class” = No college degree.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Populism as an ideology rather than a rhetorical style.

God, that's one that's really quite cringy. Even "populism" as how the chattering class defines it (and this has trickled down to the common man) barely even functions as a cohesive ideology if we take it as face value, being as credible as calling every political grouping in 1917 Russia to the left of the kadets "revolutionaries". Like, what the hell is that supposed to tell us about what these people actually favor, in terms of substance? At there's something tangible to the definition of "nationalism". "Populism" even if it's taken seriously as an ideology, makes no sense as an ideology.

[PSOL]

Most of the takes here are not “normie” takes and spewed by people in tune with politics a little, where most normies don’t think about politics too much—if at all—or are averse to it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Most of the takes here are not “normie” takes and spewed by people in tune with politics a little, where most normies don’t think about politics too much—if at all—or are averse to it.

I deeply hope this is true. In my own experience, it seems that normies are sadly becoming more and more politically invested--and not in the healthy way.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Democrats would be right-wing in Europe

Even if you restrict "Europe" to just Western Europe and Scandinavia, this still isn't even close to being remotely true.

But of course the people who say this forget that Eastern Europe, the Balkan states, the Iberian peninsula, and even Central European states like Hungary exist.

[Joe Republic]

"Oh didntcha know?  The Democrats are the party of the KKK and Jim Crow, so they're the racist party.  Look it up, sweaty."

[°Leprechaun]

"The parties switched in 1964."

Say what?

If you look at the map there is a lot of truth to that statement.
It didn't happen in one election but by 2012 the states had pretty much switched; Obama won every state that Lincoln won.

Some states have remained consistently GOP (in the west, Kansas for example).

Many states which were and still are very GOP went for Johnson that year.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

"The parties switched in 1964."

Say what?

If you look at the map there is a lot of truth to that statement.
It didn't happen in one election but by 2012 the states had pretty much switched; Obama won every state that Lincoln won.

Some states have remained consistently GOP (in the west, Kansas for example).

Many states which were and still are very GOP went for Johnson that year.

People conflate an ideological switch with a geographic one, and wildly overstate how much of a clean break there actually was.
Yes, a geographic "switch" happened, but it was accompanied with the death of a generation wedded to big government in a way its successors weren't and  Democrats consciously chasing the Northern vote. The "economic left" itself saw a steady shift in its base from South to North. Even then, "Yellow Dog" Democrats were a sizable voter bloc until surprising recently. Obama won those above the age of 80 in some heavily conservative Southern states in 2008 and even 2012...

[Joe Republic]

Another gem:

"These election polls are all bogus.  Nobody has ever asked me how I would vote."

[beaver2.0]

"The parties switched in 1964."

Say what?

If you look at the map there is a lot of truth to that statement.
It didn't happen in one election but by 2012 the states had pretty much switched; Obama won every state that Lincoln won.

Some states have remained consistently GOP (in the west, Kansas for example).

Many states which were and still are very GOP went for Johnson that year.

Oh I agree there have been changes but the way some people talk, you'd think that in 1963 every Democrat was Strom Thurmond and every Republican was Bernie Sanders and then it all switched around. 

I'm not denying that the parties have changed but it didn't all happen in one year and there were factions within the parties that have existed for centuries.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Another gem:

"These election polls are all bogus.  Nobody has ever asked me how I would vote."

Even more annoying is the fact that the people who say this are often the ones who wouldn't participate in a poll even if they were selected for one.

[President Johnson]

"The president alone is reposible for gas prices"

[darklordoftech]

“Trump is an isolationist”

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

"If we abolish the electoral college, we will never see a president from outside California or New York ever again!"

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Guys these aren't normie takes - most normies are not going around saying sh**t like "Trump is isolationist". Here's some classic ones:

If politicians were paid minimum wage that would be good (although some contrarians go the opposite way, and defend ridiculous wages for MPs for vague "talent retention" reasons).

Political Parties are bad (normally this is because of a vague dislike of partisanship, and a fetishisation of independents)

(Tbf these sort of diagnoses: this one magic trick will result in better politicians! appear in "high info voters" as well, who are replete with reforms and tricks that will save everything, a classic example being the British liberal who believes that MPs sitting in a hemicycle would save Westminster debate)

You'll also see a lot of self contradictory ideas from many people:  a common example is in law and order, where people happily follow both string em up rhetoric and soft shutter the prisons stuff - so they will in general support less prisoners, but specifically want higher sentences for everything from burglary to white collar crime.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The government runs itself like a household budget is far and away the most deleterious.

[GeneralMacArthur]

There should be a "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" third party.

a.k.a. I basically want the Democratic Party, but
A) when I say "fiscally conservative" I mean it's "good on the economy" in that it will dramatically cut taxes and pay down the national debt, while also maintaining 5% YOY GDP growth and giving me all the social services and goodies I want for free
B) when I say "socially liberal" I mean it uses rhetoric that exclusively appeals to my personal sensibilities, at the expense of all the demographics I don't care about
C) I want it to be something cool and edgy and fun to vote for and support, not like the Democratic Party, which is lame and cringey and what my parents support.

[Mr. Smith]

"Both sides are bad, all politicians are just liars in it for themselves."

"Maybe the best policies are in the middle."