Also, did somebody seriously say populists are republicans? top lel

Also, did somebody seriously say populists are republicans? top lel

Sigh....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_populism#France

List of Modern Day Right-Wing Populist Movements:
1. Austrian Freedom Party
2. Flemish Vlaams Belang
3. Denmark's Danish People's Party
4. France's Front National
5. Germany's PEGIDA
6. Greece's Golden Dawn
7. Italy's Lega Nord
8. Netherland's Party for Freedom
9. Switzerland's Swiss People's Party
10. America's Tea Party

Yins need some smooth jazz to calm down in this thread.

@Jai, I think BYG Jacob was talking about the classic definition of populist movements, which are almost always on the left.

Classical Populism: "Therefore, populism espouses government by the people as a whole (that is to say, the masses). This is in contrast to aristocracy, synarchy or plutocracy, each of which is an ideology that espouse government by a small, privileged group above the masses."

That sounds like the Tea Party. Populism is a third way movement that crosses ideological boundaries.

Hmm.. I wonder how many people on this thread can actually vote?

Populism itself leans neither way and can be claimed by no political leaning. There are people that put their own version of populism, like FDR, but both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are populist candidates.

And platinum, I can vote.

Diversity in the GOP Presidential Race:
0 Women
1 African American = Ben Carson
2 Latinos = Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
0 Indian-American
3 Candidate with at least 1 immigrant parent - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump,
0 Jewish

Total GOP Diversity = 3

Diversity in the Democratic Presidential Race:

1 Women = Hillary Clinton
0 African Americans
0 Latinos
0 Indian-Americans
0 Candidates with at least 1 immigrant parent
1 Jewish = Bernie Sanders

Total Democratic Diversity = 2

Ive taken out the people no longer in the presidential race

lets look at it another way: amount of people currently in the democratic race: 2, democratic diversity:2, percentage: 100% diversity
amount of people in the republican presidential race:6, republican diversity:3 percentage:50%

end result: democratic diversity=100%
republican diversity=50%

The republicans have more people with more ethnic backgrounds, so they are more diverse. That's like saying a school with 40 whites kids, 10 Hispanics , 10 Blacks ,10 Muslims and 10 East Asians is less diverse than the school with 40 blacks and 40 Hispanics.

no it isnt,if you only have 2 people you cant have more diversity than 2 different ethnicities, races, genders etc.

That is not diverse, that is just two differences. The republicans have multiple differences so they are more diverse.

We voted in favor of adding Bernie to the SQUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAD!

Now do you see why it's important to know how to measure diversity? ;-)

I was comparing total presidential diversity. The other people who ran (or were running) in the democratic race were not put on many of the measures of diversity because they were all old, white, and rich (O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, etc).

Its important to look at each party's presidential race holistically, including those who ran but did not have enough popularity to win.

Edited 2/19/2016 19:12:50

no i won't vote because i am from britian

I was comparing total presidential diversity. The other people who ran (or were running) in the democratic race were not put on many of the measures of diversity because they were all old, white, and rich (O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, etc).

Its important to look at each party's presidential race holistically, including those who ran but did not have enough popularity to win.

According to http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm, which is the first link I got when I googled 'presidential candidates 2016', there are *at least* 147 people who've expressed they are running or planning to run for President under the Democratic Party, most of them write-in hopefuls. (For comparison, the count would be at least 189 for the Republicans.)

So, by your new 'holistic' standards (even if they didn't have the popularity to win), you would have to go through that list and find out who's 'diverse'.

Do you see why it's important to have a standard way to measure diversity? You're basically just cherry picking your numbers to suit your agenda.

Edited 2/19/2016 20:36:52

The republicans have more people with more ethnic backgrounds, so they are more diverse. That's like saying a school with 40 whites kids, 10 Hispanics , 10 Blacks ,10 Muslims and 10 East Asians is less diverse than the school with 40 blacks and 40 Hispanics.

There is actually a way to quantify this as an actual measure of diversity, you know. (Your example is actually a very good one, by the way.)

According to http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm, which is the first link I got when I googled 'presidential candidates 2016', there are *at least* 147 people who've expressed they are running or planning to run for President under the Democratic Party

Most of these people haven't even been allowed on the ballot in all 50 states because of the qualifications. Sure I could have narrowed my definition of holistic, but I am pretty sure to go through the expanded list would be to expose even more starkly the number of old white and rich men running on the Democratic side.

Question: did you go through the list of Democratic candidates on the URL you linked? A lot of links to old white men no?

Edited 2/19/2016 20:44:00

Most of these people haven't even been allowed on the ballot in all 50 states because of the qualifications. Sure I could have narrowed my definition of holistic, but I am pretty sure to go through the expanded list would be to expose even more starkly the number of old white and rich men running on the Democratic side.

That's a testable hypothesis. Why don't you test it? (See http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)

Question: did you go through the list of Democratic candidates on the URL you linked? A lot of links to old white men no?

Why would I? I haven't made any claims about the presidential candidates lists and diversity. My claims are about the parties as wholes. You're the one who made the claim about the candidates. That puts the burden of proof on you, the one making the claim (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). I'm just pointing out problems with your operational definitions of 'diversity' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition).

Edited 2/19/2016 21:10:14