Focus group - 20 Gen Z republicans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

I disagree. There are a few. But they tend to be fast talking and very smart, more Ben Shapiro than Charlie Kirk. Do we need to dumb them down???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

They tried that and were immediately “exposed” for paying influencers by useful idiot Taylor Lorenz, who was probably mad that she was not one of those who was paid so she decided to blow up the whole scheme. Meanwhile Republicans can do whatever and have no morals about it at all and no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit.

As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted:

The overall amount of global warming
Greater warming over land vs oceans
Arctic amplification
Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases)

And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured.

In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering.

The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.

The models from the 90s let alone the 70s were absolutely horrible. Its why they come up with brand new models every few years, because they know the old models sucked. The models couldn't predict anything more than a few years out, and completely stumbled all over historical data. Not that this stopped anyone from saying the "science was settled."

And yes, climate scientists have been preaching doom for decades, and none of the doom comes to pass. It’s hilarious you're pretending they haven't been doing so. We can't get a colder/warmer/windier day than average without one of your ilk spouting off about how we've destroyed the planet and we're all going to die by Tuesday.

Nothing you’ve stated is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

Not really. Hollywood and the music industry are full of charismatic left-leaning people.

If you’re envisioning “charismatic” in the sense of being a smooth-talking grifter who flatters an audience’s base instincts in exchange for clicks, votes, and money, then yeah, that’s harder to find on the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit.

As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted:

The overall amount of global warming
Greater warming over land vs oceans
Arctic amplification
Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases)

And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured.

In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering.

The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.

The models from the 90s let alone the 70s were absolutely horrible. Its why they come up with brand new models every few years, because they know the old models sucked. The models couldn't predict anything more than a few years out, and completely stumbled all over historical data. Not that this stopped anyone from saying the "science was settled."

And yes, climate scientists have been preaching doom for decades, and none of the doom comes to pass. It’s hilarious you're pretending they haven't been doing so. We can't get a colder/warmer/windier day than average without one of your ilk spouting off about how we've destroyed the planet and we're all going to die by Tuesday.

Nothing you’ve stated is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

I disagree. There are a few. But they tend to be fast talking and very smart, more Ben Shapiro than Charlie Kirk. Do we need to dumb them down???

Yes, we do. They need to speak in sound bytes using mostly 1-2 syllables words.

I am a teacher, and I cannot understate how these kids lack any semblance of an attention span. It is alarming. For example, I teach 5th grade. The end-of-semester movie used to be a fun tradition where we could all just quietly relax together before saying our goodbyes. Now it is awful. I don’t even do it anymore. They are incapable of sitting quietly and following a storyline for even one hour. We’ve always reminded them that it is like being in a theater where you don’t talk or get up and wander around. This no longer works because they actually do talk and wander around in theaters, or they have never been to one.

For years, I thought this generation would never vote R because they are the reason they grew up doing intruder drills. Those drills used to be disturbing. Especially the debriefing at the end where they would ask the most heartbreaking questions. But in recent years, they are unfazed. They just go about their day. It’s all they have known and they are desensitized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

Hasan Piker is a young guy lib. There just isn’t a big ecosystem like they have.

Hasan is a jackass.

They need to be promoting folks like Dean Withers and Parker Butler who are young, compelling, sharp witted, strong command of facts and details, who can absolutely destroy most of the right wing's best debaters.

If Dean and Parker are the hope, you're in trouble! Not too many young men aspire to that. They're too effeminate.

[Anonymous]

There is no difference between the "news sources" these people say they use and those of young liberals. They ALL watch TikTok, YouTube, various influencers, social media, etc. and call that "news".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh I stopped when they started praising Matt Walsh. SMDH.

+1

I don’t care to listen to people who listen to brain rot.

These brain rotted people have votes worth the same as yours.

This is true. Or perhaps more valuable than mine.

I still don't want to listen to them. I'm not a political operative so what good would it do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh I stopped when they started praising Matt Walsh. SMDH.

Have you listened to him? He makes very compelling arguments. Also I listen to both sides and the right has very good discussion podcasts more than the left at this time.

[Anonymous]

Dems, for the most part, have their heads in the sand. Ignorance is bliss, or so it seems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit.

As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted:

The overall amount of global warming
Greater warming over land vs oceans
Arctic amplification
Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases)

And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured.

In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering.

The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.

What about when the inter governmental panel on climate change was caught manipulating their research outputs.

What else are they hiding from us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit.

As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted:

The overall amount of global warming
Greater warming over land vs oceans
Arctic amplification
Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases)

And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured.

In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering.

The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.

What about when the inter governmental panel on climate change was caught manipulating their research outputs.

What else are they hiding from us?

Oh no! It’s a conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

People usually tend to like political figures who don’t shame them for being born a certain race or gender. If Dems simply went back to the same politics Biden had in the 90s or Obama had in the aughts (that is, strong on crime and illegal immigration and not intolerably woke) they’d win every national election in a landslide. Unfortunately for the country they chose to just be the “anti Trump” party and advocate for positions that run in direct conflict of Trump’s even if it directly conflicts with positions that won them national elections less than 20 years ago. Case in point being their rabid support of the military industrial complex and any crackdown on illegal immigration when Obama deported 3 million people and ran as an antiwar candidate in reaction to GWB and the neocons.

[Anonymous]

The current Democratic party obsessive veneration of and "belief" in "The Experts" is hilarious. It's proof positive that the party platform has been taken over by upper middle class strivers. "Climate Scientists" have graduate degrees just like we lawyers and lobbyists do, so they MUST be smart! Saint Fauci is amazing! We must mask the children!"

It's weird seeing the self-described "intellectual" party be so willfully naive on incentives.

In fact climate scientists ARE just like lawyers and lobbyists, they provide their services to the people and groups who pay for them. Are there big financial or career incentives for coming to NON-alarmist positions on the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? No, there are not. Quite the contrary, in fact. To be insufficiently alarmist in climate science is to commit career suicide. And lo and behold, "Climate Scientists" know this, so they tend to publish alarmist papers. And the few "lukewarmers" who deviate from the alarmist political line quickly find their grants and publication opportunities drying up.

It's like "well-educated" Democrats have never heard of career incentives, or status signaling, or public choice theory. Public choice theory is a well-established academic discipline that explains the common phenomenon of regulatory capture. But Democrats seem not to have heard of it or not to understand it.