Ghost Town is your party’s future.

The same way it was possible for him to ignore my explanation of the survey results, and a previous explanation (different thread) of why another thing he claimed was not supported by the analysis.

When he (and rickA) decide they don’t like the results of some study, but they don’t have any evidence with which they can refute it, they fall back on “the interpretation is all subject to opinion and mine is as good as yours”.

How is it possible that after I point out that you are trying to change the definition of racism like an 8th grade child, your response is to try to change the definition of racism?

That’s more like a 3rd grade child, I guess.

Look, I tried to discuss this somewhat politely to make all the science aspects clear (and see if people really did have suggestions about what the Dems could do).

But I will leave you to the tender ministrations of Wow and others less polite since they seem to have you pegged.

(you know it became easier since both mike and dick showed me how it wasn’t necessary to read anything before talking about it. if ever they complain, it’s just a matter of opinion of what they wrote!).

“the study presupposes”

But the study isn’t trying to decide “what’s the definition of racism?”

The study is trying to decide if D voters and R voters in the presidential election have different views on what is called “race”.

So, “presuppose” makes no sense as you are using it.

You are doing exactly what I said: 8th grade definition argument. Racism is “bad”, so you want to redefine what it means so it doesn’t apply to your identity group. That’s what 8th graders do; it isn’t science.

Science is the numbers that were produced; it doesn’t matter if you call one set of answers “racism” or “kacism”.

If you can’t get this simple fact, you have no business discussing science. (Or logical fallacies.)