Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

When all else is equal, or they are exhausted by bickering between extremes, moderate voters reflexively vote based on tax avoidance.

1. There are very few actual moderates,

2. I don't you've actually accurately summed up their motivations, and

3. If you're accurately describing anyone, it's Republicans.

Actual non-republicans also care about things other than taxes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm telling you what's otherwise an unreliable media source is, on this issue, quite reliable for once (assuming Bannon is putting what he said about the right wing's identity politics strategy in the American Spectator into print on Breitbart).

You said it's never written down anywhere. I said it's written on Breitbart. So, no, you aren't telling me anything.

Like him or hate him, Bannon is a diabolically shrewd motherfucker. But I think his influence is overblown. Trump already had the bloc Bannon is credited with gifting him.

Bannon didn't bring that bloc to the campaign when he started running it. He brought it when he created a space for that bloc on Breitbart years ago and 45 decided to play to it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you don't know any right wing people, you don't know what racism looks like in this country.

Dude, I can read. That you pal around with bigots is not a thing to be proud of.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think you missed my point. To many people identity politics issues are "the issues" or at least are included in their list of issues.

In order to expand the base, you need to address some of the issues that fall into the identity politics category. They can't be dismissed wholesale. People like me care very much about them because they affect our lives. It is clear the Republican Party has been very good at exploiting white fragility by manipulating them by (i) passing bullshit laws that hurt people and then (ii) dismissing the backlash as liberals classifying everyone as racist, sexist, etc. They are very successful at this because people close themselves off to this stuff since any personal admission of a tendency, no matter how small, towards an "-ism" or "phobia" is an uncomfortable proposition for whites and often seen as not very important.

But you can't expand your base without including issues that are important to huge swaths of the target. Marketing the party to go after those who want accessible healthcare and an inclusive economy is surely important. But I guarantee that focusing solely on that stuff will not expand the base. Obama was able to avoid talking identity politics too much because his skin color has agency when it comes to those issues and he benefited from an expansion of his base (plus the fact that the last Republican to hold office before him was a fucking fool) as a result.

So, the question remains: How can Dems expand the base without turning off fragile whites in key states?

TM

Run different campaigns, emphasizing different issues, in different states. Emphasize the social safety net and the good aspects of the ACA in Rust Belt states. Use a mix of that with some identity politics in the NC to Maine region.

Concede the Bible belt. Trump's GOP owns the evangelicals. Don't waste even a penny there.

On a more micro level, politicians have always changed their message subtly from city to city and county to county, depending on demographics. It's not difficult to simply refrain from raising identity issues in areas where they may turn off voters and emphasize them in areas where they would raise enthusiasm.

It must also be said, however, that generally, identity politics is a loser politically.
People want to hear what politicians are going to do for them. Telling a minority of people what you will do for them, will only get you a minority of votes. Redressing past sins of the majority is also not a sunny, positive message. My suspicion is people are going to be orderly exhausted with bickering and negative themes by the time this disastrous administration has left office. If I were a D running for president, I would watch a lot of Joe Biden's speeches. Fiery defense of the middle class, support for reasonable social safety net's, and an emphasis on bringing back jobs. But overwhelmingly, more than anything, always positive.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Dude, I can read. That you pal around with bigots is not a thing to be proud of.

You are such a fucking tool.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You said it's never written down anywhere. I said it's written on Breitbart. So, no, you aren't telling me anything.

Bannon didn't bring that bloc to the campaign when he started running it. He brought it when he created a space for that bloc on Breitbart years ago and 45 decided to play to it.

1. Gold star for you! Brilliant rhetorical volley.

2. Bannon didn't create shit. Those right wingers were congealing long before he helmed Brietbart.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

1. There are very few actual moderates,

2. I don't you've actually accurately summed up their motivations, and

3. If you're accurately describing anyone, it's Republicans.

Actual non-republicans also care about things other than taxes.

1. There are TONS of moderates. None of whom a sheltered sort such as you would ever meet.

2. I have. Quite concisely.

3. Point?

Everyone cares about things other than taxes. But when they assume nothing's going to get done, they vote self-interest.

Have you ever considered how many people who profess to vote D quietly actually vote R in self interest? You think people are honest about this stuff? (Yes, you might...)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. There are TONS of moderates. None of whom a sheltered sort such as you would ever meet.

Translation: Sebby learns stuff at cocktail parties. Sebby does not need numbers.

Everyone cares about things other than taxes. But when they assume nothing's going to get done, they vote self-interest.

You. You're talking about you. Not everyone.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Translation: Sebby learns stuff at cocktail parties. Sebby does not need numbers.



You. You're talking about you. Not everyone.

http://republic3-0.com/facts-about-moderate-voters/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-want/370904/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/co...w-tuesday.aspx (Still roughly 1/3 moderate)

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But I often feel like Rodney in Back to School, explaining to Professor Bombay how a real estate development "really gets done" when I speak to you.

Your opinion of yourself is so confusingly high that I wonder about your mental health.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

http://republic3-0.com/facts-about-moderate-voters/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...y-want/370904/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201152/co...w-tuesday.aspx (Still roughly 1/3 moderate)

I see how you're confused. I didn't say that no one calls themselves moderate. I said very few moderates actually exist. Basically, I disagree with the premise in your first link that "moderate" has any more actual meaning than "independent." Self-identified moderates are mostly posers who think saying they're moderate makes them sound smart and thoughtful when really, they're just republicans who aren't Christian conservatives.

Which btw, is more or less what you're saying when you say that so-called moderates default to a GOP anti-tax position. Those people are not moderates.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Did I say it's my ideal moderate? No. I said it's the moderate you'll get. When all else is equal, or they are exhausted by bickering between extremes, moderate voters reflexively vote based on tax avoidance.

It's almost always better, for purposes of avoiding future increases, to vote republican.

Sometimes your fieldwork amongst moderate voters seems to involve long spells of gazing in the mirror.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm telling you what's otherwise an unreliable media source is, on this issue, quite reliable for once (assuming Bannon is putting what he said about the right wing's identity politics strategy in the American Spectator into print on Breitbart).

Like him or hate him, Bannon is a diabolically shrewd motherfucker. But I think his influence is overblown. Trump already had the bloc Bannon is credited with gifting him. In fact, Bannon's first move was to try to soften Trump. He's clever, but he's no Rove or Axelrod.

I'm sure he's a smart fellow, but he got fuck-all done.

eta:

The moral of Devil’s Bargain, the new book by Bloomberg writer Joshua Green about Bannon’s role in the 2016 presidential campaign, is that Bannon’s one proven skill in political combat is the creative deployment of propaganda to damage opponents of his agenda.

Beutler/TNR

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Run different campaigns, emphasizing different issues, in different states. Emphasize the social safety net and the good aspects of the ACA in Rust Belt states. Use a mix of that with some identity politics in the NC to Maine region.

I've thought of this and I think it's the best approach. The problem is, there really is no such thing as local campaigns for federal office anymore. If you are running such a campaign you absolutely have to show up. If you show up, you absolutely have to speak to the issues. If you speak to the issues, whatever you say can and will be used against you in the national court of opinion.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Concede the Bible belt. Trump's GOP owns the evangelicals. Don't waste even a penny there.

Strategically, I probably agree. But I'm not sure abandoning those places is the best long-term approach.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On a more micro level, politicians have always changed their message subtly from city to city and county to county, depending on demographics. It's not difficult to simply refrain from raising identity issues in areas where they may turn off voters and emphasize them in areas where they would raise enthusiasm.

See above.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It must also be said, however, that generally, identity politics is a loser politically.

You know, this dumbass blanket statement makes a normal conversation with you virtually impossible.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

People want to hear what politicians are going to do for them. Telling a minority of people what you will do for them, will only get you a minority of votes.

Spoken like a true white man. A message of inclusion is not the same as a promise to a discrete minority. Although, given how you think about this shit, I suppose it's obvious that it might as well be when it comes to fragile ass white people.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Redressing past sins of the majority is also not a sunny, positive message.

Ah, yes. Politicians always run on redressing past sins. They never focus on fixing issues that face people in the fucking moment. The fact that those issues have a history that stretches back to the beginning of this country is obvious, yes. But if you keep phrasing the issues that people currently face as sins of the majority's past, let's agree that it is pointless to continue debating anything.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My suspicion is people are going to be orderly exhausted with bickering and negative themes by the time this disastrous administration has left office. If I were a D running for president, I would watch a lot of Joe Biden's speeches. Fiery defense of the middle class, support for reasonable social safety net's, and an emphasis on bringing back jobs. But overwhelmingly, more than anything, always positive.

Which people will be exhausted? I think people will be exhausted of a hateful, negative, exclusionary, incompetent, Administration and will be fired up to vote it the fuck out of office.

I still think this is Joe Biden's party if he wants it. I seem to recall when I said that he would crush the entire Republican field before the general started, you told me all about how dumb it was that I thought Biden could pull it off and how he was such a gaffe machine and couldn't get out of his own way, blah blah blah. Now you're telling me I need to pay attention to him. You have balls that are bigger than you're brain.

And Joe Biden has gone after Trump for many things. And, if you swapped their names out, your description of his speeches above could easily be attributed to Hillary during last year's campaign.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Have you ever considered how many people who profess to vote D quietly actually vote R in self interest? You think people are honest about this stuff? (Yes, you might...)

I am looking forward to when you release the study on shit you just know and for which you have zero evidence. Should be a good, long read.

TM