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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I responded to his gay-rights thing in what I thought was a pretty thoughtful way, and: crickets. As if he is happy in his both-sidedist silo and doesn't want to engage with competing views.

Oh fuck off on that. I replied to you at length on every point.

I'm in a car, dictating.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The way for Democrats to win elections is to reframe what they're about so that white grievances aren't so salient. I think this is another way of saying that Democrats lose when they make an election about competence (HRC, Dukakis) because while everyone is generally in favor of competence, no one really cares to vote that way, and other issues (say, Willy Horton) dominate. If Democrats can find issues to run on that have a real salience to ordinary Americans, they can win. For Obama in '08, one of these was health care, and another was Iraq. On this view, you can think that neoliberalism's agenda of targeted tax breaks and retraining is the best thing since sliced bread, and yet no one turns out to vote for sliced bread either.

This is the winning strategy.

Say it over and over: "What's your policy, GOP? Oh, right-- you have none. We at least try. You're just watching it all burn."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't disagree. But in '08 you got an expanded base because black people showed up in record numbers. The trick to what you stated above is finding what is salient to all types of ordinary Americans, which necessarily means that you have to include some of the things that make up the broad spectrum of what so many dismiss as "identity politics." And there's the danger. Because fragile whites apparently can't stand it.

TM

Exactly. Run on the issues. Run on the ACA.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh fuck off on that. I replied to you at length on every point.

I'm in a car, dictating.

I don't think you ever responded to this post.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Exactly. Run on the issues. Run on the ACA.

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not here, but the issue is not the ACA. The issue is healthcare. Democrats should absolutely run on it, since it's clear that Republicans have unkept promises, no plan, and a deep and abiding desire to cut Medicaid and Medicare.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The way for Democrats to win elections is to reframe what they're about so that white grievances aren't so salient. I think this is another way of saying that Democrats lose when they make an election about competence (HRC, Dukakis) because while everyone is generally in favor of competence, no one really cares to vote that way, and other issues (say, Willy Horton) dominate. If Democrats can find issues to run on that have a real salience to ordinary Americans, they can win. For Obama in '08, one of these was health care, and another was Iraq. On this view, you can think that neoliberalism's agenda of targeted tax breaks and retraining is the best thing since sliced bread, and yet no one turns out to vote for sliced bread either.

You really think Obama won on health care and Iraq?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Exactly. Run on the issues. Run on the ACA.

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

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You really think Obama won on health care and Iraq?

On issues, I'd put Iraq first and healthcare second. Lots of liberal and centrist white dudes voted for him because of those reasons.

But, as TM noted, historically high black turnout was a huge factor. I also think that McCain's strange reactions to the financial crisis (remember "suspend campaigning"?) combined with Obama's calm and seeming competence (I'm being generous with those who just thought it was the appearance of competence) in reacting to the events of September and October 2008.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

On issues, I'd put Iraq first and healthcare second. Lots of liberal and centrist white dudes voted for him because of those reasons.

Liberals were voting for him anyway. You can't say centrists voted for any one reason- EXCEPT Palin. That choice, made to appease the rabid R base, killed McCain

But, as TM noted, historically high black turnout was a huge factor. I also think that McCain's strange reactions

Agree on black turnout, but I think he was doing all sorts of weird stuff, at least as I recall. And Palin was wandering around inciting hate almost to Trump levels, which hurt the Rs then.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

He was able to essentially send (or emphasize) different messages to different groups -- perhaps what you're getting at with your reference to his skin color.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He was able to essentially send (or emphasize) different messages to different groups -- perhaps what you're getting at with your reference to his skin color.

Yes. I meant what I said.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. I meant what I said.

TM

I took you seriously and literally.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I took you seriously and literally.

Our president.



TM

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Our president.



TM

I bet Melania told him Obama was afraid to look straight at the sun.

I also loved this one:

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Our president.

https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net...cd&oe=5A294663

TM

If that's young Barron, dude's getting tall. I'll defer to Coach Chinaski and TM on this, but I'm thinking small forward on the JV team (he's starting HS soon, right?). Soft touch with the ball, but no D.