I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe so, but that's a political problem.

I'm still not sure why we're supposed to focus on Obama/Trump voters, and that article starts with the assumption that there were a lot of them. Were there?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe so, but that's a political problem.

That has nothing to do with my question: what jobs are you going to create?

If you're going to complain about lack of policy solutions, please try to stay on a policy discussion for a few minutes without worrying about the politics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Really? I don't think I laughed once. He's no Colbert.

TM

He's no Colbert, but I thought he was really good.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm still not sure why we're supposed to focus on Obama/Trump voters, and that article starts with the assumption that there were a lot of them. Were there?

We need to turn out people who didn't vote, and we need to convince people who did vote to vote for us. Neither is sufficient.

More importantly, Not Bob won the K race, and we need a new thread!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That has nothing to do with my question: what jobs are you going to create?

If you're going to complain about lack of policy solutions, please try to stay on a policy discussion for a few minutes without worrying about the politics.

I see a massive political problem, and a massive policy problem, and the two are tied together. The massive policy problem is that moderate Democrats' (and their counterparts in Europe) policy prescriptions have not created economic benefits for most people for well over a decade. The idea that you should adopt technocratic growth-oriented polices to lift all boats hasn't worked, both because the Great Recession showed that technocracy isn't all that and because the growth we've seen since then hasn't lifted all boats -- it's lifting only the luxury yachts.

The massive political problem is that voters resent this, don't see the Left as solving their problems, and have turned to a nativist Right that is more interested in restoring traditional social hierarchies and dumping on out-groups (especially but certainly not only immigrants). The Right is much more interested in zero-sum transfers of wealth and social status than in creating opportunity. A positive message about what government can do can resonate and can defeat this, but the Democrats don't have it right now. One can criticize Hillary for being a bad messenger, but it's not like Bernie, Joe, Martin or anyone else had a great platform that she ignored in the general election.

Now, you can say (and you did!) that Obama had a great platform, but didn't have the votes on the Hill to get it passed after 2010. I agree! But that's a big part of the problem. During Obama's time, I thought he was being wise by taking the long view, that voters would reward Democrats for governing well and responsibly. I was wrong! We got Trump and Republican control of government instead. So, saying that the Democrats have great policies isn't appealing if those policies get you two years of positive change, six years of stagnation, and then two/four/??? years of retrograde devolution. I love Obama, but in hindsight it's pretty tempting to say that he got the policies right but the politics wrong. (Could he have built a durable Democratic majority if he'd done things differently? I really don't know.). And if that's the case, maybe the policies weren't quite right -- maybe the policies please you and me but didn't do enough to address the real problems that many voters experience. Obama faced opposition from Republicans, true, but he never found a way to make Republicans pay a political price for that opposition, which is one reason we have Justice Gorsuch instead of Justice Garland.

Which is to say, I don't have good answers, but I do think that discussing policy as if it's untethered to politics is, at a high level, possibly part of the problem.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The massive policy problem is that moderate Democrats' (and their counterparts in Europe) policy prescriptions have not created economic benefits for most people for well over a decade.

I'd dispute most, but okay.

I'd also suggest that the Bush tax cuts and post-recession austerity have a lot to do with why the yachts are rising and nothing else is. Especially at the state and local level. Teacher and social worker and nurse are good middle class jobs whose wages used to keep up with inflation.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I hear people saying that if I think about it, I shouldn't have a problem with it (OK), that Democrats should work harder to explain to other people why they shouldn't have a problem with it (noble but foolish), and that Democrats shouldn't abandon core principles to satisfy idiot voters (true, but if it's a core Democratic principle that someone with a lot of money should have the opportunity to get more on Wall Street, that's not the hill I want to die on). I don't see anyone actually disputing that it is unhelpful.

Come on. No one has said it's a core Democratic principle. What we've said is that ignorant and stupid voters lump everyone into the same boat because Republicans (and now Bernie and other lefties) conflate actual issues of corruption with the perception of corruption. I do not think it's foolish to draw a distinction between the two and to try to inform the electorate of the difference. In fact, I think it's the Bernies who intentionally try to blur the lines between the two things that are doing considerable damage to the Democratic Party. If the President stops taking speaking engagements, do you think Republicans and Bernie stop trying to blur the line?

Hell, you just said a few posts ago that Democrats have done a poor job helping struggling people when you know that they've been killing themselves repairing damage done by Republicans and trying to help those who are being wiped out by market forces. When the people they're trying to help turn to their left and right and see firemen and teachers as the enemies who are making way too much money, it's an uphill battle. And one that is made harder because it's way easier to point and say, "See? Bad! Let's destroy government," than it is to say, "Here's why we should invest in this, that, and the other. Let's build." Pointing at Obama is the former and it perpetuates the ignorance that Republicans thrive on.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You are quite right that Hillary hurt herself doing this, and you are quite right that there is a distinction between what she did and what he is doing, but since I wasn't talking about her in the first place it doesn't change my view about what he is doing.

Ah. I see. Although you brought up this idea of soft corruption purposefully within the realm of political corruption and politicians being beholden to banks and other special interests, we can't talk about why Obama taking speaking fees isn't really the same as other types of fees that really are problematic because you didn't bring up those particular examples. Got it.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not ignoring them, but they don't address my point.

I am struggling to understand why you cannot discuss your point in context. If 999 people think that Obama is being paid because his story and experience have value and 1 person thinks it's because he was making decisions during his Presidency that have value to Cantor and is collecting on that payoff, your point has very little value. If the numbers are more like 60-40, then the discussion becomes more interesting. But to avoid any type of contextual discussion makes it seem like you have a very weak argument.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK. I respect your view on that one, and we can agree to have different views. FWIW, I don't think it's a lot of people.

Whew. Common ground. I would love if you would concede that Bernie and the authors you're quoting shouldn't fan a spark that is basically nothing until it becomes an actual issue, but I'll take what I can get.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think Democrats need to be better than Republicans on this stuff, and that it's not just the actual decisions that matter -- it's the narrative and the story around it as well. YMMV. It's a big tent, and we can agree to disagree on this one, too. Thank you for taking seriously what I had to say.

Democrats are far and away better than Republicans on this stuff--the narrative and the actual decisions. You can't possibly disagree with that.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I see a massive political problem, and a massive policy problem, and the two are tied together. The massive policy problem is that moderate Democrats' (and their counterparts in Europe) policy prescriptions have not created economic benefits for most people for well over a decade. The idea that you should adopt technocratic growth-oriented polices to lift all boats hasn't worked, both because the Great Recession showed that technocracy isn't all that and because the growth we've seen since then hasn't lifted all boats -- it's lifting only the luxury yachts.

The massive political problem is that voters resent this, don't see the Left as solving their problems, and have turned to a nativist Right that is more interested in restoring traditional social hierarchies and dumping on out-groups (especially but certainly not only immigrants). The Right is much more interested in zero-sum transfers of wealth and social status than in creating opportunity. A positive message about what government can do can resonate and can defeat this, but the Democrats don't have it right now. One can criticize Hillary for being a bad messenger, but it's not like Bernie, Joe, Martin or anyone else had a great platform that she ignored in the general election.

Now, you can say (and you did!) that Obama had a great platform, but didn't have the votes on the Hill to get it passed after 2010. I agree! But that's a big part of the problem. During Obama's time, I thought he was being wise by taking the long view, that voters would reward Democrats for governing well and responsibly. I was wrong! We got Trump and Republican control of government instead. So, saying that the Democrats have great policies isn't appealing if those policies get you two years of positive change, six years of stagnation, and then two/four/??? years of retrograde devolution. I love Obama, but in hindsight it's pretty tempting to say that he got the policies right but the politics wrong. (Could he have built a durable Democratic majority if he'd done things differently? I really don't know.). And if that's the case, maybe the policies weren't quite right -- maybe the policies please you and me but didn't do enough to address the real problems that many voters experience. Obama faced opposition from Republicans, true, but he never found a way to make Republicans pay a political price for that opposition, which is one reason we have Justice Gorsuch instead of Justice Garland.

Which is to say, I don't have good answers, but I do think that discussing policy as if it's untethered to politics is, at a high level, possibly part of the problem.

At some stage governing is about coming up with a policy that works and selling it.

Yes, that is hard. And there are many ways to do it, including working from the grass roots to develop the policy.

But the alternative of snowing the public on what you can do whether it works or not is a truly lousy approach, even if it is the political low hanging fruit.

So there needs to be a debate first about what works, what can get us those jobs. That debate needs to be about more than white male working class men, it needs to be about all people, and acknowledge that the unemployment rate and average income for minorities and women lags very significantly behind that for white men.

The Republicans right now are making policy behind closed doors, without committee hearings or public discussions or input. We should do the opposite, but when we do, our focus needs to be on delivering jobs not on winning votes.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Now, you can say (and you did!) that Obama had a great platform, but didn't have the votes on the Hill to get it passed after 2010. I agree! But that's a big part of the problem. During Obama's time, I thought he was being wise by taking the long view, that voters would reward Democrats for governing well and responsibly. I was wrong! We got Trump and Republican control of government instead. So, saying that the Democrats have great policies isn't appealing if those policies get you two years of positive change, six years of stagnation, and then two/four/??? years of retrograde devolution. I love Obama, but in hindsight it's pretty tempting to say that he got the policies right but the politics wrong. (Could he have built a durable Democratic majority if he'd done things differently? I really don't know.). And if that's the case, maybe the policies weren't quite right -- maybe the policies please you and me but didn't do enough to address the real problems that many voters experience.

And maybe there was some irrational reason why voters have gone for a guy with a message that says "Let's go back to the 50s, all these types of people are bad and dangerous and stealing jobs." If Obama had been white would Trump's rise even be possible?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'd dispute most, but okay.

I'd also suggest that the Bush tax cuts and post-recession austerity have a lot to do with why the yachts are rising and nothing else is. Especially at the state and local level. Teacher and social worker and nurse are good middle class jobs whose wages used to keep up with inflation.

OK. Bush hasn't been in office for more than eight years, and Democrats too often went along with austerity and/or failed to make a good case against it. You know I'm no fan of it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Come on. No one has said it's a core Democratic principle. What we've said is that ignorant and stupid voters lump everyone into the same boat because Republicans (and now Bernie and other lefties) conflate actual issues of corruption with the perception of corruption. I do not think it's foolish to draw a distinction between the two and to try to inform the electorate of the difference. In fact, I think it's the Bernies who intentionally try to blur the lines between the two things that are doing considerable damage to the Democratic Party. If the President stops taking speaking engagements, do you think Republicans and Bernie stop trying to blur the line?

It is exactly because Republicans (and others) try to confuse things that Democrats have to be better in a way that resonates with voters. I think you and I agree on this principle, and disagree as a practical matter about how to do that in this particular instance.

Hell, you just said a few posts ago that Democrats have done a poor job helping struggling people when you know that they've been killing themselves repairing damage done by Republicans and trying to help those who are being wiped out by market forces. When the people they're trying to help turn to their left and right and see firemen and teachers as the enemies who are making way too much money, it's an uphill battle. And one that is made harder because it's way easier to point and say, "See? Bad! Let's destroy government," than it is to say, "Here's why we should invest in this, that, and the other. Let's build." Pointing at Obama is the former and it perpetuates the ignorance that Republicans thrive on.

I said I wish Obama had made a different choice, and I do. I would like to think I can express that opinion to all of you here without being seen as "pointing at Obama" more publicly. It's harder now to talk to your own crowd without sharing it with the rest of the world, but I'm not attacking Obama on Twitter, Facebook, or anywhere else.

Ah. I see. Although you brought up this idea of soft corruption purposefully within the realm of political corruption and politicians being beholden to banks and other special interests, we can't talk about why Obama taking speaking fees isn't really the same as other types of fees that really are problematic because you didn't bring up those particular examples. Got it.

You can certainly talk about it. But if I think what Obama did is problematic, telling me that other things are more problematic may be true but also not especially convincing re what I said. I just told you that I agree with you, not that you can't talk about it.

I am struggling to understand why you cannot discuss your point in context. If 999 people think that Obama is being paid because his story and experience have value and 1 person thinks it's because he was making decisions during his Presidency that have value to Cantor and is collecting on that payoff, your point has very little value. If the numbers are more like 60-40, then the discussion becomes more interesting. But to avoid any type of contextual discussion makes it seem like you have a very weak argument.

Not sure how to flesh out this context. I think we are between 999/1000 and 400/1000, and I think it's material. You don't. Not sure how to resolve that -- our gut reads of the world we're in is different. Not trying to shut you down on the point -- I recognize the disagreement, and am not seeing a way to resolve it.

Whew. Common ground. I would love if you would concede that Bernie and the authors you're quoting shouldn't fan a spark that is basically nothing until it becomes an actual issue, but I'll take what I can get.

I draw a big distinction between Bernie (and his ilk) and the authors I quoted, all of whom are relatively centrist and generally unsympathetic to Bernie's crowd. I will concede whatever you want about Bernie -- as I said before, I haven't seen anything he or his people have said about Obama and Cantor, and was not sympathetic with their attacks on Hillary. Yglesias and Barro are not activists -- they are in the job of commenting about politics and policy, so I wouldn't use your characterization of "fanning a spark" with what they've said.

Democrats are far and away better than Republicans on this stuff--the narrative and the actual decisions. You can't possibly disagree with that.

Democrats are usually better on the policy, and they need to make sure they're better on the politics and narrative. Trump somehow flipped that with Hillary.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And maybe there was some irrational reason why voters have gone for a guy with a message that says "Let's go back to the 50s, all these types of people are bad and dangerous and stealing jobs." If Obama had been white would Trump's rise even be possible?

On your first sentence, totally. On your second, I don't want to diminish the reaction to Obama's race that you are pointing to, but I think the problem is bigger than that -- look at the Brexit vote and LePen for examples of the way that the Right has mobilized these sentiments even without Obama to galvanize the bigoted.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And maybe there was some irrational reason why voters have gone for a guy with a message that says "Let's go back to the 50s, all these types of people are bad and dangerous and stealing jobs." If Obama had been white would Trump's rise even be possible?

TM

Huh. I'm wondering what you think that might be.

Don't tell me. You think they went for Trump because he is such a devout Christian?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

On your first sentence, totally. On your second, I don't want to diminish the reaction to Obama's race that you are pointing to, but I think the problem is bigger than that -- look at the Brexit vote and LePen for examples of the way that the Right has mobilized these sentiments even without Obama to galvanize the bigoted.

I think many, many things contributed to where we are now in the world. Shitty turnout in the UK, Russian interference all over the place, a rise in racism sparked by reactions to terrorism, your point about gains in the economy going to the wealthy, the amazingly shitty Republican field, Comey's idiotic contributions, and the ease with which the right can deliver a message of "Has any of this shit we've undermined at every turn worked for you? Let's burn it all down since you have nothing to lose" to an ignorant and stupid electorate.

But if Obama were white, I don't think Trump gains much traction here. The gains made in 2010 wouldn't be anywhere near as big on the right, which means there would be far fewer gerrymandered Republican districts, the racist outpouring that is the Tea Party vote wouldn't exist. Etc., etc., etc.

And I think if Hillary were a man, Trump would have been beaten like a drum.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I said I wish Obama had made a different choice, and I do.

If it makes you feel better, the NYT editorial board seems to agree with you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/o...imes&smtyp=cur

If it makes you feel worse, I think this part of the editorial is as off as much of what you wrote:

'The Obamas are starting a foundation whose work will include “training and elevating a new generation of political leaders in America,” Eric Schultz, an Obama adviser, said in a statement. “President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time. Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision, and his record.”

But why not elevate a new generation of political leaders and stay true to his values by giving his speech fees to his foundation and other charities focused on those goals?'

This supreme focus on what they don't like and the short shrift given to his plans for public service is just irresponsible.

TM