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

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=879)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 503578)

You know that swing voters largely don't exist, right? And the elections are primarily won or lost by changes in the composition of the electorate (ie, which voters show up)?

So, in thinking this way, doesn't it make more sense to blame a Trump victory on the African American and other Democratic constituencies who didn't vote this year, than on a few Libertarian voters in a swing state? And then isn't Hillary primarily to blame for not getting out the vote or inspiring voters to come out for her, or visiting Wisconsin, or any other minor things that could have changed the outcome?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503576)

Are you serious? Democrats ignored/excluded/offended blue collar middle class whites more than Republicans? Free trade isn't an idea espoused by Democrats. Union busting isn't a Democratic value. Cutting taxes for the rich while pretending it will create jobs and benefit working class people isn't a Democratic principle. Fighting investment in job-creating and desperately needed infrastructure projects was not a part of the Democrat approach. Permitting companies to take jobs overseas while protecting that income from taxation is something all politicians permitted.

If you're talking about pretend issues like reverse racism and forced gay cake-selling, then yeah. They were completely ignored and excluded. But if all it takes is the siren song of a race-baiting bullshit artist who has spent his life shitting on the very people who voted for him in overwhelming numbers, the conclusion you drew above just doesn't make any sense.

TM

I agree with all of this. That said, Democrats haven't been able to deliver for their constituents for six years because of Republican obstructionism, and they haven't found a way to make Republicans pay a price for that obstructionism. Obama couldn't do it, and Hillary didn't try.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 503589)

I've already said a few things about where I think Hillary went wrong, but saying that she is "primarily to blame" is nuts, and lets the people who actually voted for Trump (or for a third-party candidate) off the hook.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 503589)

It's not on the third party voters. And it's not on the people of color, whom your party (sorry, former) went to great lengths to prevent from voting.

It's on the white people who showed up to vote for the racist.

And yeah, to some degree it's on Hillary for not getting out more of her coalition.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 503590)

Obama did manage to save the auto industry; I know some think it was not a great idea, I think we've had that discussion with Hank before. And he did manage to insure a broad swath of the uninsured. But the first is forgotten and the second was turned into a liability by the obstructionists.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503576)

Bingo. A lot of the "white working class" issues aren't economic, they're race and religion. And guns, which is a cultural issue.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 503587)

Umm, what?

I'd change what he says - swing voters are a smaller group than most people think, and they tend to be swing for 2 or 3 elections and then they're swung.

But in a 50/50 society, a small number of swing voters is absolutely critical. The two biggest metrics out there are how you do among swings and how you do on turnout.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 503589)

Oh they're all on the blame list. The circular firing squad is taking lots and lots of shots today.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 503595)

Oh they're all on the blame list. The circular firing squad is taking lots and lots of shots today.

I saw a stat 33% of Latino men voted for Trump. nwtaf?

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

Re the exchange about the bigotry (or lack thereof) of Trump supporters, Peter Beinert (lots of links omitted):

Quote:

At 2 AM on Wednesday morning, once it became clear Donald Trump would be America’s next president, the conservative, anti-Trump, commentator Erick Erickson posted “An Open Letter to the Democrats.” He asked them not to rebuke Trump’s supporters. “Instead of condemning them and labeling them all bigots and racists and deplorables,” he wrote, “I hope you will try to relate to them, connect to them, and recognize their legitimate concerns.” Since Trump’s victory, other commentators have said similar things.

Sorry, but I disagree. Reconciliation is important. But not at the expense of truth.

Erickson’s line about labeling Trump’s supporters “all bigots and racists and deplorables” is dishonest. I can’t remember a single piece of commentary in the last year that made that claim about “all” of Trump’s backers. Generally, in fact, Trump’s critics don’t call his supporters bigoted at all. They call their views bigoted. Knowing who a a person is in their essenceis almost impossible. People contain multitudes. Knowing whether someone holds bigoted views, however, is fairly easy. And when it comes to Trump’s supporters, the evidence is overwhelming.

Start with their views about blacks. According to a June poll by Reuters, almost half of Trump supporters said African Americans were more “violent” than whites. Forty percent said they were more “lazy.” In February, a Public Policy Polling survey found that 70 percent of Trump supporters in South Carolina opposed removing the Confederate battle flag from statehouse grounds. Trump supporters in South Carolina were also far more likely than the supporters of other GOP candidates to wish the South had won the Civil War and to consider whites a superior race.

Then there’s the way Trump backers feel about Muslims. According to Reuters, almost 60 percent of them view Islam unfavorably. (Among Clinton supporters, it’s less than half that). Eighty-four percent, according to a Morning Consult survey in March, support Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US. Sixty-five percent, according to PPP, think Obama is a Muslim. These views aren’t incidental to Trump supporters’ affection for their candidate. They’re central. Hamilton College political scientist Philip Klinkner did a study on which views most strongly correlate to support for Trump. He found that:

Quote:

You can ask just one simple question to find out whether someone likes Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton. That’s more accurate than asking people if it’s harder to move up the income ladder than it was for their parents (54 percent), whether they oppose trade deals (66 percent), or if they think the economy is worse now than last year (81 percent). It’s even more accurate than asking them if they are Republican (87 percent).

Sexism correlates too. A study by Carly Wayne, Nicholas Valentino and Marzia Oceno of the University of Michigan found that “hostile sexism”—reflected in support for statements like “Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist” and “Many women are actually seeking special favors…under the guise of asking for equality”—predicts support for Trump extremely well. The map of where Trump finds his greatest support also looks a lot like the map of places where Americans are most likely to google racist jokes or slurs.

It’s revealing that conservatives like Erickson deny this. In general, conservatives prefer cultural to materialist analyses of human behavior. For years, for instance, conservatives have insisted that economic distress does not cause jihadist terror. The real source, they insist, is Islamic culture. For decades, they’ve argued that economic distress does not cause unwed pregnancy and drug addiction among African Americans. The real explanation lies with inner city black culture. Given those precedents, you would think conservatives would embrace a cultural rather than economic explanation for Trump’s appeal, especially when the evidence points so strongly in that direction. But when it’s whites acting badly, not blacks or Muslims, suddenly economic distress matters a great deal.

Of course, some Trump supporters have “legitimate concerns” about their economic circumstances. But these concerns don’t distinguish them from other Americans. In fact, among voters who earn less than $50,000, Clinton won handily. Trump won among those who make more than $250,000. What differentiates Trump’s supporters is their resentment toward immigrants, Muslims, African Americans and feminists—anyone who challenges the hierarchies that reigned back when America was great.

Should Americans who loathe Trump talk to his supporters about their concerns and, where possible, find areas of common purpose? Sure. But I thought conservatives like Erickson favored blunt truths over dishonest kumbaya. The blunt truth is that most Trump supporters hold bigoted views. It’s what most clearly distinguishes them from other Americans. To bury that truth in the name of civility and sensitivity would be, to borrow a phrase from people like Erick Erickson, “politically correct.”

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503588)

I see the title, but there is nothing under it. Is that the joke or were you actually trying to offer some substance instead of being obtusely provocative for once?

TM

That's the point. He doesn't understand American politics - nuff said. I don't (I lost a bet with Slave where I picked Clinton win by over 100 electoral votes). And you don't.

All your rational points didn't matter. Trump trumped logic. And it wasn't misogyny. 45% of college-educated white women voted for Trump. 64% of non-college educated white women voted for Trump.

This Brit points out how American liberals, pundits and press didn't understand American politics - https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...inton-liberals .

Michael Moore, however, did understand American politics - http://www.salon.com/2016/10/26/mich...-and-hell-win/

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 503598)

And it wasn't misogyny. 45% of college-educated white women voted for Trump. 64% of non-college educated white women voted for Trump.

You're the second person to state this non-sequitur today. Why do you think winning white women suggests that misogyny is not in play?

White women are funny capable of getting on board with misogyny.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 503590)

That's because people in this country cannot hear a fucking thing beyond:

Respect the flag
Love it or leave it
Muslims are dangerous
Immigrants are dangerous and are taking our jobs
Taxes suck
Black people are dangerous
All politicians are equally bad and are responsible for everything
Obamacare sucks

Any argument that is as nuanced as "Republicans are blocking bills that will help you, you fucking idiot," is translated into the seventh bullet point above. There is no such thing as an effective message outside of the bullshit I've just listed because our electorate is made up of small-minded, uneducated, idiots who aren't interested in facts at all.

TM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 503598)

I find the Thomas Frank article to be pretty fucking ridiculous.

"The even larger problem is that there is a kind of chronic complacency that has been rotting American liberalism for years, a hubris that tells Democrats they need do nothing different, they need deliver nothing really to anyone – except their friends on the Google jet and those nice people at Goldman. The rest of us are treated as though we have nowhere else to go and no role to play except to vote enthusiastically on the grounds that these Democrats are the “last thing standing” between us and the end of the world. It is a liberalism of the rich, it has failed the middle class, and now it has failed on its own terms of electability. Enough with these comfortable Democrats and their cozy Washington system. Enough with Clintonism and its prideful air of professional-class virtue. Enough!"

This is just bullshit. There is plenty that Democrats have done and want to do but have been prevented from doing by the party that just won. It's not chronic fucking complacency. It's right wing obstruction at every level. The fact that he doesn't have room in this opinion piece for that makes his opinion a joke.

Moore's argument that people wanted to deliver a big fuck you to the establishment in the form of Donald Trump may translate as a deep understanding of our completely uninformed electorate, but it doesn't address the fact that the reason they want to issue a huge fuck you is the fact that they are completely uninformed. Trump is going to lay a tariff on cars that are built out of the country? Great! That will save the auto industry. Ford will produce cars at twice the price that can't compete with anything foreign. That's sure to keep these jobs in the country! It's complete fucking nonsense.

If the argument is "Telling the people what they want to hear even if it's fucking gobbledygook that can never ever happen or outright racist bullshit," then yeah. I suppose the Democrats didn't understand American politics.

TM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503601)

If the argument is "Telling the people what they want to hear even if it's fucking gobbledygook that can never ever happen or outright racist bullshit," then yeah. I suppose the Democrats didn't understand American politics.

I forgot Nate Silver.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 503600)

That's because people in this country cannot hear a fucking thing beyond:

Respect the flag
Love it or leave it
Muslims are dangerous
Immigrants are dangerous and are taking our jobs
Taxes suck
Black people are dangerous
All politicians are equally bad and are responsible for everything
Obamacare sucks

There is an old and difficult tension in union and Democratic party circles that is easiest to see in the statement "X are taking our jobs". It's number 4 on your list, but it hasn't just been immigrants - it's also African-Americans, the south, the Chinese, really anyone other than whites, and the presupposition is that those jobs somehow below to certain people and not others.

The other side of the argument is pretty simple: "workers of the world unite". Simple and catchy but doesn't have a big following these days.

For the most part, Bernie was closer to the first category in his economics and social policy, Hill the second.

These tensions will never be resolved and will always cost Dems votes. Over many, many years, with a lot of tension and a lot of work, Dems and unions developed a sort of consensus compromise that worked, but most of the working class is no longer unionized and doesn't buy into that consensus any more.