|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 06 2017 04:10 Grumbels wrote:
I get that the Democratic Party is unpopular and highly flawed, but just on a personal level I can't understand why people would rather vote for the GOP. They're evil, what the hell is wrong with the USA that half of the country would knowingly vote for a nihilistic bunch of psychopaths conspiring to destroy the planet and to reduce most of the population to serfs. It's like when people love awful commercial pop music which physically pains me to listen to. I can't understand it and I don't want to understand it, and this hampers my ability to objectively look at the situation.
I mean, it's a decent analogy because listening to Trump or most right-wing pundits does physically pain me. Trump is not even intelligible, everything he says is utter nonsense devoid of meaning, coherence or direction. I don't get how he is highly popular and how anyone is incapable of seeing through him and recognize him for the imbecile he is.
reading the book in my sig might help it make some sense to you.
some tldrs of it: people largely disregard policy; and mostly vote based on identity aspects (who people like us vote for, whatever you mean by "us").
when things are bad, people vote for a change, with little to no regard for consistency or feasibility.
people don't have policy preferences (not much at least), they change their policy to match their what their party/group is doing, rather than changing who they vote for to match their policies.
|
On May 06 2017 04:13 CobaltBlu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. I'd like to see the statistics of Trump winning the white college grad women. I know Romney won that demographic in 2012 but after a quick look I cannot find evidence Trump did as well.
Ack I mixed my polls percentages, Clinton did cling to a majority nationally in that demographic (52%). I've been spending too much time in swing states. Trump won whites, college-educated whites, and white women generally, but not white college-educated women. Clinton just didn't win them in the margins necessary to become president,
they were way too thin and she was counting on big rewards. (eg). WaPo citation.
|
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 06 2017 04:32 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:17 LegalLord wrote:On May 06 2017 04:10 Grumbels wrote:
I get that the Democratic Party is unpopular and highly flawed, but just on a personal level I can't understand why people would rather vote for the GOP. They're evil, what the hell is wrong with the USA that half of the country would knowingly vote for a nihilistic bunch of psychopaths conspiring to destroy the planet and to reduce most of the population to serfs. It's like when people love awful commercial pop music which physically pains me to listen to. I can't understand it and I don't want to understand it, and this hampers my ability to objectively look at the situation. The Democratic Party is just as confused as you are and just as unable to look at things objectively. They see what there is not to like about the GOP and think that that's enough to get them elected so why improve? Unfortunately people who are left with no good choices just might have a much different logic to their choice than you. But they do have a good choice, because the policies that the democrats advocate and implement are vastly superior to the GOP's. It's not just because of some globalist death spiral that red states all suffer economically, it's also because they keep voting into office republicans who implement bad policies. I think it's true that Hillary was a bad candidate with no charisma and no message, and I hope (but doubt) that the democratic party will take a more principled, combative, populist stance and distance themselves from the sort of wealthy liberal elites that dominate the party. But how any person with a functioning brain could possibly vote for Trump over Clinton I just can't understand. I can't and won't understand, because the only logical conclusion is not that people had bad choices, but rather that people are their own worst enemy. It's enough to turn me into a misanthrope.
In this case it's far from just Hillary; she is merely a symptom. Both houses of the legislature have went Republican because the Democrats suck a lot more at the local level. Some people still look for bogeymen like gerrymandering or wealthy donors to explain away all their troubles but it's definitely far more than that.
In some cases their best option is indeed to vote Republican. Part of that is based on social/ethnic concerns which I don't particularly respect but both sides do it. Part of it is that the more well-to-do class (people like xDaunt for example) benefit from the kind of economics that Republicans like. Part of it is that a lot of them live in areas largely forgotten by Democrats, even if Democrats deny it. Bottom line is that there's a lot of issues, most of which hardcore Democrats dismiss in favor of "they're pure concentrated evil."
And incidentally I am someone who very much doesn't like the Republicans. But that shouldn't stop you from seeing why they get votes.
|
On May 06 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. Look at what Trump promised on Healthcare Look at what he is delivering How did they not vote for a Unicorn? opisska: Damn why'd the left lose poor workers danglars: They didn't represent their interests, and here's how you know. gorsameth: Damn would you look at Trump not delivering, my my. Maybe we could move on to ways both parties share being bad if it wasn't anathema to analyze why the left lost. How did the left lose poor workers? They offered actual solutions which are not great because the world is not perfect (or great depending on your outlook) What did the Republicans offer? Unicorns about bringing back steel mills and coal in rural America. Who did they vote for? The unicorn. People like to be told that everything will be fine and that someone will fix all their problems. They don't like being told that their jobs are not coming back but that the government will offer to re-school them (as an example). Rural area's being left behind compared to cities is an economic problem across the world.
I gave you two shots at it, so you can't say I didn't try. I wasn't expecting you to double down on poor workers being too dumb to know "they offered actual solutions" and the only reason they aren't great is that "the world is not perfect," but I'll take it. I know voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are listening at how quick your allies are to trash their intelligence the second they don't decide in favor of Democrats. It's starting to approximate the colonial governor trying to figure out why the natives are restless; after all, his policies are offering actual solutions and the world isn't perfect in his own approximation, why should he have to listen and respond to their needs?
|
On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years.
Yeah fair enough, I think that's a pretty valid point.
|
|
|
On May 06 2017 04:10 Grumbels wrote:
I get that the Democratic Party is unpopular and highly flawed, but just on a personal level I can't understand why people would rather vote for the GOP. They're evil, what the hell is wrong with the USA that half of the country would knowingly vote for a nihilistic bunch of psychopaths conspiring to destroy the planet and to reduce most of the population to serfs. It's like when people love awful commercial pop music which physically pains me to listen to. I can't understand it and I don't want to understand it, and this hampers my ability to objectively look at the situation.
I mean, it's a decent analogy because listening to Trump or most right-wing pundits does physically pain me. Trump is not even intelligible, everything he says is utter nonsense devoid of meaning, coherence or direction. I don't get how he is highly popular and how anyone is incapable of seeing through him and recognize him for the imbecile he is.
I saw a thing posted a long time ago in this thread that said that about the same amount of people voted R this election than the previous election, just that so many less people voted D. The US as a country is dogshit when it comes to voter turnout, for a host of reasons, and voters being informed about what is going on. I dislike Hillary but I dislike Trump excessively more. So when I'm asked who I'm gonna vote for, the only logical answer I can give is "not Trump." For people like me that have cared about politics before I could vote, that's enough to get me out to a poll. For others, that's the prime ticket to have them not go through the effort of altering their schedule so they can vote and just stay in.
The Democratic part run a shit election that didn't energize anybody that I noticed in a positive way other than "Omigod, we could have a female president!" I thought it then and I believe it now, whomever that woman is, the female gender deserves better than Hillary to be that milestone.
|
On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years.
Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... 
|
On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves.
I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited)
|
On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary....
I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened.
Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with.
|
On May 06 2017 04:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. Look at what Trump promised on Healthcare Look at what he is delivering How did they not vote for a Unicorn? opisska: Damn why'd the left lose poor workers danglars: They didn't represent their interests, and here's how you know. gorsameth: Damn would you look at Trump not delivering, my my. Maybe we could move on to ways both parties share being bad if it wasn't anathema to analyze why the left lost. How did the left lose poor workers? They offered actual solutions which are not great because the world is not perfect (or great depending on your outlook) What did the Republicans offer? Unicorns about bringing back steel mills and coal in rural America. Who did they vote for? The unicorn. People like to be told that everything will be fine and that someone will fix all their problems. They don't like being told that their jobs are not coming back but that the government will offer to re-school them (as an example). Rural area's being left behind compared to cities is an economic problem across the world. I gave you two shots at it, so you can't say I didn't try. I wasn't expecting you to double down on poor workers being too dumb to know "they offered actual solutions" and the only reason they aren't great is that "the world is not perfect," but I'll take it. I know voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are listening at how quick your allies are to trash their intelligence the second they don't decide in favor of Democrats. It's starting to approximate the colonial governor trying to figure out why the natives are restless; after all, his policies are offering actual solutions and the world isn't perfect in his own approximation, why should he have to listen and respond to their needs?
I thought Republicans were against PC speech now? I'm saying it like it is. People voting for impossible solutions, having it explained to them that they don't work and then doing it anyway because "What do we have to lose" are stupid.
Well they are going to find out what they have to lose when their benefits get cut, state development funds get cut and their healthcare is gutted.
I just feel sorry for the 54% who didn't vote Republican.
|
On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with.
I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh.
Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare.
|
On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited)
You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy.
|
On May 06 2017 04:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. Look at what Trump promised on Healthcare Look at what he is delivering How did they not vote for a Unicorn? opisska: Damn why'd the left lose poor workers danglars: They didn't represent their interests, and here's how you know. gorsameth: Damn would you look at Trump not delivering, my my. Maybe we could move on to ways both parties share being bad if it wasn't anathema to analyze why the left lost. How did the left lose poor workers? They offered actual solutions which are not great because the world is not perfect (or great depending on your outlook) What did the Republicans offer? Unicorns about bringing back steel mills and coal in rural America. Who did they vote for? The unicorn. People like to be told that everything will be fine and that someone will fix all their problems. They don't like being told that their jobs are not coming back but that the government will offer to re-school them (as an example). Rural area's being left behind compared to cities is an economic problem across the world. I gave you two shots at it, so you can't say I didn't try. I wasn't expecting you to double down on poor workers being too dumb to know "they offered actual solutions" and the only reason they aren't great is that "the world is not perfect," but I'll take it. I know voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are listening at how quick your allies are to trash their intelligence the second they don't decide in favor of Democrats. It's starting to approximate the colonial governor trying to figure out why the natives are restless; after all, his policies are offering actual solutions and the world isn't perfect in his own approximation, why should he have to listen and respond to their needs?
Yeah, I know a couple of people in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Some of them voted for Trump cause 1) their health care costs were rising under ObamaCare and 2) they want their kids to be able to get jobs in their state when they grow up. They don't seem particularly happy with him right now, but continue to hold out hope, because they don't expect instant-jobs to appear everywhere. They didn't think the coal mines would reopen, but they figured he would actually pay attention to their region, unlike the Democrat that they previously voted for, or the Democrat that didn't show up in their state at all this time around. They'll probably realize they did get conned by the time 2018 or 2020 comes around.
It's frustrating when everyone just goes about calling Trump voters stupid. Such generalizations are offensive, don't you know? You don't have to be stupid to be conned into something. You can just be gullible or hopeful as well.
|
|
|
On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare.
You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front.
|
Anyone know what attacks he is referring to? I've never even heard of this guy
|
On May 06 2017 04:13 biology]major wrote:
The failure of the democratic party was so apparent to me at the dnc. Completely ignored the white working class and instead catered to only minorities and even illegal immigrants lol. That is a straight slap in the face to all people who have been hurt by globalization and immigrants. I'm an immigrant and I could understand how horrible the strategy of identity politics played out. No clear message other than "we aren't donald trump." Sorry that's not going to cut it especially after having a democrat for 8 years in the white house.
I didn't understand this. It felt like such a poor allocation of resources.
|
On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy.
Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values.
And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
