|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26766 Posts
On September 07 2020 07:59 micronesia wrote:That's a great point.
pmh always makes great points. Period.
|
On September 07 2020 06:56 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:25 Zambrah wrote:
I mean most people CAN vote, it's just very inconvenient in the US and that's still a form of disenfranchisement. People in the US are, to quote a lil RTJ here, "overworked, underpaid, and we underprivileged." We can't expect people to feel okay going out and voting until we make it convenient to do and done not on a work day. Given there's no will from our politicians to do things that make it a lot more convenient to vote were kinda just a little fucked here. If Americans are this bad off, how does the rest of the world get along? We have lower tax rates, higher median incomes, lower cost of living, etc. than almost everywhere else in the world. You've convinced yourselves of a lie and then trot that lie out to make it out like voting is some death knell to a lot of people. I'm not saying things are perfect, but comparatively, the average American is much more well-to-do than almost everywhere else in the world. People can plan one day every few years to vote. It's a lousy excuse to push a false narrative. Americans also have the longest working hours of anywhere besides Japan and the shittiest and most expensive health care of any first world nation. It's very easy to vote as an american if you are in the top 40-50% of the country. It's very hard for a poor person working two 29 hour a week jobs that fire you if you ever miss a day (and will call you in unexpectedly at any time) to vote early or vote on voting day. There are also the states (like KY currently and FL in the past) that have gone the long way around Jim Crow laws. Prevent felons from voting and then disproportionately target black people for minor crimes (like pot possession) and suddenly 25% of black people in the state can't vote, but it's totally legal. Most of these poor workers, coincidentally, vote democrat. The complaint most people have isn't "it's hard for ME to vote", it's "the barriers to voting are precisely targeted for the benefit of one side". Some states are much worse than others, with NC's being called targeted with razor precision against black people. If every voter on both sides turned out to vote, the GOP would be reduced to nothing more than a handful of local positions. Dems have something like a 10-12% registration edge and there have never been any indications that independents in name only favor one party by more than 1-2% . Likely voter models in polls have always benefitted republicans in the past because it was easier for middle class to rich white people to go vote than it was for poor POC. If they really care they'll turn out, and that's why we've seen likely voter models not matter as much in 2018. You realize only about 5% of the work force works 2 jobs? The people in that situation are not 50% of the country like you implied. Similarly, most polls open early and close late meaning sure, it's inconvenient but you can go before or after work to vote if that was your only option (it's not, but let's act like it is). Then there are the people whooping on for a revolution while lamenting that people are too inconvenienced to vote. Like if people can't find a way to vote one day every few years how the hell are you going to get these people to join your "revolution"? Seriously, people got to think things through. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/opinion/working-two-jobs.htmlSimilarly, the Democrat demographics have become the affluent white-collar folks for the most part. So, I would argue that if you're going to say it's easier for those folks to vote then the Democrat base has the easier time voting. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/Show nested quote +According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.
Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.
The discrepancy becomes even greater when Pew distilled the sample down to people who have post-graduate education — at least some work toward a master’s, doctorate, law or similar degree. In that group, Democrats had a 2-to-1 edge, by 63 percent to 31 percent. In 1994, the two parties were almost evenly divided, with the Democratic lead just 47-45.
“While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017,” Pew wrote. So, please, continue...
Your argument is flawed. Stating that educated people are starting to vote democrat does not preclude the poor from also voting for democrats.
Remember, democrat registration wavers from 42-45% while GOP is around 30-34%.
It's especially prevalent among poor nonwhites. The number of postgrads and college grads isn't the majority of the country, either - if it were really true the all dems were ONLY college educated voters they would cap at 35% of the country max.
Stating that only 5% of the workforce works two jobs is still sufficient for my point to be true. Very few national elections are decided by a number higher than that. It also doesn't account for people working 80+ hour weeks. 5% also sounds low to me, as far more than 5% of the people I've known worked a second job. Though their second job may have been something like Uber or Lyft or Doordash, which probably isn't accounted for.
Pretty much everyone to graduate since 2000 has entered the job market with ~30-50% of a mortgage in student loans. Not even republicans argue that the system isn't broken for those not on the top (they just say that we need more trickle down or that the dems will make it worse), so I'm not sure where you're getting this amazing utopian vision of America. Lower taxes translates into considerably worse public services - for instance, public transportation is a massive joke in the majority of the US, even in our large cities, compared to the rest of the World.
I'm also calling total BS on the claim that the cost of living in the US is lower than any other (or even most) other first world countries. I've found several claims to the exact opposite, especially once health care is accounted for, and it's something where there's also never going to be a good comparison, since states can vary so much on the issue. The US also doesn't have the highest median income, at all. It's up there, but a quick search showed at least 5 European countries are above it. Please bring a source for this claim.
The US is great for extremely wealthy retired white people who are already on social security. When even millionaires comment that they have issues entering politics because their family loses health insurance if they quit their job, something is really fucked (Yang said this about running for president).
I think the initial point, that HS diploma only formerly union whites (especially white males) are switching parties from formerly democrats to republicans, is true. They haven't entirely switched, and it remains to be seen if it is a trend setter or if it was just a Clinton effect - Bill signing NAFTA directly cost most of them their jobs (I know it cost my father his job in the city he lived in - and he was lucky, being literally the only person in the entire plant to get a desk job offer in a city hours away due to having a degree). Those jobs are never coming back due to automation now, but it was pretty much undeniable that he cost them the jobs at least a decade before automation would have, and in greater numbers.
|
|
|
On September 07 2020 09:26 Wombat_NornIron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 07:24 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2020 05:57 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On September 07 2020 05:40 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2020 05:15 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On September 07 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2020 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2020 02:13 reborn8u2 wrote:On September 06 2020 20:03 iamthedave wrote:On September 06 2020 14:49 StalkerTL wrote:
For better or worse, the polls themselves suggest a pretty clear Biden lead that isn't really shifting unless you're taking into account pollsters that use a large amount of online methods such as using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. A lot of those same polls have extremely odd results, such as that Atlas Intel poll suggesting 48% of white Americans support Biden (that would be the largest white support for any Democratic candidate since LBJ) and 30% black support Trump (that would be a ~20 point improvement vs the 2018 midterm elections).
The polling itself, ignoring online heavy pollsters who put out polls in the immediate aftermath of the RNC and DNC, has shown a very consistent Biden lead of 6-10 points. Its a referendum on Trump's presidency and his method of governance has in him in the media every single day of the 4 years. There's just not many undecideds this election because there's no way you can avoid hearing about Trump, whether through the media or through social media.
There's a lot of garbage happening all around America to delegitimize the election, such as the Trump Administration doing their very best efforts to cripple the USPS so mail voting may come in later than sooner. So obviously Biden can lose pretty easily. But the polling wouldn't suggest this at all and obviously can't take into account things like voter suppression and the voting behaviour during the coronavirus.
I don't believe third parties are going to spoil the election for either side. Name recognition of the Greens and Libertarian candidate is close to non-existent in polling and more importantly there's few undecideds compared to 2016 where both Trump and Clinton were polling in the low 40s (and even the 30s in some states!). If there was ever a sign that Clinton was in trouble, it was the sheer number of undecideds and her inability to poll higher than something like 45%.
Compare that to the consistent low-mid 40s for Trump and Biden consistently hitting 50. Even the single Kanye presidential poll I've seen suggests he has little pull and if he does have any pull he probably pulls more Trump voters than Democratic voters (not surprising, his campaign has been extremely evangelical). Didn't 100% of the polls in 2016 show a clear Hilary lead though? I thought after 2016 we all admitted that polling doesn't work because of how the data is collected (either the sample size isn't good enough or the questions are too simplistic). Just want to share my Boss's experience with polling. A bit of background, he is in his early 50's and was a lifelong democrat until Trump. As he put's it, he was a "Blue dog" democrat. He's been following and interested in politics his whole life, he literally studies all the local/state politics as well, we've had a lot of state constitution changes on the ballot in the last few years (he can talk about those alone for hours). Even as a teenager he couldn't wait to turn 18 so he could vote. He's always been very outspoken about his views/values. He's taken hundreds of polls in his life, but no more. When he decided in 2016 he was voting for Trump, he took 2 polls just before the election (over the phone). After that experience he says "I'll never take another poll again". He says that as soon as he stated he intended to vote for Trump the person giving the poll on the phone became extremely condescending and flat out rude. The other thing that really pissed him off was how loaded the questions were. He says there was no way for him to voice his opinions because all of the questions and answers were worded in such a way that there were no responses he could make that showed his opinion. He says he's now a "shy tory" en.wikipedia.org , and if you told him 10 years ago he'd be where he is now he would have "called you an idiot". With so many calling Trump supporters racists and nazi's, who can blame him for no longer sharing his politics. He says he would never even put a Trump bumper sticker on his car or wear a maga hat, for fear of vandalism, or violence. I think there are a lot of people who are in the same mindset. There has been a lot of suppression, vandalism, and violence against Trump supporters in the last 4 years. If you have been following mainstream media, you probably don't realize how bad the problem is, they don't give it any attention. The media as well as most major online platforms have been very one sided in what and how they cover stories, and have been flat out censoring conservative voices for years now. I don't think we can have any confidence in the polls. There certainly is a group of 'independents' who are just shy/ashamed Republicans who don't want to come out for Trump but what interests me most about this is how a 'life long democrat' could look at 2016 Trump and think 'this is the guy for the job', let alone 2020 Trump. What sort of political values and beliefs that match with Democrats for decades matches up with Trump? Jus to put this in the most straightforward way possible: Have you been paying attention to how each party has changed in the last decade? Maybe not very intentional, but this post comes off as highly skeptical that there is such a thing as a "Trump Democrat" when we can see entire regions and populations that have altered their voting patterns over the years, some of them drastically in 2016. Also recall that in 2016 Trump was seen as the most moderate GOP candidate in years (and he was certainly the one closest to the Democrats many times when he spoke). Meanwhile, progressive whining aside, the Democrat party has moved left on almost every issue even from Obama. It's why even "moderate" Joe Biden doesn't sound like his 1970s, 80s, 90s, or 00s self. He moves with the partly and they have moved left. In 2020 I would be pretty skeptical. 2016 I guess, although even then he was a bit of a strange outlier and difficult for some to piece together. His whole ostensible platform was a bit of a departure in a fair few areas, his past utterances on say same-sex marriage were a bit ahead of even his Dem opponents, so I do recall some commentary on him being socially liberal in certain areas. On the other hand you got plenty of glimpses of the Trumpian playbook to playing to the gallery and scapegoating various marginalised peoples. Or picking Pence as a VP which kind of wipes out him being on the right side of that issue back in the day. Which made people rather worried about him even when he was seen as a no-hoper to actually win. It’s hard to remember exactly what the kind of consensus was back through time like that, my recollection was not that he was seen as one of the most moderate GOP candidates in a few cycles, but that he had some moderate tendencies amidst a lot of really worrying tendencies. Perhaps a moderate candidate with extremism as a methodology. Like many, you focus far too much on the political game aspect of this, e.g. "the Trumpian playbook." Not that I'm going to scrap it up, but polling back then had him perceived as more of a moderate. Trump did in fact sign a more-or-less mainline Republican tax law (which, if you want another example of how parties change, see how the Democrats are currently trying to reinstate the biggest tax break for the well off that the bill eliminated). However, he has been relatively consistent in his overall messages on trade, Social Security, foreign policy, immigration, abortion, and other issues. Trump is not a typical Republican. He has promised to not touch Social Security, has been restrained in his use of force overseas, has sold out far less often on immigration, isn't afraid to talk up his pro-life stances, has acted on trade, etc. I think the people who hoped he would tone down his rhetoric in office are disappointed, but I'm not sure how many people who actually supported his ideas are really that bummed out. (And for me at least, it's a welcome surprise). Point being, the inability to see how there could be such a thing as a "Trump Democrat" comes off as far-too-common left wing arrogance and ignorance. The question "how could people possibly support Trump" is clearly offered only as a sardonic and dismissive quip instead of a question genuinely asked. But then again, apparently it's hard for many to even understand how someone could think that burning down buildings is bad, so maybe there is even more work to do. It’s not dismissive, there are understandable reasons for some flipping camps back in the day, or continuing to do so. I believe this discussion was prompted re appealing to undecided voters of which the ‘Trump Democrat’ would be one. If we’re talking trying to win those votes I mean how do you do that without completely gutting your own platform and alienating your own base? And do you even drag those ones back? It’s a bit nitpicky but even if you’ve voted blue for donkeys, you’re not really a Trump Democrat, more a Nouveau Republican. Or a Trumpublican. He has changed that party’s direction in certain areas, so assuming these people stay on board I’d consider them new Republican converts rather than lapsed Democrats, given the directions taken by both parties. I mean, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Platforms change based on issues. When the Republican party was born it was also the party of tariffs, and remained that way for a long time. Maybe at the time they made sense! Then it wasn't. Now, it's having an internal fight about it. I don't really think this is about undecided voters, this is about figuring out why people who formerly voted for your party would "vote against their own interests." Of course that phrase is exactly the type of arrogance I describe, and the fact it gets so much use is demonstrative. Even now, you grant "there are understandable reasons for some flipping camps back in the day, or continuing to do so." Can you describe any without tying in, say, racism? Xenophobia? "I got mine"? I think you might actually be able to. But many can't. Could certainly give it a shot like. Legitimate immigration concerns, decline of particular industries and indeed a sneering, rather dismissive attitude from the other side that’s attempting to win your vote. Amongst others. The rather infamous ‘just learn to code’ article springs to mind. Actually have bold policies that are targeted to the needs and wants of particular areas and your wider platform. And push it harder too. Messaging is important after all. Go green but frame it as American jobs in making the technologies of the future and you will help build it. Ticks a bunch of boxes. Over in the UK we had areas of post-industrial decline for decades. Plenty of space and time to do a bold strategy of incentivising industry to move operations to those regions struggling economically. Never really happened to stall the brain drain and lo and behold Brexit happened and we got the ‘why did these historic Labour areas vote to leave, must be racist’ kind of ridiculous handwringing. The US is even more diverse economically and culturally than we are over here, a one-size fits all kind of strategy, or at least one not having regional-specific kind of policy is missing a trick.
You did list a few things and that's better than most, and crucially, it's better than most Democrats people hear from in the media. Many of these people don't think the Democrats care, and so why should they trust them? Trump's idgaf attitude provided, and provides, some hope that he'll listen. And at the very least he doesn't appear to hate the people who vote for him. There are lots of criticisms of the American voter that have merit, but they notice when they were promised they would get to keep their insurance, and then don't. They notice when Democrats advocate for massive amnesty that will bring in low wage earners, and block attempts to stop illegal immigration. They notice when a party once agreed to the Hyde amendment, and now has almost no supporters among Democrat elected representatives.
The party should consider that maybe these voters used to vote for them not because of their coastal attitudes and preferences, but in spite of them. Which brings us back to my first reply in this chain. It's actually really easy to see how you could have "Trump Democrats" if you actually knew or cared about who people who called themselves "Democrat" actually were.
The Republican party often governs and campaigns for the voters it wishes it had, and while I don't think Trump is a genius, I think he realized he could win by campaigning for the voters he actually had. Meanwhile the Democrats were going to shame you into voting for them then promising you more government supply of services. What happens when a Republican comes along who promises not to touch them?
|
On September 07 2020 10:03 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 06:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:25 Zambrah wrote:
I mean most people CAN vote, it's just very inconvenient in the US and that's still a form of disenfranchisement. People in the US are, to quote a lil RTJ here, "overworked, underpaid, and we underprivileged." We can't expect people to feel okay going out and voting until we make it convenient to do and done not on a work day. Given there's no will from our politicians to do things that make it a lot more convenient to vote were kinda just a little fucked here. If Americans are this bad off, how does the rest of the world get along? We have lower tax rates, higher median incomes, lower cost of living, etc. than almost everywhere else in the world. You've convinced yourselves of a lie and then trot that lie out to make it out like voting is some death knell to a lot of people. I'm not saying things are perfect, but comparatively, the average American is much more well-to-do than almost everywhere else in the world. People can plan one day every few years to vote. It's a lousy excuse to push a false narrative. Americans also have the longest working hours of anywhere besides Japan and the shittiest and most expensive health care of any first world nation. It's very easy to vote as an american if you are in the top 40-50% of the country. It's very hard for a poor person working two 29 hour a week jobs that fire you if you ever miss a day (and will call you in unexpectedly at any time) to vote early or vote on voting day. There are also the states (like KY currently and FL in the past) that have gone the long way around Jim Crow laws. Prevent felons from voting and then disproportionately target black people for minor crimes (like pot possession) and suddenly 25% of black people in the state can't vote, but it's totally legal. Most of these poor workers, coincidentally, vote democrat. The complaint most people have isn't "it's hard for ME to vote", it's "the barriers to voting are precisely targeted for the benefit of one side". Some states are much worse than others, with NC's being called targeted with razor precision against black people. If every voter on both sides turned out to vote, the GOP would be reduced to nothing more than a handful of local positions. Dems have something like a 10-12% registration edge and there have never been any indications that independents in name only favor one party by more than 1-2% . Likely voter models in polls have always benefitted republicans in the past because it was easier for middle class to rich white people to go vote than it was for poor POC. If they really care they'll turn out, and that's why we've seen likely voter models not matter as much in 2018. You realize only about 5% of the work force works 2 jobs? The people in that situation are not 50% of the country like you implied. Similarly, most polls open early and close late meaning sure, it's inconvenient but you can go before or after work to vote if that was your only option (it's not, but let's act like it is). Then there are the people whooping on for a revolution while lamenting that people are too inconvenienced to vote. Like if people can't find a way to vote one day every few years how the hell are you going to get these people to join your "revolution"? Seriously, people got to think things through. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/opinion/working-two-jobs.htmlSimilarly, the Democrat demographics have become the affluent white-collar folks for the most part. So, I would argue that if you're going to say it's easier for those folks to vote then the Democrat base has the easier time voting. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.
Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.
The discrepancy becomes even greater when Pew distilled the sample down to people who have post-graduate education — at least some work toward a master’s, doctorate, law or similar degree. In that group, Democrats had a 2-to-1 edge, by 63 percent to 31 percent. In 1994, the two parties were almost evenly divided, with the Democratic lead just 47-45.
“While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017,” Pew wrote. So, please, continue... Your argument is flawed. Stating that educated people are starting to vote democrat does not preclude the poor from also voting for democrats. Remember, democrat registration wavers from 42-45% while GOP is around 30-34%. It's especially prevalent among poor nonwhites. The number of postgrads and college grads isn't the majority of the country, either - if it were really true the all dems were ONLY college educated voters they would cap at 35% of the country max. Stating that only 5% of the workforce works two jobs is still sufficient for my point to be true. Very few national elections are decided by a number higher than that. It also doesn't account for people working 80+ hour weeks. 5% also sounds low to me, as far more than 5% of the people I've known worked a second job. Though their second job may have been something like Uber or Lyft or Doordash, which probably isn't accounted for. Pretty much everyone to graduate since 2000 has entered the job market with ~30-50% of a mortgage in student loans. Not even republicans argue that the system isn't broken for those not on the top (they just say that we need more trickle down or that the dems will make it worse), so I'm not sure where you're getting this amazing utopian vision of America. Lower taxes translates into considerably worse public services - for instance, public transportation is a massive joke in the majority of the US, even in our large cities, compared to the rest of the World. I'm also calling total BS on the claim that the cost of living in the US is lower than any other (or even most) other first world countries. I've found several claims to the exact opposite, especially once health care is accounted for, and it's something where there's also never going to be a good comparison, since states can vary so much on the issue. The US also doesn't have the highest median income, at all. It's up there, but a quick search showed at least 5 European countries are above it. Please bring a source for this claim. The US is great for extremely wealthy retired white people who are already on social security. When even millionaires comment that they have issues entering politics because their family loses health insurance if they quit their job, something is really fucked (Yang said this about running for president). I think the initial point, that HS diploma only formerly union whites (especially white males) are switching parties from formerly democrats to republicans, is true. They haven't entirely switched, and it remains to be seen if it is a trend setter or if it was just a Clinton effect - Bill signing NAFTA directly cost most of them their jobs (I know it cost my father his job in the city he lived in - and he was lucky, being literally the only person in the entire plant to get a desk job offer in a city hours away due to having a degree). Those jobs are never coming back due to automation now, but it was pretty much undeniable that he cost them the jobs at least a decade before automation would have, and in greater numbers.
Listen, you're not arguing with doofus Republicans. If you're going to make claims, cite your shit, like I do.
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
Household net adjusted disposable income is the amount of money that a household earns each year after taxes and transfers. It represents the money available to a household for spending on goods or services. In the United States, the average household net adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 45 284 a year, much higher than the OECD average of USD 33 604 and the highest figure in the OECD.
I never said the US is some utopia, but progressives are clueless when making claims like people can't vote in the US without a day off because a large part of the population is so poor or that the myriad of ways to vote are insufficient (when often times the means to do so are way more varied than most other democratic countries). It's a flimsy excuse to paint your narrative. There are a ton of things that need reformed in this country (and no, not toward more State control / regulation). Now, getting past this ridiculous non-sequitur and your churlish anecdote, it is mostly true that Democratic voters tend to be the affluent / upper middle class and the lowest poor income bracket, it's why I mentioned that there are significant ideological gaps in the party that make it more fractious right now than the GOP (hence my previous point...).
As for your assertion about tax rates and public services, what's the point here? The subject was Americans being so destitute that they can't find a way to vote early, absentee/mail-in, or day of because they're too busy working multiple jobs and unable to afford the basics. I showed that's not true with data. You bark back about tax rates and public transportation. If this is going to be your engagement to the topic what's the point in continuing.
PS: The reason Democrat registration is higher is that Democrat registration tends to be higher in the South even though they vote Republican. It's a holdover from bygone times. (Because you're clueless about registration data context you assume Democrat registration = Democrat voter)
https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/registering-by-party-where-the-democrats-and-republicans-are-ahead/
That is a 77% correlation rate between party registration advantage and a winning electoral outcome. The percentage goes up to 88% if one removes the South, the one area of the country where party registration is a lagging indicator of the fortunes of the two major parties.
Even though Democrats began losing their dominance in the South a half century ago, they still retain a registration advantage in four of six Southern states where voters register by party: Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, and North Carolina.
|
On September 07 2020 10:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 10:03 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:25 Zambrah wrote:
I mean most people CAN vote, it's just very inconvenient in the US and that's still a form of disenfranchisement. People in the US are, to quote a lil RTJ here, "overworked, underpaid, and we underprivileged." We can't expect people to feel okay going out and voting until we make it convenient to do and done not on a work day. Given there's no will from our politicians to do things that make it a lot more convenient to vote were kinda just a little fucked here. If Americans are this bad off, how does the rest of the world get along? We have lower tax rates, higher median incomes, lower cost of living, etc. than almost everywhere else in the world. You've convinced yourselves of a lie and then trot that lie out to make it out like voting is some death knell to a lot of people. I'm not saying things are perfect, but comparatively, the average American is much more well-to-do than almost everywhere else in the world. People can plan one day every few years to vote. It's a lousy excuse to push a false narrative. Americans also have the longest working hours of anywhere besides Japan and the shittiest and most expensive health care of any first world nation. It's very easy to vote as an american if you are in the top 40-50% of the country. It's very hard for a poor person working two 29 hour a week jobs that fire you if you ever miss a day (and will call you in unexpectedly at any time) to vote early or vote on voting day. There are also the states (like KY currently and FL in the past) that have gone the long way around Jim Crow laws. Prevent felons from voting and then disproportionately target black people for minor crimes (like pot possession) and suddenly 25% of black people in the state can't vote, but it's totally legal. Most of these poor workers, coincidentally, vote democrat. The complaint most people have isn't "it's hard for ME to vote", it's "the barriers to voting are precisely targeted for the benefit of one side". Some states are much worse than others, with NC's being called targeted with razor precision against black people. If every voter on both sides turned out to vote, the GOP would be reduced to nothing more than a handful of local positions. Dems have something like a 10-12% registration edge and there have never been any indications that independents in name only favor one party by more than 1-2% . Likely voter models in polls have always benefitted republicans in the past because it was easier for middle class to rich white people to go vote than it was for poor POC. If they really care they'll turn out, and that's why we've seen likely voter models not matter as much in 2018. You realize only about 5% of the work force works 2 jobs? The people in that situation are not 50% of the country like you implied. Similarly, most polls open early and close late meaning sure, it's inconvenient but you can go before or after work to vote if that was your only option (it's not, but let's act like it is). Then there are the people whooping on for a revolution while lamenting that people are too inconvenienced to vote. Like if people can't find a way to vote one day every few years how the hell are you going to get these people to join your "revolution"? Seriously, people got to think things through. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/opinion/working-two-jobs.htmlSimilarly, the Democrat demographics have become the affluent white-collar folks for the most part. So, I would argue that if you're going to say it's easier for those folks to vote then the Democrat base has the easier time voting. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.
Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.
The discrepancy becomes even greater when Pew distilled the sample down to people who have post-graduate education — at least some work toward a master’s, doctorate, law or similar degree. In that group, Democrats had a 2-to-1 edge, by 63 percent to 31 percent. In 1994, the two parties were almost evenly divided, with the Democratic lead just 47-45.
“While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017,” Pew wrote. So, please, continue... Your argument is flawed. Stating that educated people are starting to vote democrat does not preclude the poor from also voting for democrats. Remember, democrat registration wavers from 42-45% while GOP is around 30-34%. It's especially prevalent among poor nonwhites. The number of postgrads and college grads isn't the majority of the country, either - if it were really true the all dems were ONLY college educated voters they would cap at 35% of the country max. Stating that only 5% of the workforce works two jobs is still sufficient for my point to be true. Very few national elections are decided by a number higher than that. It also doesn't account for people working 80+ hour weeks. 5% also sounds low to me, as far more than 5% of the people I've known worked a second job. Though their second job may have been something like Uber or Lyft or Doordash, which probably isn't accounted for. Pretty much everyone to graduate since 2000 has entered the job market with ~30-50% of a mortgage in student loans. Not even republicans argue that the system isn't broken for those not on the top (they just say that we need more trickle down or that the dems will make it worse), so I'm not sure where you're getting this amazing utopian vision of America. Lower taxes translates into considerably worse public services - for instance, public transportation is a massive joke in the majority of the US, even in our large cities, compared to the rest of the World. I'm also calling total BS on the claim that the cost of living in the US is lower than any other (or even most) other first world countries. I've found several claims to the exact opposite, especially once health care is accounted for, and it's something where there's also never going to be a good comparison, since states can vary so much on the issue. The US also doesn't have the highest median income, at all. It's up there, but a quick search showed at least 5 European countries are above it. Please bring a source for this claim. The US is great for extremely wealthy retired white people who are already on social security. When even millionaires comment that they have issues entering politics because their family loses health insurance if they quit their job, something is really fucked (Yang said this about running for president). I think the initial point, that HS diploma only formerly union whites (especially white males) are switching parties from formerly democrats to republicans, is true. They haven't entirely switched, and it remains to be seen if it is a trend setter or if it was just a Clinton effect - Bill signing NAFTA directly cost most of them their jobs (I know it cost my father his job in the city he lived in - and he was lucky, being literally the only person in the entire plant to get a desk job offer in a city hours away due to having a degree). Those jobs are never coming back due to automation now, but it was pretty much undeniable that he cost them the jobs at least a decade before automation would have, and in greater numbers. Listen, you're not arguing with doofus Republicans. If you're going to make claims, cite your shit, like I do. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/Show nested quote +Household net adjusted disposable income is the amount of money that a household earns each year after taxes and transfers. It represents the money available to a household for spending on goods or services. In the United States, the average household net adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 45 284 a year, much higher than the OECD average of USD 33 604 and the highest figure in the OECD.
From your article, friend:
Despite the general increase in living standards, some groups have been left behind and inequality has also increased over the same period. On average in OECD countries, the average net-adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated USD 69 477 a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated USD 11 026 a year. Some OECD countries such as Australia, Luxembourg and the United States, have a much more unequal income distribution than others.
Using an average value tends to flatten out that pesky wealth inequality, which is still what fucks over the majority of Americans. If you're in the 1% it's great, I guess.
|
On September 07 2020 11:26 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 10:43 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 10:03 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:25 Zambrah wrote:
I mean most people CAN vote, it's just very inconvenient in the US and that's still a form of disenfranchisement. People in the US are, to quote a lil RTJ here, "overworked, underpaid, and we underprivileged." We can't expect people to feel okay going out and voting until we make it convenient to do and done not on a work day. Given there's no will from our politicians to do things that make it a lot more convenient to vote were kinda just a little fucked here. If Americans are this bad off, how does the rest of the world get along? We have lower tax rates, higher median incomes, lower cost of living, etc. than almost everywhere else in the world. You've convinced yourselves of a lie and then trot that lie out to make it out like voting is some death knell to a lot of people. I'm not saying things are perfect, but comparatively, the average American is much more well-to-do than almost everywhere else in the world. People can plan one day every few years to vote. It's a lousy excuse to push a false narrative. Americans also have the longest working hours of anywhere besides Japan and the shittiest and most expensive health care of any first world nation. It's very easy to vote as an american if you are in the top 40-50% of the country. It's very hard for a poor person working two 29 hour a week jobs that fire you if you ever miss a day (and will call you in unexpectedly at any time) to vote early or vote on voting day. There are also the states (like KY currently and FL in the past) that have gone the long way around Jim Crow laws. Prevent felons from voting and then disproportionately target black people for minor crimes (like pot possession) and suddenly 25% of black people in the state can't vote, but it's totally legal. Most of these poor workers, coincidentally, vote democrat. The complaint most people have isn't "it's hard for ME to vote", it's "the barriers to voting are precisely targeted for the benefit of one side". Some states are much worse than others, with NC's being called targeted with razor precision against black people. If every voter on both sides turned out to vote, the GOP would be reduced to nothing more than a handful of local positions. Dems have something like a 10-12% registration edge and there have never been any indications that independents in name only favor one party by more than 1-2% . Likely voter models in polls have always benefitted republicans in the past because it was easier for middle class to rich white people to go vote than it was for poor POC. If they really care they'll turn out, and that's why we've seen likely voter models not matter as much in 2018. You realize only about 5% of the work force works 2 jobs? The people in that situation are not 50% of the country like you implied. Similarly, most polls open early and close late meaning sure, it's inconvenient but you can go before or after work to vote if that was your only option (it's not, but let's act like it is). Then there are the people whooping on for a revolution while lamenting that people are too inconvenienced to vote. Like if people can't find a way to vote one day every few years how the hell are you going to get these people to join your "revolution"? Seriously, people got to think things through. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/opinion/working-two-jobs.htmlSimilarly, the Democrat demographics have become the affluent white-collar folks for the most part. So, I would argue that if you're going to say it's easier for those folks to vote then the Democrat base has the easier time voting. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.
Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.
The discrepancy becomes even greater when Pew distilled the sample down to people who have post-graduate education — at least some work toward a master’s, doctorate, law or similar degree. In that group, Democrats had a 2-to-1 edge, by 63 percent to 31 percent. In 1994, the two parties were almost evenly divided, with the Democratic lead just 47-45.
“While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017,” Pew wrote. So, please, continue... Your argument is flawed. Stating that educated people are starting to vote democrat does not preclude the poor from also voting for democrats. Remember, democrat registration wavers from 42-45% while GOP is around 30-34%. It's especially prevalent among poor nonwhites. The number of postgrads and college grads isn't the majority of the country, either - if it were really true the all dems were ONLY college educated voters they would cap at 35% of the country max. Stating that only 5% of the workforce works two jobs is still sufficient for my point to be true. Very few national elections are decided by a number higher than that. It also doesn't account for people working 80+ hour weeks. 5% also sounds low to me, as far more than 5% of the people I've known worked a second job. Though their second job may have been something like Uber or Lyft or Doordash, which probably isn't accounted for. Pretty much everyone to graduate since 2000 has entered the job market with ~30-50% of a mortgage in student loans. Not even republicans argue that the system isn't broken for those not on the top (they just say that we need more trickle down or that the dems will make it worse), so I'm not sure where you're getting this amazing utopian vision of America. Lower taxes translates into considerably worse public services - for instance, public transportation is a massive joke in the majority of the US, even in our large cities, compared to the rest of the World. I'm also calling total BS on the claim that the cost of living in the US is lower than any other (or even most) other first world countries. I've found several claims to the exact opposite, especially once health care is accounted for, and it's something where there's also never going to be a good comparison, since states can vary so much on the issue. The US also doesn't have the highest median income, at all. It's up there, but a quick search showed at least 5 European countries are above it. Please bring a source for this claim. The US is great for extremely wealthy retired white people who are already on social security. When even millionaires comment that they have issues entering politics because their family loses health insurance if they quit their job, something is really fucked (Yang said this about running for president). I think the initial point, that HS diploma only formerly union whites (especially white males) are switching parties from formerly democrats to republicans, is true. They haven't entirely switched, and it remains to be seen if it is a trend setter or if it was just a Clinton effect - Bill signing NAFTA directly cost most of them their jobs (I know it cost my father his job in the city he lived in - and he was lucky, being literally the only person in the entire plant to get a desk job offer in a city hours away due to having a degree). Those jobs are never coming back due to automation now, but it was pretty much undeniable that he cost them the jobs at least a decade before automation would have, and in greater numbers. Listen, you're not arguing with doofus Republicans. If you're going to make claims, cite your shit, like I do. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/Household net adjusted disposable income is the amount of money that a household earns each year after taxes and transfers. It represents the money available to a household for spending on goods or services. In the United States, the average household net adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 45 284 a year, much higher than the OECD average of USD 33 604 and the highest figure in the OECD. From your article, friend: Show nested quote +Despite the general increase in living standards, some groups have been left behind and inequality has also increased over the same period. On average in OECD countries, the average net-adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated USD 69 477 a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated USD 11 026 a year. Some OECD countries such as Australia, Luxembourg and the United States, have a much more unequal income distribution than others. Using an average value tends to flatten out that pesky wealth inequality, which is still what fucks over the majority of Americans. If you're in the 1% it's great, I guess.
You're so out of touch with the average American, plus you can't even keep up with the relevant data.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
![[image loading]](https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/imagecache/lightbox/main-images/poverty_rate_historical_0.jpg)
By whatever metric you go by it does not support the Progressive hypothesis. It's why you guys keep losing because you don't understand the average American and how they live. You act like the majority of folks in the US live in worse conditions than war-torn Yemen. It's so bad, they can't vote, it's why we lose!
|
On September 07 2020 11:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 11:26 NewSunshine wrote:On September 07 2020 10:43 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 10:03 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:25 Zambrah wrote:
I mean most people CAN vote, it's just very inconvenient in the US and that's still a form of disenfranchisement. People in the US are, to quote a lil RTJ here, "overworked, underpaid, and we underprivileged." We can't expect people to feel okay going out and voting until we make it convenient to do and done not on a work day. Given there's no will from our politicians to do things that make it a lot more convenient to vote were kinda just a little fucked here. If Americans are this bad off, how does the rest of the world get along? We have lower tax rates, higher median incomes, lower cost of living, etc. than almost everywhere else in the world. You've convinced yourselves of a lie and then trot that lie out to make it out like voting is some death knell to a lot of people. I'm not saying things are perfect, but comparatively, the average American is much more well-to-do than almost everywhere else in the world. People can plan one day every few years to vote. It's a lousy excuse to push a false narrative. Americans also have the longest working hours of anywhere besides Japan and the shittiest and most expensive health care of any first world nation. It's very easy to vote as an american if you are in the top 40-50% of the country. It's very hard for a poor person working two 29 hour a week jobs that fire you if you ever miss a day (and will call you in unexpectedly at any time) to vote early or vote on voting day. There are also the states (like KY currently and FL in the past) that have gone the long way around Jim Crow laws. Prevent felons from voting and then disproportionately target black people for minor crimes (like pot possession) and suddenly 25% of black people in the state can't vote, but it's totally legal. Most of these poor workers, coincidentally, vote democrat. The complaint most people have isn't "it's hard for ME to vote", it's "the barriers to voting are precisely targeted for the benefit of one side". Some states are much worse than others, with NC's being called targeted with razor precision against black people. If every voter on both sides turned out to vote, the GOP would be reduced to nothing more than a handful of local positions. Dems have something like a 10-12% registration edge and there have never been any indications that independents in name only favor one party by more than 1-2% . Likely voter models in polls have always benefitted republicans in the past because it was easier for middle class to rich white people to go vote than it was for poor POC. If they really care they'll turn out, and that's why we've seen likely voter models not matter as much in 2018. You realize only about 5% of the work force works 2 jobs? The people in that situation are not 50% of the country like you implied. Similarly, most polls open early and close late meaning sure, it's inconvenient but you can go before or after work to vote if that was your only option (it's not, but let's act like it is). Then there are the people whooping on for a revolution while lamenting that people are too inconvenienced to vote. Like if people can't find a way to vote one day every few years how the hell are you going to get these people to join your "revolution"? Seriously, people got to think things through. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/opinion/working-two-jobs.htmlSimilarly, the Democrat demographics have become the affluent white-collar folks for the most part. So, I would argue that if you're going to say it's easier for those folks to vote then the Democrat base has the easier time voting. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.
Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.
The discrepancy becomes even greater when Pew distilled the sample down to people who have post-graduate education — at least some work toward a master’s, doctorate, law or similar degree. In that group, Democrats had a 2-to-1 edge, by 63 percent to 31 percent. In 1994, the two parties were almost evenly divided, with the Democratic lead just 47-45.
“While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017,” Pew wrote. So, please, continue... Your argument is flawed. Stating that educated people are starting to vote democrat does not preclude the poor from also voting for democrats. Remember, democrat registration wavers from 42-45% while GOP is around 30-34%. It's especially prevalent among poor nonwhites. The number of postgrads and college grads isn't the majority of the country, either - if it were really true the all dems were ONLY college educated voters they would cap at 35% of the country max. Stating that only 5% of the workforce works two jobs is still sufficient for my point to be true. Very few national elections are decided by a number higher than that. It also doesn't account for people working 80+ hour weeks. 5% also sounds low to me, as far more than 5% of the people I've known worked a second job. Though their second job may have been something like Uber or Lyft or Doordash, which probably isn't accounted for. Pretty much everyone to graduate since 2000 has entered the job market with ~30-50% of a mortgage in student loans. Not even republicans argue that the system isn't broken for those not on the top (they just say that we need more trickle down or that the dems will make it worse), so I'm not sure where you're getting this amazing utopian vision of America. Lower taxes translates into considerably worse public services - for instance, public transportation is a massive joke in the majority of the US, even in our large cities, compared to the rest of the World. I'm also calling total BS on the claim that the cost of living in the US is lower than any other (or even most) other first world countries. I've found several claims to the exact opposite, especially once health care is accounted for, and it's something where there's also never going to be a good comparison, since states can vary so much on the issue. The US also doesn't have the highest median income, at all. It's up there, but a quick search showed at least 5 European countries are above it. Please bring a source for this claim. The US is great for extremely wealthy retired white people who are already on social security. When even millionaires comment that they have issues entering politics because their family loses health insurance if they quit their job, something is really fucked (Yang said this about running for president). I think the initial point, that HS diploma only formerly union whites (especially white males) are switching parties from formerly democrats to republicans, is true. They haven't entirely switched, and it remains to be seen if it is a trend setter or if it was just a Clinton effect - Bill signing NAFTA directly cost most of them their jobs (I know it cost my father his job in the city he lived in - and he was lucky, being literally the only person in the entire plant to get a desk job offer in a city hours away due to having a degree). Those jobs are never coming back due to automation now, but it was pretty much undeniable that he cost them the jobs at least a decade before automation would have, and in greater numbers. Listen, you're not arguing with doofus Republicans. If you're going to make claims, cite your shit, like I do. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/Household net adjusted disposable income is the amount of money that a household earns each year after taxes and transfers. It represents the money available to a household for spending on goods or services. In the United States, the average household net adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 45 284 a year, much higher than the OECD average of USD 33 604 and the highest figure in the OECD. From your article, friend: Despite the general increase in living standards, some groups have been left behind and inequality has also increased over the same period. On average in OECD countries, the average net-adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated USD 69 477 a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated USD 11 026 a year. Some OECD countries such as Australia, Luxembourg and the United States, have a much more unequal income distribution than others. Using an average value tends to flatten out that pesky wealth inequality, which is still what fucks over the majority of Americans. If you're in the 1% it's great, I guess. You're so out of touch with the average American, plus you can't even keep up with the relevant data. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states+ Show Spoiler +By whatever metric you go by it does not support the Progressive hypothesis. It's why you guys keep losing because you don't understand the average American and how they live. You act like the majority of folks in the US live in worse conditions than war-torn Yemen. It's so bad, they can't vote, it's why we lose!
I'm pretty fucking average, my dude. Check your self-righteous kick, it just makes you look like an asshole.
Further, if you're going to be citing shit left and right, and talk about how it disproves "the progressive hypothesis", whatever the hell that is, you should be explaining what your source actually means, and why your conclusion is actually supported by your data. Because as far as I can tell, you don't actually read your sources start to finish.
|
On September 07 2020 07:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2020 17:40 Zambrah wrote:On September 06 2020 13:19 JimmiC wrote:
Pretty sure the Dems know that the left of Bernie vote is not coming their way and makes up a super tiny amount of the voting public. Communism is so unpopular in the USA it is the first attack the Reps use. If you want Trump out you are glad the Biden is sticking to the middle since that is what won him, by a lot, the Dem nomination. Doesn't the Dem nomination involve a shit ton of states that will literally never go Blue no matter what though? The Dem nomination doesnt seem to me like it speaks to picking the ideal candidate for the general election, after all, who gives a flying fuck what people in Alabama think about the Democrat's candidate when their state will NEVER flip red to blue? Thinking his chances in the general are stronger since he won the nomination is the kind of argument that let Biden's centrism look so appealing and its obvious by the amount of doubt about him floating around that the argument doesn't seem to be some golden ticket against Trump. If Democrats are having to worry so much about the margins and seem to be unable to afford alienating their progressive constituents maybe having Biden swing to the right so damn much because it won him the nomination isn't ACTUALLY a good thing for a general election when Democrats want an energized voting base thats excited to get out and vote for them. Following this reasoning, California is about as irrelevant as Alabama. Except that instead of voting red, they'll vote blue, regardless. So just primary in swing states? Because those are the only ones that matter? Or should democracy try to give everybody a chance to vote? Oh, and yeah, fptp and the electoral college are horrendous.
Yeah, California is just as useless as Alabama when determining who to pick for the general election. The Democratic primary doesn't have to be democratic whatsoever, they're allowed to basically just pick their candidate in the backroom, so I don't really have any faith in that institution to really adhere to democracy if democracy doesn't swing how they want it to.
If they wanted to make sure they were picking strong general election candidates they would exclusively be operating primaries in swing states.
Don't get me wrong though, I hate literally everything I posted, Americas election system is actually a joke, the reality of it is just that yeah, pretending Alabama or California are worth considering when planning to win a general election makes no sense.
|
|
|
Part of the problem is that the Democrat primary has never been intended to be a real democratic election, but they've pretended long enough that people forgot that. Wonder what Shadow Inc and ACRONYM are up to...
|
|
|
On September 07 2020 13:53 JimmiC wrote:Maybe some of the Europeans can weigh in, but have strange ways of picking party leaders happens in Canada as well. They are not democratic elections, because they are not democratic elections. And I'm sure there up to some real dastardly and evil dark stuff that the mainstream media is just to scared, or too bought to report on. Really interesting interview of a person who wrote about Fascism in America, how it is always talked about, why and the roles that conspiracy theories play in it. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/06/910320018/fascism-scholar-says-u-s-is-losing-its-democratic-statusShow nested quote +Conspiracy theories destroy an information space. The goal — fascism is based on a friend-enemy distinction, so you're either with them or against them. The enemy is the enemy of civilization. What it does is it destroys the information space. It makes you think that even if your guys are corrupt and lying, it is because [the leader is] facing a mysterious cabal that is controlling things that are trying to foment a race war. This is the basis of the Ku Klux Klan ideology.
And even when they seem respectable they're really being controlled by the Marxists and the minorities. And so that makes you think that your opposition is not legitimate and there's no debating them because they're really in a conspiracy to hide a pedophilic sex ring and advance the interests of Marxism. And so what we find is not just a conspiracy theory but a conspiracy theory that echoes the worst aspects of European history and American history.
In Germany the party picks the candidate, but we don't vote directly for either our head of state not the chancellor (two separate positions). Usually it's done by the top people in the party and they simply announce it after choosing between those who actually want the job and are well known in the population. Picking a candidate by having the whole party vote is rare (Urwahl). In no instance can people have a say who are not in the party, as happened in some democratic primaries.
|
On September 07 2020 13:53 JimmiC wrote:Maybe some of the Europeans can weigh in, but have strange ways of picking party leaders happens in Canada as well. They are not democratic elections, because they are not democratic elections. And I'm sure there up to some real dastardly and evil dark stuff that the mainstream media is just to scared, or too bought to report on. Really interesting interview of a person who wrote about Fascism in America, how it is always talked about, why and the roles that conspiracy theories play in it. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/06/910320018/fascism-scholar-says-u-s-is-losing-its-democratic-statusShow nested quote +Conspiracy theories destroy an information space. The goal — fascism is based on a friend-enemy distinction, so you're either with them or against them. The enemy is the enemy of civilization. What it does is it destroys the information space. It makes you think that even if your guys are corrupt and lying, it is because [the leader is] facing a mysterious cabal that is controlling things that are trying to foment a race war. This is the basis of the Ku Klux Klan ideology.
And even when they seem respectable they're really being controlled by the Marxists and the minorities. And so that makes you think that your opposition is not legitimate and there's no debating them because they're really in a conspiracy to hide a pedophilic sex ring and advance the interests of Marxism. And so what we find is not just a conspiracy theory but a conspiracy theory that echoes the worst aspects of European history and American history.
Pretty sure in most of Europe it works quite similarly: there is no democracy involved in choosing party leaders. Each party is different and has their own bylaws. At most, there will be an election among members of the party, but usually it is decided at the party convention (where only the more prominent party members are present).
But then again, I think only France has a direct election of the president AND the president has a governmental role as important as in the US. Elections work far differently though, with a primary round among all candidates (with party backing or no). If anybody (never happens) obtains a true majority, they become president. Otherwise there is a second round in which the top 2 candidates by plurality from the first round are the only two candidates available. I'd say it's a far from ideal system, but it's still miles and miles ahead of a weird party-based separate primary and then the travesty that is the electoral college.
A lot of Europe has a monarchy, so the head of the state is a figurehead with some token powers (and far more money and soft power than they should have). Germany and Italy have presidents who are not directly chosen and have little actual power (think of the figurehead monarch, but without the problematic hereditary part or the vast wealth these families accumulated). The real leader of the government in most of Europe is the prime minister. This is *usually* the party leader for the largest party in parliament (US house of representatives), but because there is almost never an absolute majority (except in the UK, more on that below), the parties need to form a coalition. This *can* cause the largest party to be relegated to the opposition, if multiple smaller parties have an easier time creating a coalition pact, in which case the prime minister will usually be the party leader of the largest party in the coalition. There is no rule that says it *must* be so, so the party leader *could* stay in parliament and lead the parliamentary faction, but there is an unspoken agreement that parliamentary elections are *also* an election of the prime minister, and appointing someone else from the party as prime minister is generally not done. Thus the prime minister is generally the leader of the largest party in the coalition, and generally the plurality winner of the parliamentary elections.
That said, because of the multi-party system in most of Europe, there are often a LOT of parties that are fairly similar to one another, and it is relatively easy for a new party to get off the ground. So if you think your "favourite" party's leader would make such a bad prime minister that you cannot conscionably vote for them, there are other flavours around that you can generally stomach. For instance, in the Netherlands, if you vote VVD but loathe Rutte, you can generally find somewhat similar ideas with a different focus in D66 (slightly to the left of VVD) or PVV or FvD (bit to the right). Or you can say "fuck it" and vote for a small one-issue party on an issue that you feel is important (who may or may not get the minimum for a seat in parliament, but there's always one or two that suddenly do).
The UK is different, because rather than country-wide vote count, they have districts like the US, and each district is fptp for its single representative in the house of commons. This, as in the US, leads to a mostly 2-party system, although it is less extreme than the US, because it is fairly common to have at least a small number of districts won by neither labour nor tories, so there will be representatives of LibDems or local parties (SNP and DUP come to mind) in the house of commons. The prime minister is then the leader of the largest party, which usually has an absolute majority in parliament and has no need for a coalition. This leads to similar nonsense as in the US where parties are too big for their own good and have many different factions within them that don't really see eye to eye, but still prefer one another to the other major party.
Spain is somewhere in the middle, with "weights" on votes from different regions (rural regions tend to be weighted more), and a very weird way of counting that assigns a disproportionate number of seats to the plurality winner (precisely to avoid the need for complicated coalitions, which were seen as a downside in the 70s when Spain transitioned to a democracy). This has led to a mostly 2-party system, but recent elections have shown it really doesn't have to be that way, with the traditional structure of PP vs PSOE crumbling apart into 5+ parties.
|
There is absolutely no reason why parties should pick their leaders democratic. Some just like to use it as some sort of advertisement for them.
There is also not really a reason for parties at all. Imho they make it easier to use (and abuse) the system, but they aren't an inherent feature. Parties as strong/big as in the US/UK for sure are not good for the democratic process as a whole.
|
Picking leaders doesn't need to be done democratically when the rest of the country's democracy functions.
Unfortunately, if you live in like half the US, the only vote in the entire process that's even worth the paper it's written on occurs in the primary. That makes it more important that the primaries are democratic as well.
|
On September 07 2020 13:17 JimmiC wrote:
I suspect if they did that more and more states would become swing states!
I think this is another area where we differ based on faith in the give-a-crap of the American electorate. 
We'd probably see another one to three states get swingier, but I honestly think states like WA and CA would still be hard blue even if the DNC specifically told them that their votes arent in consideration when choosing the nominee.
I base this off the fact that so few states have votes in the general election that matter and people in those states still go out and vote, but in an optimistic world a move like that would piss off enough people that we see more purple than blue in the formerly-non-swing-states, lol.
|
On September 07 2020 19:27 Velr wrote:
There is absolutely no reason why parties should pick their leaders democratic. Some just like to use it as some sort of advertisement for them.
There is also not really a reason for parties at all. Imho they make it easier to use (and abuse) the system, but they aren't an inherent feature. Parties as strong/big as in the US/UK for sure are not good for the democratic process as a whole.
The reason for parties isn't legal, it is political. In the US, the only requirement to become president is that a majority of the electoral college votes for you. How each state determines its electoral college representatives is up to each individual state. The founding fathers actually intended it to be up to each *district*, but because the constitution only mandated that states decide for themselves, not districts, that got instantly abused with the idea of instead of sending free-thinking people to represent a district, it became N drones who simply voted along with what the state wanted (although each individual is technically free to do what they want, and thus you see votes for Faith Spotted Eagle. Parties are a similar political consequence of the system: if each of those representatives decides their own state's representative makes the best president you have 50something presidential candidates and a total deadlock. If, however, they group together and decide together what is their ideal candidate, then maybe they can convince others and get the needed absolute majority. Voila, you have parties. And because the only thing that counts is an absolute majority, any number of parties > 2 is unstable, and any parties > 2 will get hollowed out as they cannot achieve anything (other than spoil the chances of the party ideologically nearest to it).
These are all logical consequences of the rules, even if the rules never stipulated it should happen this way, nor are they even intended consequences of the rules (Hamilton famously was *very* upset with the idea of the organization of the general college at state level rather than district level). Given the rules of the game, forming two parties and making them as powerful as you can, is the only advantageous way to play it. Thus the only way to get rid of these powerhouses is to change the constitution, but that is not advantageous to the people in power, so it will require a LOT of popular support.
|
On September 07 2020 11:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 11:26 NewSunshine wrote:On September 07 2020 10:43 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 10:03 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:56 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:45 Nevuk wrote:On September 07 2020 06:27 Wegandi wrote:On September 07 2020 06:25 Zambrah wrote:
I mean most people CAN vote, it's just very inconvenient in the US and that's still a form of disenfranchisement. People in the US are, to quote a lil RTJ here, "overworked, underpaid, and we underprivileged." We can't expect people to feel okay going out and voting until we make it convenient to do and done not on a work day. Given there's no will from our politicians to do things that make it a lot more convenient to vote were kinda just a little fucked here. If Americans are this bad off, how does the rest of the world get along? We have lower tax rates, higher median incomes, lower cost of living, etc. than almost everywhere else in the world. You've convinced yourselves of a lie and then trot that lie out to make it out like voting is some death knell to a lot of people. I'm not saying things are perfect, but comparatively, the average American is much more well-to-do than almost everywhere else in the world. People can plan one day every few years to vote. It's a lousy excuse to push a false narrative. Americans also have the longest working hours of anywhere besides Japan and the shittiest and most expensive health care of any first world nation. It's very easy to vote as an american if you are in the top 40-50% of the country. It's very hard for a poor person working two 29 hour a week jobs that fire you if you ever miss a day (and will call you in unexpectedly at any time) to vote early or vote on voting day. There are also the states (like KY currently and FL in the past) that have gone the long way around Jim Crow laws. Prevent felons from voting and then disproportionately target black people for minor crimes (like pot possession) and suddenly 25% of black people in the state can't vote, but it's totally legal. Most of these poor workers, coincidentally, vote democrat. The complaint most people have isn't "it's hard for ME to vote", it's "the barriers to voting are precisely targeted for the benefit of one side". Some states are much worse than others, with NC's being called targeted with razor precision against black people. If every voter on both sides turned out to vote, the GOP would be reduced to nothing more than a handful of local positions. Dems have something like a 10-12% registration edge and there have never been any indications that independents in name only favor one party by more than 1-2% . Likely voter models in polls have always benefitted republicans in the past because it was easier for middle class to rich white people to go vote than it was for poor POC. If they really care they'll turn out, and that's why we've seen likely voter models not matter as much in 2018. You realize only about 5% of the work force works 2 jobs? The people in that situation are not 50% of the country like you implied. Similarly, most polls open early and close late meaning sure, it's inconvenient but you can go before or after work to vote if that was your only option (it's not, but let's act like it is). Then there are the people whooping on for a revolution while lamenting that people are too inconvenienced to vote. Like if people can't find a way to vote one day every few years how the hell are you going to get these people to join your "revolution"? Seriously, people got to think things through. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/01/opinion/working-two-jobs.htmlSimilarly, the Democrat demographics have become the affluent white-collar folks for the most part. So, I would argue that if you're going to say it's easier for those folks to vote then the Democrat base has the easier time voting. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/22/democrats-more-educated-republicans-pew-research-c/According to Pew, 54 percent of college graduates either identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, compared to 39 percent who identified or leaned Republican. One-third of Americans have a college degree.
Just 25 years ago, those numbers were perfectly reversed in the Pew survey, with the GOP holding a 54-39 advantage among people with college degrees.
The discrepancy becomes even greater when Pew distilled the sample down to people who have post-graduate education — at least some work toward a master’s, doctorate, law or similar degree. In that group, Democrats had a 2-to-1 edge, by 63 percent to 31 percent. In 1994, the two parties were almost evenly divided, with the Democratic lead just 47-45.
“While some of this shift took place a decade ago, postgraduate voters’ affiliation with and leaning to the Democratic Party have grown substantially just over the past few years, from 55% in 2015 to 63% in 2017,” Pew wrote. So, please, continue... Your argument is flawed. Stating that educated people are starting to vote democrat does not preclude the poor from also voting for democrats. Remember, democrat registration wavers from 42-45% while GOP is around 30-34%. It's especially prevalent among poor nonwhites. The number of postgrads and college grads isn't the majority of the country, either - if it were really true the all dems were ONLY college educated voters they would cap at 35% of the country max. Stating that only 5% of the workforce works two jobs is still sufficient for my point to be true. Very few national elections are decided by a number higher than that. It also doesn't account for people working 80+ hour weeks. 5% also sounds low to me, as far more than 5% of the people I've known worked a second job. Though their second job may have been something like Uber or Lyft or Doordash, which probably isn't accounted for. Pretty much everyone to graduate since 2000 has entered the job market with ~30-50% of a mortgage in student loans. Not even republicans argue that the system isn't broken for those not on the top (they just say that we need more trickle down or that the dems will make it worse), so I'm not sure where you're getting this amazing utopian vision of America. Lower taxes translates into considerably worse public services - for instance, public transportation is a massive joke in the majority of the US, even in our large cities, compared to the rest of the World. I'm also calling total BS on the claim that the cost of living in the US is lower than any other (or even most) other first world countries. I've found several claims to the exact opposite, especially once health care is accounted for, and it's something where there's also never going to be a good comparison, since states can vary so much on the issue. The US also doesn't have the highest median income, at all. It's up there, but a quick search showed at least 5 European countries are above it. Please bring a source for this claim. The US is great for extremely wealthy retired white people who are already on social security. When even millionaires comment that they have issues entering politics because their family loses health insurance if they quit their job, something is really fucked (Yang said this about running for president). I think the initial point, that HS diploma only formerly union whites (especially white males) are switching parties from formerly democrats to republicans, is true. They haven't entirely switched, and it remains to be seen if it is a trend setter or if it was just a Clinton effect - Bill signing NAFTA directly cost most of them their jobs (I know it cost my father his job in the city he lived in - and he was lucky, being literally the only person in the entire plant to get a desk job offer in a city hours away due to having a degree). Those jobs are never coming back due to automation now, but it was pretty much undeniable that he cost them the jobs at least a decade before automation would have, and in greater numbers. Listen, you're not arguing with doofus Republicans. If you're going to make claims, cite your shit, like I do. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/Household net adjusted disposable income is the amount of money that a household earns each year after taxes and transfers. It represents the money available to a household for spending on goods or services. In the United States, the average household net adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 45 284 a year, much higher than the OECD average of USD 33 604 and the highest figure in the OECD. From your article, friend: Despite the general increase in living standards, some groups have been left behind and inequality has also increased over the same period. On average in OECD countries, the average net-adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated USD 69 477 a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated USD 11 026 a year. Some OECD countries such as Australia, Luxembourg and the United States, have a much more unequal income distribution than others. Using an average value tends to flatten out that pesky wealth inequality, which is still what fucks over the majority of Americans. If you're in the 1% it's great, I guess. You're so out of touch with the average American, plus you can't even keep up with the relevant data. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-statesBy whatever metric you go by it does not support the Progressive hypothesis. It's why you guys keep losing because you don't understand the average American and how they live. You act like the majority of folks in the US live in worse conditions than war-torn Yemen. It's so bad, they can't vote, it's why we lose!
I find it hart to understand your point here. You post a chart stating that 15% of the american poulation is living below the poverty line and use that as proof that americans are all super well off and just don't want to vote?
Maybe some of the answers to your post have been too generalistic as well, but i see no reason why you then should be allowed to do the same. Compare those in poverty from the States and Germany and you will see, that there is more pressure on the poor american citizen compared to the german, because the german citizen can rely much more on the social safety net and is allowed to vote on Sunday. It doesn't mean the US is Yemen, it just means the poor have a harder time voting in the US compared to other western countries. And if this affects the base of one party more then the base of the other, it's valid for that party to want change.
Also, in regards to the Trump lured away the democrat voters because of his better messaging... Wow, that's one way of saying a big part of America is too stupid to be allowed to vote. Donald Trump in 2016 had zero redeeming qualities, besides people claiming he would just do whatever he is told anyway. I can see the business class having rubbed their hands at a trump victory in 2016, but anyone else was either moronic or racist. Claiming his message was better than his opponents is like saying a childrens book is better at explaining quantum physics because children get it, completely ignoring that the message in that childrens book probably has very little to do with quantum physics. Donalds message, no matter in what area, was, you will love what we are going to do, not telling what it will be, except for racism, but it's gonna be great. Also we are building a wall. Nobody is looking at that program and says, you know what, i have looked at DTs policy proposal and i will vote republican for the first time. This guy has the answers to all my problems.
The Dems lost because they did not believe a platform so stupid could elevate someone to president and many probably thought, this is a clown show, i want no part in that. Meanwhile, the republican base was already chanting MAGA because they need to prove time and time again that american exceptionalism does not need to be meant in a positive way.
|
On September 07 2020 09:26 Wombat_NornIron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2020 07:24 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2020 05:57 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On September 07 2020 05:40 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2020 05:15 Wombat_NornIron wrote:On September 07 2020 04:30 Introvert wrote:On September 07 2020 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2020 02:13 reborn8u2 wrote:On September 06 2020 20:03 iamthedave wrote:On September 06 2020 14:49 StalkerTL wrote:
For better or worse, the polls themselves suggest a pretty clear Biden lead that isn't really shifting unless you're taking into account pollsters that use a large amount of online methods such as using Amazon's Mechanical Turk. A lot of those same polls have extremely odd results, such as that Atlas Intel poll suggesting 48% of white Americans support Biden (that would be the largest white support for any Democratic candidate since LBJ) and 30% black support Trump (that would be a ~20 point improvement vs the 2018 midterm elections).
The polling itself, ignoring online heavy pollsters who put out polls in the immediate aftermath of the RNC and DNC, has shown a very consistent Biden lead of 6-10 points. Its a referendum on Trump's presidency and his method of governance has in him in the media every single day of the 4 years. There's just not many undecideds this election because there's no way you can avoid hearing about Trump, whether through the media or through social media.
There's a lot of garbage happening all around America to delegitimize the election, such as the Trump Administration doing their very best efforts to cripple the USPS so mail voting may come in later than sooner. So obviously Biden can lose pretty easily. But the polling wouldn't suggest this at all and obviously can't take into account things like voter suppression and the voting behaviour during the coronavirus.
I don't believe third parties are going to spoil the election for either side. Name recognition of the Greens and Libertarian candidate is close to non-existent in polling and more importantly there's few undecideds compared to 2016 where both Trump and Clinton were polling in the low 40s (and even the 30s in some states!). If there was ever a sign that Clinton was in trouble, it was the sheer number of undecideds and her inability to poll higher than something like 45%.
Compare that to the consistent low-mid 40s for Trump and Biden consistently hitting 50. Even the single Kanye presidential poll I've seen suggests he has little pull and if he does have any pull he probably pulls more Trump voters than Democratic voters (not surprising, his campaign has been extremely evangelical). Didn't 100% of the polls in 2016 show a clear Hilary lead though? I thought after 2016 we all admitted that polling doesn't work because of how the data is collected (either the sample size isn't good enough or the questions are too simplistic). Just want to share my Boss's experience with polling. A bit of background, he is in his early 50's and was a lifelong democrat until Trump. As he put's it, he was a "Blue dog" democrat. He's been following and interested in politics his whole life, he literally studies all the local/state politics as well, we've had a lot of state constitution changes on the ballot in the last few years (he can talk about those alone for hours). Even as a teenager he couldn't wait to turn 18 so he could vote. He's always been very outspoken about his views/values. He's taken hundreds of polls in his life, but no more. When he decided in 2016 he was voting for Trump, he took 2 polls just before the election (over the phone). After that experience he says "I'll never take another poll again". He says that as soon as he stated he intended to vote for Trump the person giving the poll on the phone became extremely condescending and flat out rude. The other thing that really pissed him off was how loaded the questions were. He says there was no way for him to voice his opinions because all of the questions and answers were worded in such a way that there were no responses he could make that showed his opinion. He says he's now a "shy tory" en.wikipedia.org , and if you told him 10 years ago he'd be where he is now he would have "called you an idiot". With so many calling Trump supporters racists and nazi's, who can blame him for no longer sharing his politics. He says he would never even put a Trump bumper sticker on his car or wear a maga hat, for fear of vandalism, or violence. I think there are a lot of people who are in the same mindset. There has been a lot of suppression, vandalism, and violence against Trump supporters in the last 4 years. If you have been following mainstream media, you probably don't realize how bad the problem is, they don't give it any attention. The media as well as most major online platforms have been very one sided in what and how they cover stories, and have been flat out censoring conservative voices for years now. I don't think we can have any confidence in the polls. There certainly is a group of 'independents' who are just shy/ashamed Republicans who don't want to come out for Trump but what interests me most about this is how a 'life long democrat' could look at 2016 Trump and think 'this is the guy for the job', let alone 2020 Trump. What sort of political values and beliefs that match with Democrats for decades matches up with Trump? Jus to put this in the most straightforward way possible: Have you been paying attention to how each party has changed in the last decade? Maybe not very intentional, but this post comes off as highly skeptical that there is such a thing as a "Trump Democrat" when we can see entire regions and populations that have altered their voting patterns over the years, some of them drastically in 2016. Also recall that in 2016 Trump was seen as the most moderate GOP candidate in years (and he was certainly the one closest to the Democrats many times when he spoke). Meanwhile, progressive whining aside, the Democrat party has moved left on almost every issue even from Obama. It's why even "moderate" Joe Biden doesn't sound like his 1970s, 80s, 90s, or 00s self. He moves with the partly and they have moved left. In 2020 I would be pretty skeptical. 2016 I guess, although even then he was a bit of a strange outlier and difficult for some to piece together. His whole ostensible platform was a bit of a departure in a fair few areas, his past utterances on say same-sex marriage were a bit ahead of even his Dem opponents, so I do recall some commentary on him being socially liberal in certain areas. On the other hand you got plenty of glimpses of the Trumpian playbook to playing to the gallery and scapegoating various marginalised peoples. Or picking Pence as a VP which kind of wipes out him being on the right side of that issue back in the day. Which made people rather worried about him even when he was seen as a no-hoper to actually win. It’s hard to remember exactly what the kind of consensus was back through time like that, my recollection was not that he was seen as one of the most moderate GOP candidates in a few cycles, but that he had some moderate tendencies amidst a lot of really worrying tendencies. Perhaps a moderate candidate with extremism as a methodology. Like many, you focus far too much on the political game aspect of this, e.g. "the Trumpian playbook." Not that I'm going to scrap it up, but polling back then had him perceived as more of a moderate. Trump did in fact sign a more-or-less mainline Republican tax law (which, if you want another example of how parties change, see how the Democrats are currently trying to reinstate the biggest tax break for the well off that the bill eliminated). However, he has been relatively consistent in his overall messages on trade, Social Security, foreign policy, immigration, abortion, and other issues. Trump is not a typical Republican. He has promised to not touch Social Security, has been restrained in his use of force overseas, has sold out far less often on immigration, isn't afraid to talk up his pro-life stances, has acted on trade, etc. I think the people who hoped he would tone down his rhetoric in office are disappointed, but I'm not sure how many people who actually supported his ideas are really that bummed out. (And for me at least, it's a welcome surprise). Point being, the inability to see how there could be such a thing as a "Trump Democrat" comes off as far-too-common left wing arrogance and ignorance. The question "how could people possibly support Trump" is clearly offered only as a sardonic and dismissive quip instead of a question genuinely asked. But then again, apparently it's hard for many to even understand how someone could think that burning down buildings is bad, so maybe there is even more work to do. It’s not dismissive, there are understandable reasons for some flipping camps back in the day, or continuing to do so. I believe this discussion was prompted re appealing to undecided voters of which the ‘Trump Democrat’ would be one. If we’re talking trying to win those votes I mean how do you do that without completely gutting your own platform and alienating your own base? And do you even drag those ones back? It’s a bit nitpicky but even if you’ve voted blue for donkeys, you’re not really a Trump Democrat, more a Nouveau Republican. Or a Trumpublican. He has changed that party’s direction in certain areas, so assuming these people stay on board I’d consider them new Republican converts rather than lapsed Democrats, given the directions taken by both parties. I mean, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Platforms change based on issues. When the Republican party was born it was also the party of tariffs, and remained that way for a long time. Maybe at the time they made sense! Then it wasn't. Now, it's having an internal fight about it. I don't really think this is about undecided voters, this is about figuring out why people who formerly voted for your party would "vote against their own interests." Of course that phrase is exactly the type of arrogance I describe, and the fact it gets so much use is demonstrative. Even now, you grant "there are understandable reasons for some flipping camps back in the day, or continuing to do so." Can you describe any without tying in, say, racism? Xenophobia? "I got mine"? I think you might actually be able to. But many can't. Could certainly give it a shot like. Legitimate immigration concerns, decline of particular industries and indeed a sneering, rather dismissive attitude from the other side that’s attempting to win your vote. Amongst others. The rather infamous ‘just learn to code’ article springs to mind. Actually have bold policies that are targeted to the needs and wants of particular areas and your wider platform. And push it harder too. Messaging is important after all. Go green but frame it as American jobs in making the technologies of the future and you will help build it. Ticks a bunch of boxes. Over in the UK we had areas of post-industrial decline for decades. Plenty of space and time to do a bold strategy of incentivising industry to move operations to those regions struggling economically. Never really happened to stall the brain drain and lo and behold Brexit happened and we got the ‘why did these historic Labour areas vote to leave, must be racist’ kind of ridiculous handwringing. The US is even more diverse economically and culturally than we are over here, a one-size fits all kind of strategy, or at least one not having regional-specific kind of policy is missing a trick.
I mean... a lot of it was racist. I'm a North-easterner and I can assure you that the place where I grew up was and is phenomenally racist. I didn't meet a black man until I was in my 20s and didn't see one until my deep teens. My grandmother refused to shop in Marks and Spencers because she one day saw a black man at the till.
There were other elements that contributed, but that explicitly racist rhetoric used by the papers against immigrants has very strong resonance in certain areas of the UK.
One of the most worrying elements of modern discourse is how a) people on the left are too quick to call racism and b) how people on the left are too cautious to actually talk about it because 'it isn't helping the discourse'. The racists don't give a shit. They hate brown people and that's the end of it. To this day we still have the 'coming over here and taking our jobs' rhetoric against Pakistanis and Indians yet weirdly the - coincidentally white - Polish immigrants barely get mentioned in the papers despite the fact they definitely are taking up our jobs because they come here to work and send money home to the family, in the majority (or at least that specific segment of Polish immigrants do). Which I'm not complaining about, by the way, just pointing out the hypocrisy in the rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
