U.S. Elections: The Narcissist and the Nineteenth Amendment

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

No. I didn't say anything remotely close to that. I was referring to the Democrat/Republican lock on the Electoral College.  Since 1876, there have only been a handful of times any non-Republican non-Democrat got any votes in the electoral college, and even then the other candidate only got single digit numbers. The 100+ years was for the partisan politics. 

Teddy Roosevelt wants a word.

Also, why are you focussing on 1876? The two party system has been with the US since its founding (Federalists/Democratic Republicans; Whigs/Democrats; Republicans/Democrats). 

[Ariadne23]

14 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

ETA:  to clarify, I don't think we should write these people off.  They are part of the country.  But for an article that purports to talk about the "real" issues, that Cracked piece is not getting us any closer to tackling those issues because it avoids and excuses some pretty major underlying ones.

Here is where I guess I admit I was, about a paragraph in, all "blah, blah, rip off of Hillbilly Elegy, yadda, yadda, yadda," but what I wondering is this: if people screaming about immigration had seen their incomes significantly increase over the last 20 years, would they still care? I'm inclined to believe that maybe Bill Clinton was right about that.

[butterbumps!]

26 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

Here is where I guess I admit I was, about a paragraph in, all "blah, blah, rip off of Hillbilly Elegy, yadda, yadda, yadda," but what I wondering is this: if people screaming about immigration had seen their incomes significantly increase over the last 20 years, would they still care? I'm inclined to believe that maybe Bill Clinton was right about that.

You're saying that you suspect the anger toward immigrants has a causal relationship with economic hardship?

idk, --wasn't there a lot of noise about public forms and signs becoming bilingual, even back when things were going well economically?   I thought we've had a pretty strong tradition of racial/ ethnic intolerance, with complaints about giving entitlements to the "undeserving," even in times of plenty.

But I don't doubt that perceived and real economic stagnation (and real and perceived assaults to one's social status) helps to make Trumpism so particularly virulent.  

ETA:   my issues with that article-- aside from how the "it's logical for them to support Trump" conclusion just didn't logically follow-- wasn't that I doubt their economic pain.  We definitely need to give these people relief somehow; people are really suffering in some cases.   

My issue is really in how the writer elided over things in order to present them as super sympathetic rendered them agency-less, apparently abysmally stupid, unable to adapt victims in the process.   The unstated notion expressed that one is entitled to stay rooted to the past (even just economically) without consequences is a really problematic view.

[DunderMifflin]

19 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 

My issue is really in how the writer elided over things to present them as super sympathetic rendered them agency-less, abysmally stupid, unable to adapt victims in the process.   

Isn't there enough of that already. It's easy to just go yeh they all support Trump because...racism.

Whether pointless or insightful the article  at least makes an attempt at understanding/explaining.

It's not like the article is a vote for Trump ad.  I don't think anyone owes the world an apology just because they support Trump anymore than I think a Clinton supporter owes anyone an apology.

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 hours ago, James Arryn said:

It was great, somewhat cynical, but the kind that makes me gnash my teeth re: A.L.M. (m.m.m.)*

 In a piece supposedly dealing head-on with her greatest weaknesses, with the real or mythic causes for people to have serious reservations, it does not once mention her hawkish foreign policy. Even in spite of f.p. being her most recent and significant political office, that issue is completely ignored. Hell, Nixon's foreign policy is mentioned, as is Trump's, but the recent Secretary of State's leanings towards intervention don't warrant a single sentence in a 34 paragraph long article about her strengths and weaknesses.

It's almost enough to make you think that that stuff doesn't really matter until/unless it costs Americans. 

*American Lives Matter (much much more)

You're right about foreign policy. Anything that doesn't directly involve American lives (like our ongoing proxy war in Yemen) receives basically no mainstream debate. My hunch is that we'd see a little more attention paid, at least in liberal media outlets, if we had a Republican President again. But too many liberals- like this writer- give Democrats a free pass. 

I'd add, though, that this article contains almost no policy discussion of any kind. It treats 'getting stuff done' as a good in itself and speculates that Clinton will be really good at this. But what she gets done really matters. The most specific policy discussion it goes into, the bankruptcy bill thing it starts out with, it gets wrong:

Quote

Clinton expressed outrage that her primary opponent would result to “innuendo, insinuation charges” about her record. “It had nothing to do with any money whatsoever, and I resent deeply any effort by the Sanders campaign to so imply.”

It was a forceful, detailed defense. There was just one hitch. It wasn’t true. And according to a trove of internal emails recently released by WikiLeaks, Clinton’s team knew it.

“We have a problem,” Clinton senior policy advisor Ann O’Leary wrote to campaign staffers that afternoon. “HRC overstayed (sic) her case this morning in a pretty big way.”

“What did she say that was wrong?” spokeswoman Kristina Schake replied.

“She said women groups were all pressuring her to vote for it,” O’Leary wrote back. “Evidence does not support that statement.”

...

Clinton had secured an amendment helping protect child support and alimony, but the tweak didn’t impress women’s groups much at the time.

“While this amendment may have provided some political cover, it offers virtually no financial help to single mothers, since the overwhelming majority of ex-husbands don’t pay anything in distributions during bankruptcy,” Warren wrote in her 2004 book, The Two-Income Trap. “Of far more importance was the fact that the bill would permit credit card companies to compete with women after bankruptcy for their ex-husbands’ limited income.”

Over 30 women and family groups opposed the bill, including the Children’s Defense Fund ― where Clinton once worked ― the Feminist Majority Foundation, the National Organization for Women, the National Women’s Law Center and the National Youth Law Center, according to a Women’s eNews article from 2001. Twenty-four of the 44 women in the House of Representatives voted against the bill.

[Ariadne23]

13 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

The unstated notion expressed that one is entitled to stay rooted to the past (even just economically) without consequences is a really problematic view.

I think if people believe the future looks good, maybe you sidestep the whole issue. 

I like Obama more and more all the time right now, but either by the circumstances of the recession or a failure to connect with that population in terms of policy, personality, racism, or some combination thereof, combined with the apathy of the last two Republican Presidential candidates, these people maybe feel they've not been offered in way of leadership.

And I think that's fair. Nobody's been telling them about some economic future that looks good for them. I think because we don't believe there is one.

But maybe we're wrong. Maybe the economic situation improves for these people during a Clinton presidency. It seems not impossible? She has good policy ideas. She's accomplished at getting things done in Congress. Then maybe we find out it really is all about the economy and she actually picks up support for her second term from some of the people against her now, like Bill did.

I'm probably reaching.

If not, I think we're in for some ugly race politics. Ugly enough that we'd be excused for not caring whether the underlying reasons for it were at one point sympathetic or whatever.

[butterbumps!]

16 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Isn't there enough of that already. It's easy to just go yeh they all support Trump because...racism.

Whether pointless or insightful the article  at least makes an attempt at understanding/explaining.

It's not like the article is endorsing Trump.  I don't think anyone owes the world an apology just because they support Trump anymore than I think a Clinton supporter owes anyone an apology.

 

But I'm not talking about their racism!   Even in the part of my post that you quoted!   I'm talking about the underlying feeling that one is entitled to things as it's always been (even just economically), and how this is unproductive and hugely troubling.  

The Cracked writer is trying to stir sympathy for the segment of Trump supporters that have been badly hit by the economy, and explain why they turn to him.   But to conjure the sympathy, the writer, perhaps inadvertently, portrays these people as agency-less victims of a system they can do nothing against except get angry.   And that's just not true!   There's an attitude embedded in there that says "I should be entitled to the status quo, even in a changing world" that helps to foster that stagnation.     This attitude needs to be confronted.

Then the writer tries to make the jump to why these people run toward Trump.  His goal is to make us sympathetic, so he cannot bring up the appeal of Trump's various -isms.  Nor can he directly say it's a "fuck you" to those better off than them, because that's not sympathetic either.  Rather, these people flock to Trump, because, essentially, he's like a dark hero who breaks rules, but will get things done for them apparently.   So, basically, the writer thinks these people are too stupid to realize that Trump is totally incompetent and not really a hero who gets things done.  I actually don't think they're that stupid.   I think the turn toward Trump is far less savory, and I specified not the racial component, but rather something akin to vengeance as the draw.

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

But I'm not talking about their racism!   Even in the part of my post that you quoted!   I'm talking about the underlying feeling that one is entitled to things as it's always been (even just economically), and how this is unproductive and hugely troubling.  

The Cracked writer is trying to stir sympathy for the segment of Trump supporters that have been badly hit by the economy, and explain why they turn to him.   But to conjure the sympathy, the writer, perhaps inadvertently, portrays these people as agency-less victims of a system they can do nothing against except get angry.   And that's just not true!   There's an attitude embedded in there that says "I should be entitled to the status quo, even in a changing world" that helps to foster that stagnation.     

Then the writer tries to make the jump to why these people run toward Trump.  His goal is to make us sympathetic, so he cannot bring up the appeal of Trump's various -isms.  Nor can he directly say it's a "fuck you" to those better off than them, because that's not sympathetic either.  Rather, these people flock to Trump, because, essentially, he's like a dark hero who breaks rules, but will get things done for them apparently.   So, basically, the writer thinks these people are too stupid to realize that Trump is totally incompetent and not really a hero who gets things done.

If they are voting for something they see as a better past for themselves or in their own economic interests I'm ok with the premise of that. Pretty much everyone votes with their own interests in mind, or at least in the interest of how they want they country to be. Voters are entitled to vote for who they want, entitlement isn't always bad.

[butterbumps!]

11 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

If they are voting for something they see as a better past for themselves or in their own economic interests I'm ok with the premise of that. Pretty much everyone votes with their own interests in mind, or at least in the interest of how they want they country to be. Voters are entitled to vote for who they want, entitlement isn't always bad.

Yea, that's the party line so to speak-- that Trump is better for their interests.  Even though it's 100% objectively false.   Do these people actually believe Trump will make things better for them?    Some might (or some might want to believe), but I don't think these people are generally that genuinely stupid not to realize he's an incompetent and it won't be better for them.   There's something else going on with this.   When you listen to what they're actually saying, it's a lot closer to "let's burn it all down," and kind of like punishing the "elites" and establishment, or even settling the score to get those "cutting the line" back into places.  This is why facts don't matter!  They don't care.

And you're missing my point about entitlement.   I'm specifically addressing the pervasive issue of feeling entitled to the status quo despite a changing world.   The Cracked writer seems to presuppose an acceptability to this particular feeling of "entitlement to the way things used to be" as a device to conjure sympathy.

[DunderMifflin]

9 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Yea, that's the party line so to speak-- that Trump is better for their interests.  Even though it's 100% objectively false.   Do these people actually believe Trump will make things better for them?    Some might (or some might want to believe), but I don't think these people are generally that genuinely stupid to realize he's an incompetent and it won't be better for them.   There's something else going on with this.   When you listen to what they're actually saying, it's a lot closer to "let's burn it all down," and kind of like punishing the "elites" or establishment.

And you're missing my point about entitlement.   I'm specifically addressing the pervasive issue of feeling entitled to the status quo despite a changing world.   The Cracked writer seems to presuppose this particular feeling of entitlement to the way things used to be as a device to conjure sympathy.

I don't know if they are that stupid or not. I'd agree he won't make things any better for them in the same way I don't think Hillary will be able to make things much better for nonwhite people even though that's being put out there as some sort of guarantee.

And I think I'm probably still missing the entitlement point. Because it seems to me if someone thinks life was better at some other time and they don't like how the world is changing then they are legally entitled to support someone they think will help them get whatever it is they are looking for.

[butterbumps!]

12 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

And I think I'm probably still missing the entitlement point. Because it seems to me if someone thinks life was better at some other time and they don't like how the world is changing then they are legally entitled to support someone they think will help them get it.

If my grandmother made a killing making spats at the Amalgamated Spats Factory, and my mom did as well, but now spats aren't popular and no one is buying them, should I hold the attitude: "Well, my grandmother and mother made a killing off spats, and so should I-- I'm entitled to that life.  But now the factory is closed because no one wears them anymore, so I should just be angry about it.   It's the world's fault for thinking spats are stupid, and I'm a victim who had no power to do otherwise.  I was right to keep expecting to go into this line work profitably, despite knowing the spats trend was on the decline.  I'm owed this work."

That's the attitude being justified, perhaps inadvertently, behind the Cracked piece.

[mormont]

You're 'legally entitled' to vote for a candidate for any reason at all. Because you think they'll defend your interests. Because you think they'll be better for the country. Because you hate the other candidate. Because you like their face. Because they have the same name as you. Because you closed your eyes and picked one at random. All legally quite fine, but they're not equally valid. So let's not resort to 'legally entitled' as if that was part of the discussion.

[Ariadne23]

11 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Yea, that's the party line so to speak-- that Trump is better for their interests.  Even though it's 100% objectively false.   Do these people actually believe Trump will make things better for them?    Some might (or some might want to believe), but I don't think these people are generally that genuinely stupid not to realize he's an incompetent and it won't be better for them.   There's something else going on with this.   When you listen to what they're actually saying, it's a lot closer to "let's burn it all down," and kind of like punishing the "elites" and establishment, or even settling the score to get those "cutting the line" back into places.  This is why facts don't matter!  They don't care.

Right, like Obama said about that, "Come on, man."

That's what I mean about transference. Maybe they're thinking if they can't have their economic situation back, maybe they can have their culture back (which I think does carry a racist component). I think there's some false equation of "when everyone at my kids' school spoke English as their first language" with "when I made $60K in manufacturing or $80K as a truck driver."

I would personally like to see people make those salaries in those jobs again, and I think that could be accomplished so the call for them to quit being all "who moved my cheese" and retrain or whatever the other plan is seems like the wrong path to me. I think it makes sense for liberals, especially, to actually offer some policy-based leadership on regrowing that sector.

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

If my grandmother made a killing making spats at the Amalgamated Spats Factory, and my mom did as well, but now spats aren't popular and no one is buying them, should I hold the attitude: "Well, my grandmother and mother made a killing off spats, and so should I-- I'm entitled to that life.  But now the factory is closed because no one wears the them anymore, so I should just be angry about it.   It's the world's fault for thinking spats are stupid, and I'm a victim who had no power to do otherwise.  I was right to keep expecting to go into this line work profitably, despite knowing the spats trend was on the decline.  I'm owed this work."

That's the attitude being justified, perhaps inadvertently, behind the Cracked piece.

I'd be ok if your grandmother supported a candidate who guaranteed them a return to glorious spatmaking days.

I wouldn't support the candidate myself and id think its a dumb thing to vote for but I wouldn't consider her a sinister voter or anything.

 

[Ariadne23]

For instance, Hillary's "Make it in America" initiative and other policy suggestions for regrowing the manufacturing sector seem, I dunno, awesome? Imagine if we did what we've done with "Buy Organic" for products made in America? This lady has some good ideas, yo.

[butterbumps!]

8 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I'd be ok if your grandmother supported a candidate who gauranteed them a return to glorious spatmaking days.

I wouldn't support the candidate myself and id think its a dumb thing to votr fot but I wouldn't consider her a sinister voter or anything.

 

Ok, but nothing I wrote pertains to criticizing Trump for promising to bring back "Amalgamated Spats," so to speak.   Or even voters' desire to support a candidate promising that.

I'm saying that the seemingly pervasive attitude coursing through that article-- that people feel entitled to the status quo despite a changing world that's always been changing, and that those "left behind" have no agency-- needs to be addressed.  This is not a healthy, productive mindset for large swaths of the population to hold, nor is it even truly in one's own interest.  Like racism, it seems that might be an attitude worth trying to change minds about.

12 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

I would personally like to see people make those salaries in those jobs again, and I think that could be accomplished so the call for them to quit being all "who moved my cheese" and retrain or whatever the other plan is seems like the wrong path to me. I think it makes sense for liberals, especially, to actually offer some policy-based leadership on regrowing that sector.

I definitely agree about helping to expand opportunity.   And yea, though they might not be the exact same jobs.  Like how Hillary wants to get those in the coal sector over to alternative energy, and the like-- technically she's "taking coal jobs," but wants to create more in more sustainable fields.  

[Fez]

New NBC/WSJ national poll has Clinton +11, new ABC/WaPo national poll has Clinton +4. My gut feeling is that the race is around Clinton +8 right now, but  I find it interesting that two of the gold standard pollsters have such different views of the race right now. Looks like the main difference between the two is that ABC has Clinton winning women voters by a much smaller margin than NBC does, which doesn't seem right; but who knows at this point.

Either way though, its a national disgrace that Clinton isn't leading by at least +25 considering how disgusting Trump is. I wish more states were like Virginia; its not necessarily a true blue state yet, but Trump is down to 29% in the latest poll (and has always had a very low ceiling).

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Ok, but nothing I wrote pertains to criticizing Trump for promising to bring back "Amalgamated Spats," so to speak.   Or even their desire to support a candidate promising that.

I'm saying that the seemingly pervasive attitude coursing through that article-- that people feel entitled to the status quo despite a changing world that's always been changing, and that those "left behind" have no agency-- needs to be addressed.  This is not a healthy, productive mindset for large swaths of the population to hold, nor is it even truly in one's own interest.  Like racism, it seems that might be an attitude worth trying to change minds about.

 

If there are truly people thay are "left behind" by a society. Shouldn't that be addressed? 

I don't know enough to say whether or not Trump supporters truly are or not left behind by a changing society.

But if there is a segment of population that lags behind then it probably deserves some sort of sympathy or acknowledgement, otherwise it just seems eerily similar to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps"

[butterbumps!]

16 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

If there are truly people thay are "left behind" by a society. Shouldn't that be addressed? 

I don't know enough to say whether or not Trump supporters truly are or not left behind by a changing society.

But if there is a segment of population that lags behind then it probably deserves some sort of sympathy or acknowledgement, otherwise it just seems eerily similar to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps"

I've repeatedly said I think these people need to be helped.   No matter what confluence of issues got them there, an intervention is needed.  I've also repeatedly said I sympathize with the dire hardship.  That's not the issue.

And it seems like some Trump supporters really are in a bad place economically.  But not most, it seems.  The people described in that Cracked piece are, but it seems they aren't the majority of Trumpkins.

And I guess, one more time, because I think this is still getting lost-- I'm specifically annoyed by the Cracked article's eliding over this segment of Trump's supporters' faulty worldviews (even the non- ist ones), sense of entitlement, portrayal as agency-less victims, and offensively weak "because Walter White" conclusion that forces a view of Trump supporters as too stupid to know he's not really going to help anyone.  I'm saying this stuff needs to be addressed for everyone's sake.   We can sympathize with their circumstances, but also look at how they are themselves becoming victimizers, as well as criticizing their toxic and unproductive worldviews.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Teddy Roosevelt wants a word.

Also, why are you focussing on 1876? The two party system has been with the US since its founding (Federalists/Democratic Republicans; Whigs/Democrats; Republicans/Democrats). 

It is not a bad starting point since the Hayes/Tilden election produce an agreement that ended Reconstruction and started the road to Jim Crow.

It will be good to point out the laat two times times of 3rd party getting electoral college were the Dixiecrats which can describe as White-Nationalists.