U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof

[all swedes are racist]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/ghost-candidates-are-not-acceptable

lmao jfc 

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Lol, no. For all the reasons I've already stated.  See previous posts.

You mean all those previous posts where other posters try to reasonably engage with you yet then you persistently accuse them of sexism either implicitly or explicitly?  Yeah, I've seen them.

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, commiedore said:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/ghost-candidates-are-not-acceptable

lmao jfc 

Wow, that's something. 50 state strategy (no ghosts) needed now. 

[karaddin]

12 hours ago, Fez said:

White men are the people who vote the most, so yeah, if you want to get things done, don't piss them off too much. Or you can figure out a way to get other people to vote more; I wish you all the best.

Surely having a party to vote for with a truly representative slate of candidates, at all levels of the party, could be seen as a relatively important part of this? Good luck convincing people they should turn out to vote the other party of old white straight men into power. Also to rebut the first half - white men are the people who vote republican the most, so yeah if you want to get things done then find other voters to rely on because they're not interested in politics of equality.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Great change to the thread title!

Thank you! I knew there was a solid pun in there somewhere, I just stretched too far the first time out.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But none of this is the point here.  The point is there are posters who keep repeating things about female politicians being the problem and needing to step down because they are distractions.  Those same posters tend to be the ones who say things like we need to slow down civil rights or that there isn't been a backlash against certain equality measures.  It's outrageous and ridiculous and what feeds into the general air of misogyny or racism.  

I think the point you're missing to some degree is that there really is no significant level of misogyny being acted upon by the Democratic Party. You just had a female presidential candidate that received every single advantage that the party could possibly grant, and she flubbed it. Against a rank amateur. Clinton needs to fade into a support role at this point.

Honestly, two of my favorite up and comers are Warren and Harris. If Pelosi is seen as a net negative at this point, the party should push her aside. That's not misogyny, it's politics. 

[Altherion]

21 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Surely having a party to vote for with a truly representative slate of candidates, at all levels of the party, could be seen as a relatively important part of this? Good luck convincing people they should turn out to vote the other party of old white straight men into power. Also to rebut the first half - white men are the people who vote republican the most, so yeah if you want to get things done then find other voters to rely on because they're not interested in politics of equality.

First, the "dying demographic" statements made in this thread are exaggerations. Take a look at, for example, the exit polls from the last election. White men accounted for 34% of the vote, white women for 37%, black men for 5%, black women for 7%, Latino men for 5%, Latino women for 6% and everyone else for the remaining 6%. Alienating white men is an extremely risky electoral strategy especially since it is difficult to do without also alienating white women.

Second, I completely agree with you that a truly representative slate of candidates would be important, but the characteristics you are thinking of are only skin deep. They may have started off differently, but in 2016, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have a great deal more in common with each other than they do with the overwhelming majority of the population regardless of whether the common person in question is black or white or male or female. More generally, the mechanisms of selection and promotion within the parties allow for the advancement of individuals of any race or gender, but these individuals are almost always similar in ways that are much more important. Even when a relative outsider such as Trump breaks into a party against the will of a large fraction of its leadership, he is still quite similar to the latter in most ways that matter.

By the way, a significant fraction of the population is aware of this and votes accordingly. To use 2016 as an example again, despite one of the major candidates being a white woman, more than half of white women voted for the other major candidate.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

So as expected there were never any tapes of Comey and Trump's conversations.  Either that or the Russians and/or Obama are refusing to hand them over. 

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533965746/trump-i-did-not-make-and-do-not-have-recordings-of-comey

Or Trump is lying, as he does about roughly 70% of the time he opens his mouth. You take him at his word here?

[mormont]

4 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Or Trump is lying, as he does about roughly 70% of the time he opens his mouth. You take him at his word here?

He was lying then or he's lying now. Either way he's a liar. But if there are no tapes, that fits his lying MO better: lie to intimidate people. Lie to obfuscate. Tell vague lies. And of course, it's more credible that Trump didn't make tapes, because making tapes secretly would require foresight and organised effort, things he isn't known for.

[SeanF]

16 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's not a hypothetical that women in politics are treated very differently than men in politics.  Same with minorities.

I don't even know how to address any of this because it's so offensive that it's nearly comical.

White men are a dying demographic in the US.  Continuing to cater to them only delays progress for everyone else.  Yes, we need to figure out how to get progressives and liberals to vote more since they are the majority demographic.  

Now, the rollback of LGBT rights is not on the margins.  Perhaps it's on YOUR margins because you aren't concerned with these things or it doesn't affect you, but it's definitely not on the margins for those it does impact.  These aren't 'symbolic victories' for conservatives.  They are things that are actually happening and they cover large swaths of the country.  This isn't about arguing wedding cakes.  It's about whether or not transgender folks can occupy public spaces including schools and government offices, LGBT folks can adopt or live in housing or be employed, and much more.  And yes, there are still a lot of questions about adoption considering several state legislatures have been reintroducing and even passing laws that prevent gay singles and couples from fostering and adopting.  Insisting that all of this is symbolic is a huge offensive slap in the face to all of us who are impacted by these things.  

See several posts in the last thread and the one before and the one before and this one.  See Fez's posts, including the one quoted above.  The fact is that female politicians are more frequently cited as the ones who need to step aside so the Dem party can proceed.  

 

Telling people that they're a "dying demographic" is an excellent way of motivating them to vote against you.

In any case, your problem is white women as well white men.

Although, I did read an article on Huffington Post which suggested that white men should simply be disenfranchised, which would solve your problem, but I can't see them agreeing to it.

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Telling people that they're a "dying demographic" is an excellent way of motivating them to vote against you.

Is it?

What's the proof of this?

Can you cite surveys showing that white men changed their vote because someone told them there weren't as many of them as there used to be?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

56 minutes ago, mormont said:

Is it?

What's the proof of this?

Can you cite surveys showing that white men changed their vote because someone told them there weren't as many of them as there used to be?

Mormont,

I think the point is that telling white men "there aren't as many of them as there used to be" is qualitatively less aggressive than saying "white men are a dying demographic" even if they are different ways of saying the same thing.  As such the former is less likely to result in an angry response than the latter.  

[Fez]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

Surely having a party to vote for with a truly representative slate of candidates, at all levels of the party, could be seen as a relatively important part of this? Good luck convincing people they should turn out to vote the other party of old white straight men into power. Also to rebut the first half - white men are the people who vote republican the most, so yeah if you want to get things done then find other voters to rely on because they're not interested in politics of equality.

I believe the Democratic party should have a representative slate of candidates, absolutely. But other than Obama himself with the African American vote, there's not much evidence that candidates (except maybe at the very local level) boost turnout due to their ethnicity. There were lots of minority and female Democratic candidates in 2010, 2014, and 2016; they didn't do any noticeably better than white male Democratic candidates. You need the right candidate for the right election. And while Pelosi herself is not on the ballot anywhere other than her district, her persona casts a shadow on all red-state and swing-state Democratic candidates.

Also, yeah the majority of white men (and white women) vote Republican; but there are many that vote Democratic. The electorate is getting more diverse, but the overwhelming majority is still white, and ignoring them is a recipe for disaster; even if Democrats could get 100% of the minority vote, which they don't.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Is it?

What's the proof of this?

Can you cite surveys showing that white men changed their vote because someone told them there weren't as many of them as there used to be?

Not out of the top of my head, but it's human nature to react against people telling you you're a "dying demographic."

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SeanF said:

Not out of the top of my head, but it's human nature to react against people telling you you're a "dying demographic."

I don’t think @Dr. Pepper's point was that Democratic politicians should run around saying, “white men are a dying demographic!!!!! Nana Nana Nana!” I think her point was white men are a dwindling demographic and it’s important to pay attention to the needs of other groups because of demographic trends and for ethical reasons.

And if I may add some further commentary: 

There is a group of white guys you are never going to get back into the Democratic Party. The sorts that stroke their gray old chins and say, “Hmm, yes, Carter inflation” or some that are really threatened by the increased status of women or minorities. Might as well write them off. I mean the only thing you can do is for the Democratic Party to become Republican lite or something, which will just result most likely in the Republican even going more to the right and being more crazy than what it is.

That of course doesn’t mean anything goes and you shouldn’t worry about getting some white male voters. How you present the message is important. And the tactics you choose to combat prejudice are important. And I think finding a lot of high quality women and minority candidates is good way to combat prejudice because, I think, probably the most effective way to combat prejudice is to humanize the people that are subjected to it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OGE,

I'm curious about why you mentioned "Carter Inflation".  I lived through that and remember how upset and anxious it made my parents.  What is wrong with seeing a return to "Carter inflation" as a bad thing?

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don’t think @Dr. Pepper's point was that Democratic politician’s should run around saying, “white men are a dying demographic!!!!! Nana Nana Nana!” I think her point was white men are a dwindling demographic and it’s important to pay attention to the needs of other groups because of demographic trends and for ethical reasons.

And if I may add some further commentary: 

There is a group of white guys you are never going to get back into the Democratic Party. The sorts that stroke their gray old chins and say, “Hmm, yes, Carter inflation” or some that are really threatened by the increased status of women or minorities. Might as well write them off. I mean the only thing you can do is for the Democratic Party to become Republican lite or something, which will just result most likely in the Republican even going more to the right and being more crazy than what it is.

That of course doesn’t mean anything goes and you shouldn’t worry about getting some white male voters. How you present the message is important. And the tactics you choose to combat prejudice are important. And I think finding a lot of high quality women and minority candidates is good way to combat prejudice because, I think, probably the most effective way to combat prejudice is to humanize the people that are subjected to it.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OGE,

I'm curious about why you mentioned "Carter Inflation".  I lived through that and remember how upset and anxious it made my parents.  What is wrong with seeing a return to "Carter inflation" as a bad thing?

 

I happen to know a lot of old Republican white guys. And it was a crack against old Republican white guys who think if Obama was more like Reagan, instead of Carter, everything would be awesome, than you know actually understanding differences between those two episodes (the late 1970s and now).

And, I’m well aware of the stagflation problem of the 1970s. Carter, however, gets far more blame than he should (not that old Republican white guys would understand that). Blame LBJ if you like. And blame Richard Nixon too. They had lot more to do with it than Carter, who after all appointed the guy that solved it.

[Dr. Pepper]

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

You mean all those previous posts where other posters try to reasonably engage with you yet then you persistently accuse them of sexism either implicitly or explicitly?  Yeah, I've seen them.

Ok, then I guess this means you're aware of what the point is?  

8 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think the point you're missing to some degree is that there really is no significant level of misogyny being acted upon by the Democratic Party. You just had a female presidential candidate that received every single advantage that the party could possibly grant, and she flubbed it. Against a rank amateur. Clinton needs to fade into a support role at this point.

Honestly, two of my favorite up and comers are Warren and Harris. If Pelosi is seen as a net negative at this point, the party should push her aside. That's not misogyny, it's politics. 

Come on, Manhole, don't go down the "some of my favorite politicians are women so I can't be complicit in sexism" rabbit hole.  Even you should know better.

Just because 'it's politics' does not also make it not misogyny.  You need to really examine the reasons that the GOP orchestrates these hate campaigns against women like Pelosi.

7 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Or Trump is lying, as he does about roughly 70% of the time he opens his mouth. You take him at his word here?

What?  It's pretty clear he's lying.  I was obviously being sarcastic.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Telling people that they're a "dying demographic" is an excellent way of motivating them to vote against you.

In any case, your problem is white women as well white men.

Although, I did read an article on Huffington Post which suggested that white men should simply be disenfranchised, which would solve your problem, but I can't see them agreeing to it.

I'm sorry, is there any proof that not pointing out demographic realities somehow helps motivate old white men to vote in solidarity with me?  Because we just had an election where a bunch of old white men (and yes, even 53% of white women) voted against their own interests and the interests of their children for reasons that had nothing to do with some anonymous woman on the internet informing them of demographic shifts. I mean, they might have voted against themselves and their kids because of those demographic shifts, but not because I brought them up.  

Sorry, I'm not going to lie about numbers just to placate some demographic who can't handle the idea of other people having shares of the pie.  

[Maithanet]

16 hours ago, Inigima said:

So, is there any chance this fucking turd of a bill isn't law two weeks from today? This bill is incredibly, catastrophically bad.

It will not be law two weeks from today.  That timeline was always pretty crazy, and everything I'm seeing from both the centerish Republicans and the far right republicans indicates deals must be made, and that will take time.

We'll see whether it will pass in the next 2-4 months.  Tough to call at this point, but I'd give it a better than even chance of getting done somehow.