Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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.  

Blethers. It's not 'aggressive' to say 'dying demographic', any more than it is to say 'growing minority'. Both phrases are capable of being used aggressively but aren't inherently aggressive language. Anyone who responds angrily to being told they're a 'dying demographic' isn't ever going to switch sides anyway.

If a demographic is being labeled as criminals, blamed for social ills and having their rights systematically taken away, then start tut-tutting about how they're being treated. 'Dying demographic' isn't even on the starting line for that kind of response.

1 hour ago, 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."

Is it? I must be lacking in my human nature, then, because I'm in that demographic and I don't give a shit. Can you show me some proof that I am wrong, or even in a minority?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today in:

Let me warn you and let me warn the Nation against the smooth evasion which says:

“Of course we believe in health insurance for everyone. Cross our hearts and hope to die! We just don’t like the way Obama did it!.  Just turn it over to us. We will do it better, we will do more of it, we will do it cheaper and most importantly of all, the doing of it, won’t cost anyone anything!”


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-health-plan-trying-put-out-fire-flamethrower

Quote

“Obamacare,” they argue, doesn’t cover enough people and it costs consumers too much. With this in mind, Republican officeholders and candidates have spent years pleading with the American electorate: give the GOP power and they’ll make the health care system better. How? They’ve been reluctant to say for the last seven years.

 

Your daily “Brownback Boom” update:

http://equitablegrowth.org/research-analysis/its-no-surprise-that-the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment-failed-to-create-jobs/

Quote

Understanding the reasons that the Kansas tax cut experiment failed to create jobs is particularly important given that the outline for tax reform rolled out by the Trump administration in April shares many features with the Kansas model. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says the administration’s plan “is all about jobs, jobs, jobs,” much as Gov. Brownback did in Kansas five years ago. In fact, subsequent reporting suggests that the Trump administration’s tax plan was rolled out in an incomplete state because the president read an op-ed in The New York Times co-authored by some of the same advocates who provided advice to Brownback on his tax plan.

But, but, Trump got a beef deal with the China!!!!!

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/23/15860812/trump-carrier-jobs

Quote

Meanwhile, earlier this week Ford announced that it won’t, as was rumored earlier, be shifting Ford Focus production to Mexico. That would be a win for Trump’s Twitter-based industrial policy, since it’s exactly what he asked the company to do. Except production isn’t staying in the United States either — it’s going to China, where the overall supply chain will likely end up involving much less US-made content than a plant in Mexico would.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mormont said:

Is it? I must be lacking in my human nature, then, because I'm in that demographic and I don't give a shit. Can you show me some proof that I am wrong, or even in a minority?

But you also don't have a conservative world view. It makes sense to argue that a conservative white male would react more negatively to being told that their way of life is dying out than a liberal white male would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mormont said:

Blethers. It's not 'aggressive' to say 'dying demographic', any more than it is to say 'growing minority'. Both phrases are capable of being used aggressively but aren't inherently aggressive language. Anyone who responds angrily to being told they're a 'dying demographic' isn't ever going to switch sides anyway.

If a demographic is being labeled as criminals, blamed for social ills and having their rights systematically taken away, then start tut-tutting about how they're being treated. 'Dying demographic' isn't even on the starting line for that kind of response.

Is it? I must be lacking in my human nature, then, because I'm in that demographic and I don't give a shit. Can you show me some proof that I am wrong, or even in a minority?

Politics is about trying to win over the voters.  If someone tells me (incorrectly) I'm part of a "dying demographic" I'd be unlikely to vote for them.  But, each to their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, mormont said:

Blethers. It's not 'aggressive' to say 'dying demographic', any more than it is to say 'growing minority'. Both phrases are capable of being used aggressively but aren't inherently aggressive language. Anyone who responds angrily to being told they're a 'dying demographic' isn't ever going to switch sides anyway.

If a demographic is being labeled as criminals, blamed for social ills and having their rights systematically taken away, then start tut-tutting about how they're being treated. 'Dying demographic' isn't even on the starting line for that kind of response.

Is it? I must be lacking in my human nature, then, because I'm in that demographic and I don't give a shit. Can you show me some proof that I am wrong, or even in a minority?

Mormont,

I didn't say it was "inherently aggressive".  I said your statement was qualitatively less aggressive.  Not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mormont,

I didn't say it was "inherently aggressive".  I said your statement was qualitatively less aggressive.  Not the same thing.

It can only be less aggressive to say "there aren't as many of them as there used to be" if it is aggressive to say "white men are a dying demographic", and it is not. If neither statement is aggressive, neither can be less aggressive.

I add the qualifier 'inherently' because after all, people can make anything sound aggressive if they try. Comparing me saying 'hi, nice to meet you' in an aggressive way with me saying 'good day' in a less aggressive way doesn't tell me which words are more aggressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "white men are a dying demographic" comment was only made in response to the idea that everyone else should take a back seat and get out of the way so that the white men can get to winning, because we need the votes of white men to leave. Yet somehow y'all are here arguing about whether or not it's aggressive to note the demographic change, but have nothing to say against that. If turning white men off voting in this way is such a legitimate concern, why the isn't turning everyone else off voting with that an equal concern?

And Fez I wasn't saying any one candidate will make that huge difference, I'm saying having your entire field resemble the general population will. If your party is entirely composed of old white men, it will be perceived as being for old white men. Bear in mind I'm not even criticising the current state of the party, I don't think it's all the way there yet but it's definitely not just all white men - I'm pushing back on the idea that there is any merit whatsoever to pandering to old white men who only want to vote for other old white men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And double posting to link this piece to another Sarah Kendzior piece on Trump's progress in autocracy.

https://thecorrespondent.com/6946/trump-is-the-best-autocrat-the-best-nobody-has-a-better-autocrat-than-we-do/1964676912682-537486ce

I'm sure some will continue to insist nothing is alarming, its all fine no matter what changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, karaddin said:

The "white men are a dying demographic" comment was only made in response to the idea that everyone else should take a back seat and get out of the way so that the white men can get to winning, because we need the votes of white men to leave. Yet somehow y'all are here arguing about whether or not it's aggressive to note the demographic change, but have nothing to say against that. If turning white men off voting in this way is such a legitimate concern, why the isn't turning everyone else off voting with that an equal concern?

And Fez I wasn't saying any one candidate will make that huge difference, I'm saying having your entire field resemble the general population will. If your party is entirely composed of old white men, it will be perceived as being for old white men. Bear in mind I'm not even criticising the current state of the party, I don't think it's all the way there yet but it's definitely not just all white men - I'm pushing back on the idea that there is any merit whatsoever to pandering to old white men who only want to vote for other old white men. 

The comment may have been made with that specific qualifier, but it is considerably more loaded than that in a general sense. I think Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment is a good example of this. On its face, it was a specific criticism regarding white supremacists who supported Trump. It got conflated with the idea that all Trump supporters are white supremacists. Trump supporters then took ownership of the label and started printing up t-shirts and wearing the title like a badge.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2017 at 0:38 PM, Dr. Pepper said:

Sure, Niki Haley doesn't have anyone's best interest at heart unless it's a rich white person.  Obama definitely improved the lives of black people in pretty meaningful ways.  A male replacing a female isn't backsliding into misogyny.

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.  There are dozens of articles on this white liberalism problem.  I encourage people to read them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=white+liberalism&oq=white+liberalism&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2198j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

And when the next female leader in the Democratic Party begins to have unfavorable ratings with Republicans, what then?  Should we tell her to leave, too?  This is always going to be the case.  Though, yes I agree that it's time to recreate the Democractic party, which means steadily replacing the old regime, men and women alike, whether they have name recognition or not.

Except they do, repeatedly.  Quit trying to downplay it.  

I completely agree, and we need look no further than the Senate.

Look at how they repeatedly try to shut Elizabeth Warren up, and now Kamala Harris. There is zero respect for their positions as duly elected senators. You don't see them treating other men that way. 

We just had a group of 13 men write a health care bill without input from any of their female colleagues. We're nothing but a pre-existing condition to them, uppity icky girls who shouldn't be allowed to play in the same sandbox. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

The "white men are a dying demographic" comment was only made in response to the idea that everyone else should take a back seat and get out of the way so that the white men can get to winning, because we need the votes of white men to leave. Yet somehow y'all are here arguing about whether or not it's aggressive to note the demographic change, but have nothing to say against that. If turning white men off voting in this way is such a legitimate concern, why the isn't turning everyone else off voting with that an equal concern?

And Fez I wasn't saying any one candidate will make that huge difference, I'm saying having your entire field resemble the general population will. If your party is entirely composed of old white men, it will be perceived as being for old white men. Bear in mind I'm not even criticising the current state of the party, I don't think it's all the way there yet but it's definitely not just all white men - I'm pushing back on the idea that there is any merit whatsoever to pandering to old white men who only want to vote for other old white men. 

If that old white man supports progressive taxation and budget policy though or is fine with some kinds of social liberalism (so long as he doesn't feel it is being pushed to the exclusion of policies that benefit him), I think it is worth winning his vote. The party's tent is not big enough to exclude certain kinds of voters that are obtainable.

I'm not saying go hard for religious fundamentalists (except those few denominations that do go liberal), but I am saying that the old white couple in Pennsylvania that responded to a canvasser in 2008 with "Oh, we're voting for the n*****. He seems smart." (story I heard somewhere; maybe even from here?) are the kinds of votes Democrats still need. Because there's still a lot of those kinds of voters. Especially when they are winnable without even changing any party policies, its a question of what to emphasize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heller just came out strong against the senate health care bill at a joint press conference with Governor Sandoval. So much so that if he flipped to yes, his opponent next year would have a field day just running ads of what he said today.

I'm pretty sure McConnell always wanted to let Heller have one of the two available 'no' votes, but that's really not an option now. At this point, odds are still probably that McConnell threads the needle in the end here, but it just got a lot tricker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Fez said:

Heller just came out strong against the senate health care bill at a joint press conference with Governor Sandoval. So much so that if he flipped to yes, his opponent next year would have a field day just running ads of what he said today.

I'm pretty sure McConnell always wanted to let Heller have one of the two available 'no' votes, but that's really not an option now. At this point, odds are still probably that McConnell threads the needle in the end here, but it just got a lot tricker.

It's a good sign, but also sort of expected.  The far right guys will get what they want because they always do, that's how the Republican party works.  So the question is whether the comparatively moderate Republicans are willing to torpedo the bill.  There are two no votes available, and they were probably always going to go to the moderates.  Heller is facing a very tough reelection, and McConnell tries to protect his senators. 

But just like the DeVos nomination, getting two no votes is a lot easier than getting three, because two "nos" means nothing and three means everything.  If you are a Senator voting no, it's better to be first or second than to be third.  Heller took one spot, which means there's only one left for Murkowski and Collins.  If they put out similar statements (they won't, but if they did) then I would breathe a real sigh of relief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

It's a good sign, but also sort of expected.  The far right guys will get what they want because they always do, that's how the Republican party works.  So the question is whether the comparatively moderate Republicans are willing to torpedo the bill.  There are two no votes available, and they were probably always going to go to the moderates.  Heller is facing a very tough reelection, and McConnell tries to protect his senators. 

So will the moderates. If this bill passes, it will be because several Senators came out and said it needs to be improved, they'll go back and make tiny changes that will affect 1% of the bill, claim a victory, both personally and as a party and pass the thing. If they don't have the votes by next week, the bill will be pulled. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So will the moderates. If this bill passes, it will be because several Senators came out and said it needs to be improved, they'll go back and make tiny changes that will affect 1% of the bill, claim a victory, both personally and as a party and pass the thing. If they don't have the votes by next week, the bill will be pulled. 

It sounds like Heller is a 'no' unless the Medicaid expansion is kept and the proposed overall Medicaid cuts are mostly eliminated. If that happened he and probably every moderate would be 'yes' no matter what but that's one change that McConnell can never do.

Murkowski probably needs a special provision to fix the unique ways that the bill screws Alaska and the one year restriction on planned parenthood be dropped. There's also been talk that McConnell is still trying to find a way so that subsidies can't cover plans that would also cover abortions separately; which I'm sure she also doesn't like. Although, that might cause other senators to start depending fixes for the smaller (but still very bad) ways that their states are being screwed over.

Collins could probably be brought on board with a variety of minor fixes, the same lack of abortion restrictions that Murkowski wants (I think they are the only two pro-choice GOP senators), and that the bill has a lot more funding to address the opioid crisis. It has $2 billion in new funding, the moderates had proposed $45 billion over 10 years, and experts say $190 billion over 10 years is what's needed. If there was something close to that, McConnell could probably get and keep every moderate except Heller and Murkowski, no matter what other changes he needed to make to get the conservatives on board. And then its just a question of whether a) Rand Paul really is a hard 'no' or b ) finding the right combo of things to get Murkowski on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing sort of lost in the AHCA plotline is the current POTUS.

 

Rule of thumb - which posters here keep forgetting or glossing over:

 

You CANNOT outcrazy Trump.  Apparently people writing television series set in an overly dramatized white house are complaining about this.

 

So, not likely, but at least possible:

 

Suppose the AHCA makes it all the way to Trumps desk - and he Vetoes it?  Republican reaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThinkerX said:

Suppose the AHCA makes it all the way to Trumps desk - and he Vetoes it?  Republican reaction?

They'd probably go apeshit.

But, I think the chances of Trump vetoing the bill is somewhere between extremely small to nil. Instead, he'll just say "Isn't this great!" even if he knows in fact the bill sucks. His bull shit sales guy instinct will kick in.

Remember way back when, when Trump claimed he'd come up with "something wonderful" cause you know "across state lines" or some horse shit like that. If he were to veto the bill, that would be a big admission, that at no point, did he have any credible plan for healthcare. Of course the reality based community has always known that, but, you know, Trump simply won't admit he's always been full of crap on this issue and it would be an implicit admission that the Republican Party has been blowing smoke up people's asses for years and I don't think he can afford to alienate the Republican establishment and hope to get much done.

The only upside to this whole sorry ass affair is the Republican Party has finally committed itself, after years of being all over the map on the issue. And now that they have finally committed to a position, time to call in the heavy artillery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

They'd probably go apeshit.

But, I think the chances of Trump vetoing the bill is somewhere between extremely small to nil. Instead, he'll just say "Isn't this great!" even if he knows in fact the bill sucks. His bull shit sales guy instinct will kick in.

Remember way back when, when Trump claimed he'd come up with "something wonderful" cause you know "across state lines" or some horse shit like that. If he were to veto the bill, that would be a big admission, that at no point, did he have any credible plan for healthcare. Of course the reality based community has always known that, but, you know, Trump simply won't admit he's always been full of crap on this issue and it would be an implicit admission that the Republican Party has been blowing smoke up people's asses for years and I don't think he can afford to alienate the Republican establishment and hope to get much done.

The only upside to this whole sorry ass affair is the Republican Party has finally committed itself, after years of being all over the map on the issue. And now that they have finally committed to a position, time to call in the heavy artillery.

I did say 'not likely.'

But, Trump did call the bill 'mean' last week. 

Plus, Trump wants to be popular.  He seems to have almost figured out that the AHCA is hugely unpopular, and that by championing it, he risks that unpopularity transferring to himself. 

Those two points, combined with Trumps inherit craziness, is what made me consider this possibility.

 

My guideline here is 'You cannot out crazy Trump.'  Therefor, where Trump is involved, even normally insane notions must at least be looked at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about Trump's base is that they will gobble up whatever he says is good whether it actually makes sense or not.  Look at the coal miners, they believe that he's going to bring coal back even though it's clear this isn't happening.  So whether or not the AHCA is going to be unpopular, all Trump has to say is that it's awesome and his followers will pretend it is.  

You can't out stupid the Trump voter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...