US Politics: March Madness

[Fragile Bird]

Ooooooh....oooooh....Donald has given Obama a nickname,

You'll never guess.

Cheatin' Obama.

 

 

Yes. Cheatin' Obama, from Mr. Screws-around-whenever-he-wants.

[felice]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

No analysis of whether white working-class voters can be 'won back' can sensibly be performed without first looking at why working-class voters of other races don't need to be won back. The key to that is unlikely to be found in economic factors, nor is it likely to be about elitism - at least not these things alone. 

That doesn't necessarily mean the problem is the white working class being unwilling to vote Democrat for racist reasons. It's theoretically possible that non-white voters are unwilling to vote for racist Republicans, no matter how unhappy they might be with their economic situation, and doing more to help the working class irrespective of race would be advantageous for the Democrats.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Sorry, I didn't mean you, more the general chatter which is what that 538 was responding to in the first place .  However, I'm not sure where there is more value.  Trump's minimum-winning coalition may be similar to Obama's insofar as those white working class voters will show up for him, but not in midterms.  In which case, Dems could very well have an easier time "overperforming" in poorer districts as compared to the suburbs, where their performance in 2016 was already relatively maxed out.

Keep in mind, there is a major difference between what motivated Obama’s core coalition and what motivates Trumps: fear. White racial resentment is intricately tied with fear, and I think that will motivate white blue collar workers to go to the polls, especially if they think that Trump is wounded and needs them. Trump’s power of cult of personality will see to the latter.

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Sure, but PA-18 is not even close to the swing House district.  Districts like IL-6 (Suburb of Chicago, Romney->Clinton district), NY-19 (NYC exurb, Obama->Trump district), and MI-11 (Open District, Detroit Suburb, Romney and Trump both won by 5 points) are what is going to determine control of the House.  If Democrats are winning districts like PA-18 in November, they're just padding their majority. 

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

Trump called him last night to tell him "we've got your back". And at today's press conference, "I hope he's going to be great!"

So....who does that help?

Well the pattern tends to be: Rumors of an ouster-----> Strong show of public support----> Canned!

If I had made the time window bigger I’d say me, but 48 hours was too narrow as I was going for the joke. If I had made it a week, that would have been worth laying down a title bet for, especially since there is someone on this forum who will remain nameless who always chases title bets.

@Pony Queen Jace

Speaking of which, Jace, you still haven’t paid off your title bet for getting the Alabama special election wrong. If title bets aren’t kept sacred, nothing can be.

Loki, I’ll get back to your post when I have more time.  

[denstorebog]

An active active shooter situation is taking place place at YouTube's headquarters on Cherry Avenue in San Bruno.

Because here I was, thinking "gee, I could really go for some stochastic terrorism right about now".

[Martell Spy]

2 hours ago, denstorebog said:

An active active shooter situation is taking place place at YouTube's headquarters on Cherry Avenue in San Bruno.

Because here I was, thinking "gee, I could really go for some stochastic terrorism right about now".

Well, lucky the U.S. Congress is ready to energetically tackle this problem.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, lucky the U.S. Congress is ready to energetically tackle this problem.

I hear they're learning CPR

[Crazydog7]

18 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, lucky the U.S. Congress is ready to energetically tackle this problem.

 

I wish Lord o Bones was still alive that would have gotten a laugh. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Keep in mind, there is a major difference between what motivated Obama’s core coalition and what motivates Trumps: fear. White racial resentment is intricately tied with fear, and I think that will motivate white blue collar workers to go to the polls, especially if they think that Trump is wounded and needs them. Trump’s power of cult of personality will see to the latter.

Conceptually, I don't see any reason to have more confidence that Trump's cult of personality is stronger than Obama's.  And empirically, it's been demonstrated they either haven't shown up at the same levels or switched back to voting Dems in the elections since inauguration.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I hear they're learning CPR

[DMC]

Liberal Wins Wisconsin Supreme Court Seat

Good stuff, cuts the conservative majority from 5-2 to 4-3.  If you're thinking this has any bearing on the midterms, stop now.  Rolloff for judicial elections are always notoriously high, and turnout in recent Wisconsin contests averaged 7.3%.

[OldGimletEye]

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the burbs are the way to go, though I agree that you should target both. Blue collar white voters are leaving the Democratic party in droves primarily over the issue that Trump championed, immigration, and in general because of their stances on social issues. It’s hard to see how Democrats can recapture their votes if they’re dead set on pursuing more generous immigration and social policies. These are the same voters who get angry when you bring up the topic of white privilege. It’s hard to see how you’ll get them back in our current political climate.

 

13 hours ago, mormont said:

No analysis of whether white working-class voters can be 'won back' can sensibly be performed without first looking at why working-class voters of other races don't need to be won back. The key to that is unlikely to be found in economic factors, nor is it likely to be about elitism - at least not these things alone. 

 

11 hours ago, dmc515 said:

I don't think anyone here denies that the predominate problem with blue collar voters is white racial resentment.  What the 538 analysis makes clear, however, is that Dems can improve or "over-perform" in poorer and less educated districts.  That could mean a number of things - increased turnout (or at least share of the electorate) of minority voters, decreased turnout (or share) of white blue collar voters, or white working class voters shifting (once again) from Trump to Dem.  Figuring that out would require individual-level analysis, but the larger takeaway is not to write such districts off under the assumption that white racial resentment means Dems can't compete.

One might think intuitively that bad economic time should be a boon for left wing parties or center left parties and bad for right wing ones.

But, it would seem, that bad economic times are actually bad for left wing parties. The culprit would seem to be that bad economic time seems to increase increase people’s in group identification, making it easier for right wing parties, particularly nationalistic and xenophobic ones, to win elections. 

It’s like how great for right wing parties? Create bad economic policies, which increases racial animosity, which cause right wing parties to win more elections, creating more bad polices, creating more racial animosity, creating more victories for right wing parties.

Of course this is not to say, that it’s all economic the racial animosity has always been there and has always played a big part in American Political economy. The New Deal coalition imploded largely because of racial matters. Had that not been there, it may not have imploded so quickly in the 1960s. And of course the sorting of the parties goes way back. In 1960 Richard Nixon got something like 30% of the African American vote, as historically the Republican Party had been the kinder of the two. Barry Goldwater got about 6%.

And it’s like left wing parties have to fight harder and smarter than right wing ones, since it would appear that the deck is stack in right wing parties favor or has been recently.

There are people like Mark Lilla that think the Democratic Party should drop the “identity politics” and just do the economic stuff. And I think that’s an error. You can’t get better economic policies until you break the deadlock that racism creates. And anyway, advising the Democratic Party to stop doing “identity politics” is akin to advising them to stop doing politics in order to win elections. And anyway, when it comes to “identity politics” the Democrats are like a two bit vaudeville act compared to it’s master practitioners – the Republican Party.

And even though I disagree with Lilla’s advice, the Democrats need to get back some of the white working class, if they want to win. Not all of them, just some of them. In fact, you may not get most but them. But you might get some of them, without giving up much on social policy or giving up on “identity politics”. And you got be willing to go into where they live, where there might be strong support for Trump and the Republican Party, and fire away at Trump and the Republicans.

I think at this time left wing parties need to fight hard for every vote they can get, not just here but everywhere.

Of course none of this means the Democrats or any left of center party should drop the ball when representing the minority constituencies that often make up their coalitions. The over incarceration of African Americans is an issue that needs to be dealt with. The wage and employment gap between them and whites is an issue that needs to be addressed. And as recent events of have shown sexual harassment is an issue that needs to battled and DACA should have been a done deal, like yesterday.

In the end, I don’t think the Democratic Party or left of wing parties have to change a whole lot where they are inclined to go with policy anyway, but it’s more about it being pugnacious and relentless  and not being afraid to go into the lions den, ie Trump country, and making their case, while thrashing Trump and the Republican Party. 

[DMC]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

One might think intuitively that bad economic time should be a boon for left wing parties or center left parties and bad for right wing ones.

Nah.  At least in the US, bad economic times are bad for the incumbent party.  And, actually, this is even more so the case in most European democracies in which responsibility attribution is more clear.

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Of course this is not to say, that it’s all economic the racial animosity has always been there and has always played a big part in American Political economy. The New Deal coalition imploded largely because of racial matters. Had that not been there, it may not have imploded so quickly in the 1960s. And of course the sorting of the parties goes way back. In 1960 Richard Nixon got something like 30% of the African American vote, as historically the Republican Party had been the kinder of the two. Barry Goldwater got about 6%.

And it’s like left wing parties have to fight harder and smarter than right wing ones, since it would appear that the deck is stack in right wing parties favor or has been recently.

White racial resentment is most useful during times of economic downturn, or at least stagnation, definitely.  And sure, it did give the right a built-in advantage when there was a black man in the White House.  Fact is, though, economic growth wasn't that great in 2016 (not that I'm telling you anything you don't know), and poly sci models that are decades-old at this point expected the incumbent party would lose (which, actually, based on their metrics it didn't).  I remember our department invited a guy I won't name from Georgetown in September 2016 who had dual economic and poly sci phds.  He predicted a Trump victory based on some interesting trade measures by state, it was really pretty cool.  He was not well-received.

Anyway, thus far it's been hard to win with <40% of the white vote.  Obama did it in 2012, but that required maximized turnout and margins from latinos and blacks.  While that didn't work for Hillary, it will again soon.

30 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And even though I disagree with Lilla’s advice, the Democrats need to get back some of the white working class, if they want to win. Not all of them, just some of them. In fact, you may not get most but them. But you might get some of them, without giving up much on social policy or giving up on “identity politics”. And you got be willing to go into where they live, where there might be strong support for Trump and the Republican Party, and fire away at Trump and the Republicans.

I think at this time left wing parties need to fight hard for every vote they can get, not just here but everywhere.

Yep.  The two parties in the US are meant to be big tents.  One party has ceded that ground, resolved to be as white as possible.  The Dems need to seize on that be fielding as many ideologically diverse candidates as they can.*  If you need to run a guy like Lamb in a district that needs it, do so.  If you need to run a Sanders type in a district, do so.  Polarization and the cartelizing of parties in the legislature will make it so most will vote the leadership's way much more than they ever have in the past anyway.  If there's votes to be had out there with the white working class - and I suspect there are plenty - go out and get em.

*(That doesn't mean giving up on "identity politics" - although I would say it's rejecting that moniker.  WTF is the Republican party if not the quintessential "identity politics" when it's foundations are now based on a perverse mix of racial resentment, populism, and religious fervor?  If the GOP wants to be the party of angry white people, bankrolled by rich white people, fine.  We'll take everybody else.  Happy to see who wins in the long run.)

42 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

In the end, I don’t think the Democratic Party or left of wing parties have to change a whole lot where they are inclined to go with policy anyway, but it’s more about it being pugnacious and relentless  and not being afraid to go into the lions den, ie Trump country, and making their case, while thrashing Trump and the Republican Party.

Right on.  Hot Pie!

[The Anti-Targ]

So the shooter is a youtuber who was pissed off at Youtube (or Google, or Alphabet) over some of the content control and monetisation policies.

Hearing what some youtubers have to say on these subjects it certainly seems like getting royally pissed off at Youtube and it's overlord company is an understandable reaction. But shooting up a bunch of employees and then killing yourself is a really tragic way to deal with that anger. But getting mad at a faceless monolithic corporation and going on a shooting rampage is not unprecedented and predates the internet age. So as sad and tragic as it is, this was probably a predictable event as soon as large numbers of youtubers had their livelihoods put under threat (or even completely wiped out) with the implementation of new, restrictive and de-monetising policies.

[Fragile Bird]

US has imposed 25% tariffs on 1300 Chinese products, from touchscreens to medical devices to batteries. Take that, China, and the 128 US items you put tariffs on!

Hold onto your hats, boys and girls, we got us a trade war.

And to think just two weeks ago I was discussing with my broker the fact I was contemplating going to substantially cash in my portfolio. He said, you know you’re over-reacting, and I said, if we get into a trade war serious damage is gonna be done...

[Fragile Bird]

Ooh-la-la! China just announced tariffs on another 106 US items, including soybeans, cars and whiskey.

Shit got real!

Let’s see how far the markets fall today! Ah, the dangers of bragging about the stock market!

[mormont]

15 hours ago, Maithanet said:

You are right that Democrats are doing fine with nonwhite blue collar workers.  But in the districts I've been talking about to take the House, most of the blue collar workers are white.  

Yeah, I know. But I'm pointing out that you refer to this group of blue collar workers as simply 'blue collar workers'. That they are white is as important a factor as that the other groups are nonwhite. If you habitually think of them as just 'blue collar workers', that erases the race issue. 

The race issue isn't necessarily about racial resentment or racism, by the way, or at least not just that. There's an assumption that when I point out the significance of race and the need to remember it as a factor for white blue collar voters, that's what I'm getting at. I'm not. I'm just saying, don't erase what is perhaps the most significant difference in this particular group. 

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Figuring that out would require individual-level analysis, but the larger takeaway is not to write such districts off under the assumption that white racial resentment means Dems can't compete.

I certainly would never say that. 

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I'm just saying, don't erase what is perhaps the most significant difference in this particular group.

Sure, I get what you're saying there.  One thing I don't think I've ever mentioned here - the gender gap.  Now, obviously, the gender gap is contingent upon race like anything else.  But one of the most consistent aspects is it's also based on married vs. single women.  Unmarried women voted for Hillary 63 to 32.  Obama had similar margins, close to 2 to 1.  As someone who has no interest in getting married, I've always been sure to highlight this.

[OldGimletEye]

 

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Fact is, though, economic growth wasn't that great in 2016 (not that I'm telling you anything you don't know), and poly sci models that are decades-old at this point expected the incumbent party would lose (which, actually, based on their metrics it didn't).

It certainly wasn't. And all the years prior to weren't either. And the fact it wasn't was largely due to the seven years of nonsense preached by the Republicans. All the deficit fear mongering, the inflationista fear mongering, the gold buggism, etc. etc. And now the evidence is starting to pile up that the effects are permanent (that would be  hysteresis effects conservative sorts of people).

Isn't this the best? Right wing parties preach bad policy, and then it helps them to get elected, to do more bad policy. That's just awesome.

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

White racial resentment is most useful during times of economic downturn, or at least stagnation, definitely. 

Something like the Euro which has been a disaster, economically,seems to me, has been a big boon to right wing nationalist parties.

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

  I remember our department invited a guy I won't name from Georgetown in September 2016 who had dual economic and poly sci phds.  He predicted a Trump victory based on some interesting trade measures by state, it was really pretty cool.  He was not well-received.

His predictions seemed to be confirmed by Autor et al. that found, in at least a few states that Hillary lost, Chinese import penetration played a significant role. And it would seem that where import penetration was the strongest in group identification seemed to intensify.

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

 WTF is the Republican party if not the quintessential "identity politics" when it's foundations are now based on a perverse mix of racial resentment, populism, and religious fervor?  If the GOP wants to be the party of angry white people, bankrolled by rich white people, fine.  We'll take everybody else.  Happy to see who wins in the long run.)

I think it's interesting that it's the Democratic Party, between the two parties, that is the one that has to stitch together a much more diverse group of constituencies and get them all on the same page in order to win elections is the party that is always expected to apologize for doing "identity politics".

[DMC]

44 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Something like the Euro which has been a disaster, economically,seems to me, has been a big boon to right wing nationalist parties.

Very much so.  The rise of the radical right in Europe preceded what happened here, and we should have known better.  It continues to proliferate.

45 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

His predictions seemed to be confirmed by Autor et al. that found, in at least a few states that Hillary lost, Chinese import penetration played a significant role. And it would seem that where import penetration was the strongest in group identification seemed to intensify.

Yeah his stuff was more specific than that.  I'm being circumspect because this is a public forum and naming him would be bad for him, my department, and, most importantly, me.  But if you wanna discuss further just PM.

48 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I think it's interesting that it's the Democratic Party, between the two parties, that is the one that has to stitch together a much more diverse group of constituencies and get them all on the same page in order to win elections is the party that is always expected to apologize for doing "identity politics".

Indeed.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, I know. But I'm pointing out that you refer to this group of blue collar workers as simply 'blue collar workers'. That they are white is as important a factor as that the other groups are nonwhite. If you habitually think of them as just 'blue collar workers', that erases the race issue. 

The race issue isn't necessarily about racial resentment or racism, by the way, or at least not just that. There's an assumption that when I point out the significance of race and the need to remember it as a factor for white blue collar voters, that's what I'm getting at. I'm not. I'm just saying, don't erase what is perhaps the most significant difference in this particular group.

Why not? Surely any program aimed at courting blue collar workers will get their votes regardless of their skin color.
What's the point of introducing a divide when it's not necessary?