Jump to content
DanteGabriel

US Politics: RIP EHK FYVM GOP

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

Hey don't get your feelings hurt pal. I called your takes shit, not you.

My feelings aren't hurt.  You don't have the capability to hurt my feelings.  My point is you either continue to misunderstand what I was saying, or just don't care that you misrepresented my position.  Either way, um, cheers?  :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

I hear you about it feeling slimy. I would guess that it depends on the amount of pandering that is done. Was the Obama Beer Summit going too far? You definitely don't want to box yourself in with comments on policy. Or make actual policy concessions. You also don't want to chase a few votes by acting like Southern Strategy Republican.

 

The Deepening Crisis in Evangelical Christianity
Support for Trump comes at a high cost for Christian witness.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/evangelical-christians-face-deepening-crisis/593353/

The Evangelical Christian support for Trump is so bizarre and hypocritical to me given the decades of attacks launched at politicians for having substandard (in the Evangelical Christian view) private lives ultimately because of those politicians views on abortion.

 Evangelical Christians have become the ultimate one issue bloc of voters.  They don’t even care why someone comes to their POV on abortion so long as they publicly purport to hold it.  

It is truly acting without any rational thought.  They scare the shit out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another perspective on whether the Dems supporting universal health care, including for asylum seeking immigrants, free higher education, taxation of the bloated billionaire class, etc. will offend old, white Joe Blow at the diner / cafe / Dairy Queen corner table is to look at who is telling us these policies will defeat the Dems in 2020. 

Why are these old white guys, who have been so wrong so often in the past, considered  the only ones worthy to comment on elections, campaigns, candidates and the rest of the hurly burly that is our every four-year national cycle of the political-media industry?  (I most definitely included Sullivan -- I for one find him a total idiot -- Brooks, and that Stephen in this very long, and very well paid list.

https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/politics-is-changing-why-arent-the-pundits-who-cover-it.html#_ga=2.75968853.1198303347.1562430618-2105090656.1562430618

Quote

 


...we’re also getting our first real taste of the punditry that will frame this next year and a half, and so far, it is the opposite of fresh, diverse, or forward-thinking. Rather, the analysis coughed up by some of the nation’s loudest and most prominent talking heads sounds familiar and stale. The dispiriting truth is that many of those tasked with interpreting our politics are — in addition to being extremely freaked out by the race they’re covering — totally ill-equipped for the historic task ahead of them. 

Where many Americans have seen the emergence of compelling and charismatic candidates who don’t look like those who’ve preceded them (but do look more like the country they want to lead), some prominent pundits seem to be looking at a field of people they simply can’t recognize as presidential. Where many hear Democratic politicians arguing vigorously on behalf of more justice and access to resources for people who have historically been kept at the margins of power, some prominent columnists are hearing a scary call to destabilization and chaos, imagining themselves on the outside of politics they’ve long assumed should be centered around them.


 

Whew, the comments to this piece are evidently almost all written / posted by white men, and, predictably, they are RIGHTEOUSLY OUTRAGED.

It's the same in arts, film and other criticism and commentary.  Those who have the national pulpit are generally aging, if not actually old, white and male.

Of course with art criticism, the way it used to be for writing history, and seems to be going back to this again, the only people who were able to write it were first, RICH, then male.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DMC said:

Wow this is like, I don't know how many orders of stupid in terms of reading comprehension.  I'm arguing not to appeal to the white racial resentment folks.  Get a fucking clue dude

Would  Obama-Trump, voters fall into this category to you? Because I when I read this:

 

14 hours ago, DMC said:

Trump is not through trying to win the white racial resentment people back.

I assumed you were talking about them, and I think that was the group @Simon Steele thought you were casting aside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Z-baby, I know it makes you mad but some of those old white guys need to vote for our team. Now I'm not proposing that the Democratic platforms be warped to appease them, but shit like "healthcare for ALLLLLLL! And the undocumented folks too!!" Antagonizes them for no gain. That's bad politics. Democratic messaging should be designed to keep those dudes at home or trick them into voting for the good guys, not giving them another excuse to enable that orange piece of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Would  Obama-Trump, voters fall into this category to you? 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Would  Obama-Trump, voters fall into this category to you? Because I when I read this:

 

I assumed you were talking about them, and I think that was the group @Simon Steele thought you were casting aside. 

Exactly. Those voters are not deplorable or alt-right nazis. They're desperate people who got conned, and we should absolutely try to help them. Too many "democrats" love a scorched earth policy, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Exactly. Those voters are not deplorable or alt-right nazis. They're desperate people who got conned, and we should absolutely try to help them. Too many "democrats" love a scorched earth policy, though. 

That has bothered me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is the Obama-Trump voters are highly correlated with respondents that rank highly on the white racial resentment scale.  I expect Trump to hold onto the latter.  Of course you want to appeal to as much of a reelection constituency (in Fenno terms) as possible, but strategically I don't think they should be an emphasis.  At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A lot of those pundits, to put it bluntly are morons. On Robert Samuelson, don't even get me started on about the BS he writes about fiscal deficits.

15 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

 but shit like "healthcare for ALLLLLLL! And the undocumented folks too!!"

With regard to the ballpark 12 million or so undocumented immigrants I have no problem getting these people on a path to citizenship and obviously including them in any universal healthcare plan. Nobody in their right mind thinks we are going to remove these people. And in some cases entire communities would just evaporate, if they were removed, since they have been deeply integrated in those communities. The bulk of them have been in the US for a very long time. 

The thing what would cause me to raise an eyebrow would be arguing for complete open borders essentially and providing universal healthcare in that case.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

The thing what would cause me to raise an eyebrow would be arguing for complete open borders essentially and providing universal healthcare in that case.

Which is exactly what Fox News will spin that moment as, and most voters aren't gonna do the legwork of OGE to know that that isn't what was being discussed. In fact they'll be bombarded with allegations that Democrats want to trade free healthcare for anyone who crosses the border in exchange for their illegal votes to steal the election.

It's page one of the Goebbels playbook. Accuse the other side of what you are actually guilty of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Z-baby, I know it makes you mad but some of those old white guys need to vote for our team. Now I'm not proposing that the Democratic platforms be warped to appease them, but shit like "healthcare for ALLLLLLL! And the undocumented folks too!!" Antagonizes them for no gain. That's bad politics. Democratic messaging should be designed to keep those dudes at home or trick them into voting for the good guys, not giving them another excuse to enable that orange piece of shit.

Not only this, but the Dem platform can currently be spun as "more expansive healthcare for all immigrants than we've ever successfully implemented for American citizens."  Which might be fine and could easily be done if a robust single-payer system were in place.  

But the fact that people who think that is the right moral stance seem to be largely unable to even process whether it could be a liability at ballot is eye-opening.  And the fact that the Stephens-douche weighed in on it doesn't automatically make it wrong even if his columns sucked.  This is a childish way of thinking.   

  

 

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Not only this, but the Dem platform can currently be spun as "more expansive healthcare for all immigrants than we've ever successfully implemented for American citizens."  Which might be fine and could easily be done of a robust single-payer system were in place.  

But the fact that people who think that is the right moral stance seem to be largely unable to even process whether it could be a liability at ballot is eye-opening.  And the fact that the Stephens-douche weighed in on it doesn't automatically make it wrong even if his columns sucked.  This is a childish way of thinking.   

  

 

I would soften it to 'virtuous' because they're on my side, and I'm wary of providing perceived slights against allies, but the fact is that virtue isn't going to win elections. What I think some people keep losing sight of is that 1) the amount of people who vote for the Dem nominee is irrelevant and 2) even if they carried the shithole states with this message the possibility of winning the senate back evaporates with this kind of high minded honesty.

I've pointed it out before but I'll do it again. Democrats are going to lose Alabama, digest that fact now and stop lying to yourselves about anything else. That means 3 THREE!!! of the following have to flip. Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, and Montana. I mean the only one of those I would even give a Democrat an above 40% chance of in is fucking Maine. Montana has a shot just because enough farmers might have been scorned that a depressed vote count could see the day.

Seriously, people! Don't you wanna win!?! You are NOT going to carry three of those five (and flip both Arizona and Colorado, but that's implied as a prerequisite) making promises that can be easily turned into propaganda attack pieces. That's just a fact. Not liking it isn't going to make winning elections that are stacked against us any easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Not only this, but the Dem platform can currently be spun as "more expansive healthcare for all immigrants than we've ever successfully implemented for American citizens."  Which might be fine and could easily be done of a robust single-payer system were in place.  

But the fact that people who think that is the right moral stance seem to be largely unable to even process whether it could be a liability at ballot is eye-opening.  And the fact that the Stephens-douche weighed in on it doesn't automatically make it wrong even if his columns sucked.  This is a childish way of thinking.   

  

 

Would you vote for a candidate advocating Medicare for all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I would soften it to 'virtuous' because they're on my side, and I'm wary of providing perceived slights against allies, but the fact is that virtue isn't going to win elections. What I think some people keep losing sight of is that 1) the amount of people who vote for the Dem nominee is irrelevant and 2) even if they carried the shithole states with this message the possibility of winning the senate back evaporates with this kind of high minded honesty.

I've pointed it out before but I'll do it again. Democrats are going to lose Alabama, digest that fact now and stop lying to yourselves about anything else. That means 3 THREE!!! of the following have to flip. Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, and Montana. I mean the only one of those I would even give a Democrat an above 40% chance of in is fucking Maine. Montana has a shot just because enough farmers might have been scorned that a depressed vote count could see the day.

Seriously, people! Don't you wanna win!?! You are NOT going to carry three of those five (and flip both Arizona and Colorado, but that's implied as a prerequisite) making promises that can be easily turned into propaganda attack pieces. That's just a fact. Not liking it isn't going to make winning elections that are stacked against us any easier.

This is going to happen no matter what the platform ends up being.  No matter what.

Edited by larrytheimp
The propaganda attack pieces, I mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Would you vote for a candidate advocating Medicare for all?

A bit confused by the question.  100% I would.  It's inconceivable to me that I won't vote for the Dem nominee whoever it is, and it seems possible that this will be their position.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Triskele said:

A bit confused by the question.  100% I would.  It's inconceivable to me that I won't vote for the Dem nominee whoever it is, and it seems possible that this will be their position.  

Ok, what I'm getting at is would you vote for one in the primary?  Because no matter what the policy is, it's going to go through exact same attacks from the Right.  It's going to be "they're  giving all tax money to people who don't work as hard as you." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

This is going to happen no matter what the platform ends up being.  No matter what.

Which is why statements need to be made as appealing as possible to as wide an audience as possible. There are perfectly non-racist reasons to think "give healthcare to non-citizens here illegally" isn't something you'd want. They're incorrect, I believe, and we can afford it easily. But taking the position is like handing Republicans a loaded gun when they were building up a pile of rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

Ok, what I'm getting at is would you vote for one in the primary?  Because no matter what the policy is, it's going to go through exact same attacks from the Right.  It's going to be "they're  giving all tax money to people who don't work as hard as you." 

Meaning like if it came down to some candidates had this as their policy but others didn't?  Tough to answer without knowing all of the other stances everyone had.  

But this came up a couple of Summers ago pretty heavily on the board when a bunch of Senators signed on to Medicare for all as the goal largely thanks to Bernie.  

Some liberal commentators like Krugman and Chait said it could be a mistake.  Their position was 100% based on how it was proposing to change 150 million people's current plans.  Several people on the board seemed to experience figurative mind-explosion over this as if the only possible reason that anyone could hold the position of the evil Krugman or the evil Chait was because they secretly worked for the healthcare industry.

I feel like a version of that is happening now.  

Recall how careful Barack Obama was to say again and again on the campaign trail "If we were starting from scratch, single-payer could be a great system..." but "...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Triskele said:

But the fact that people who think that is the right moral stance seem to be largely unable to even process whether it could be a liability at ballot is eye-opening.  And the fact that the Stephens-douche weighed in on it doesn't automatically make it wrong even if his columns sucked.  This is a childish way of thinking.

I think this is missing a very basic rule of campaigns:  run on your issues.  The people that switched to Trump did so in large part because they feel strongly about immigration, and not in a good way:

Quote

While working class whites were more likely to switch their vote to Trump in 2016 than non-working-class whites, both working class and non-working-class whites with strong racially conservative or punitive immigration views were more likely to switch than those with racially liberal or pro-immigration views. These relationships are similar across subgroups for all models. 

Second, we show that the association between racial and immigration attitudes and switching to Trump is stronger among Independents and Republicans than among Democrats. It is easier for Trump’s campaign to “bring home” Republicans or sway Independents than to persuade Democrats to vote across party lines. Nevertheless, we find that moving white Democratic racial conservatism and punitive immigration attitudes from their minimum to maximum values, holding all other variables at their means, is associated with a 12.6 (95% CI: [7.4,20.4]) and 3.7(95% CI: [2.5,5.2]) percentage point increase in the likelihood of switching to Trump in 2016, a relationship that only strengthens in the WWC sample.13

Obviously you're not going to outflank Trump (on the right) on immigration, and you're not even gonna match him.  That thing will say anything.  So there's not much point in trying to "appeal" to anyone that feels that way.  Would I have advised everybody raised their hand at the question in the debate?  Of course not, it's a GOP IG ad waiting to happen.  But it is what it is.  What are you supposed to say?  No, I don't think refugees should get access to healthcare?  C'mon.

10 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Would you vote for a candidate advocating Medicare for all?

If you mean abolishing private insurance (because they all basically advocate "Medicare for all" but that's a nebulous term), then in the primary?  No, because then I wouldn't think they're gonna win the general.  If they got nominated and in the general?  Sure, they just won the primary dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×