Jump to content

US Politics: RIP EHK FYVM GOP


DanteGabriel

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
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." 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

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.

Lol they're already saying this stuff.  The truth walked out a long time ago.  You want to win the Senate?  Focus on turning out the youth and disaffected voters.  Turn out the base.  Counting on winning these Obama - Trump voters has to be the much more difficult needle to thread, especially after they already voted for him once.  Maybe they stay home, but if they start tailoring the platform to these electoral snowflakes on every issue it's going to keep a lot of would be Dem votes home too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

.

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.

No, and I think that running on abolishing private insurance is a great way to piss off a ton of reliable Dem voters as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No, and I think that running on abolishing private insurance is a great way to piss off a ton of reliable Dem voters as well.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

But i think this gets at what I'm on about with the immigration thing.  If the logic is easy enough to follow about how abolishing everyone's healthcare plan might not be the wisest election platform why is it not at least worth pondering whether universal healthcare for non-citizens might not be, to use Raja's term, problematic, from a election standpoint?  

I can totally understand the thread-the-needle element of going after the Obama-Trump voter.  But if you're on Trump's side and looking for how you win keeping those three midwestern states is vital, and if you're looking for a way that happens you're probably hoping that the Dems hand you a gift.  

Look at immigration right now.  If you have any opinion on it at all, your vote was decided a long time ago.  I can't believe there are more than a handful of people in the whole country who were going to flip on this issue from R to D, but then wouldn't when they found out immigrants can get free healthcare and decide to remain Trump.

   I mean shit, this is what they already say "they pay no taxes and use all our healthcare and get welfare".  There's no needle to thread.  The difference in the abolish private insurance issue is that all of a sudden you're attacking the middle class, risking pissing off millions of reliable voters instead of some statistical flukes.

This WI-PA-MI forgotten blue collar vote shit is way overplayed and gets way more attention than it deserves 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Triskele said:

But i think this gets at what I'm on about with the immigration thing.  If the logic is easy enough to follow about how abolishing everyone's healthcare plan might not be the wisest election platform why is it not at least worth pondering whether universal healthcare for non-citizens might not be, to use Raja's term, problematic, from a election standpoint?  

Because healthcare is a winning issue for Democrats, if they run it right, while immigration is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

 

And the Dems seem so far to have allowed it to be the front-and-center issue.  This is our concern, dude.  

Even if it's true that there are few persuadable voters in either direction is it not also the case that it could be a thing that helps get the Trump vote maximally energized?  

Who knows?  Immigration is front and center right now because there are detention camps set up and the administration is causing a humanitarian crisis.  Expect Trump's turnout to be amazing.  And plan accordingly: that means turn out your base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not saying sing this shit from the rooftops.   But if a reporter asks a candidate if undocumented immigrants would be covered be honest but tactful "anyone that seeks medical treatment here will be covered".  Don't have to put it up on the marquee.  But this week it's this.  In a month it'll be "how much do we softstep on birth control" or who knows what else 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for mass posting but what's going to happen when they ask Trump and whoever gets the nom about trans individuals in the military?  I guarangoddamntee you this is going to be a question that will affect turnout. 

There are going to be a bunch of these, and yeah, they aren't all black and white, but at some point you have to just have the intestinal fortitude to have a position and not be terrified of how Schumer's O'Reilly family or a few Obama-Trump voters might flinch.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

virtue isn't going to win elections.

Virtue isn't the word you mean.  Honesty is the word you mean.  Which is probably not being used because a number of the posters here are advocating dishonesty as the policy for Dem electioneering.  Or we could just say the word, 'Lie.'  So what, of course. That's what politicians do all the time, particularly in elections, they lie to us, which is why we don't bother voting, or vote for the guy whose lies we lurve, such as we can keep life just fine while continuing to destroy the planet and keep people from food and health care and homes.

But if virtue doesn't win an election, neither will an old white Dem guy gonna win a single election.  Biden will lose the election sure as a toad in the hand will pee in that hand.

In any case immigration is a huge issue because, as in other times and places, the sheer pressure of the numbers attempting to escape from the intolerable conditions that push them out of their homelands, cannot be stopped.  In this case it's a combination of climate catastrophe and violent, criminal, pillaging corruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Honesty is the word you mean.  Which is probably not being used because a number of the posters here are advocating dishonesty as the policy for Dem electioneering.  Or we could just say the word, 'Lie.'  So what, of course. That's what politicians do all the time, particularly in elections, they lie to us, which is why we don't bother voting, or vote for the guy whose lies we lurve, such as we can keep life just fine while continuing to destroy the planet and keep people from food and health care and homes.

Just wondering, are you familiar with Mayhew's (1974) Electoral Connection?  It's a formative work on the motivations of American office-holders.  Of course politicians lie.  We all lie, but a democratic system specifically motivates people to lie.  As does any other system, hence the Churchill canard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Virtue isn't the word you mean.  Honesty is the word you mean.  Which is probably not being used because a number of the posters here are advocating dishonesty as the policy for Dem electioneering.  Or we could just say the word, 'Lie.'  So what, of course. That's what politicians do all the time, particularly in elections, they lie to us, which is why we don't bother voting, or vote for the guy whose lies we lurve, such as we can keep life just fine while continuing to destroy the planet and keep people from food and health care and homes.

But if virtue doesn't win an election, neither will an old white Dem guy gonna win a single election.  Biden will lose the election sure as a toad in the hand will pee in that hand.

In any case immigration is a huge issue because, as in other times and places, the sheer pressure of the numbers attempting to escape from the intolerable conditions that push them out of their homelands, cannot be stopped.  In this case it's a combination of climate catastrophe and violent, criminal, pillaging corruption.

It is interesting that asking for honesty in our politicians has been denigrated as untenable demands for virtue. Virtue is a great quality, and it is tied to honesty, but it is also a word with a negative connotative association (as being unattainable). If honesty in political figures is unattainable, than why would any disenfranchised voters come out for the next Dem? In some ways, the biggest fault of a Bernie or Warren is that they're honest about where they stand whereas the centrists (Harris, Biden, whomever else) typically will shift their positions during primaries then go back to business as usual if elected. Of course, Biden is a strange case now that I think about it. If he's moved to the left dishonestly, then that'd make him an outright Republican in all honesty. 

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...