MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 1 year 2 months ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 5 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 4 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 4 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 5 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 5 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 5 months ago
Hits of the Day
"The rookie mistake is to forget you are the enemy"
By PeraclesPlease on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 2:07pm |URL:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/starving-beast-cuts-both-ways-by.html
- Add new comment
- 15152 reads
Comments
This is precisely why I dislike the argument I've seen on dag that Dems should "forget all the swing voters, they are all racists, why do we want to court racists?":
It's actually just another variant of the populist thing. Which I dislike immensely.
I will admit: As is the whole "us vs. them" horse race thing that happens with presidential elections: Obamaniacs vs. Hillaryites, Bernistas vs. Hillaryites, etc. Especially Obama v. Hillary, when they were so unlike, for so many people to get so het up about which one would win! To the point of hate. Josh Marshall wrote an essay once saying that's what he loved about the American system, the passionate campaigns, going back to the 19th century crap that I just found criminally manipulative. That's when he lost me as a fan of his writing. It's like every four years so many people with minds lose them. Those are all individuals out there, every single one of them thinks different. Even clear racists are racists for different reasons. There's Nazi sympathizers and then there's the parents in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" They are not alike. There is no real vox populi, there is only demagogues creating one out of bits and pieces of cloth here and there.
by artappraiser on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 3:58pm
There are people who tolerated Jim Crow and there were people who fought against it. There are people who can overlook Trump’s racism and there are those who can’t. When you poll Trump supporters you find high levels of racial bias. It is a waste of time to figure out why a racist is a racist unless you are a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social scientist. The best approach to the racist is nullifying their impact by protests and voting. Our political system is about fighting for your beliefs.
What we forget is that Trump is doing exactly what his deplorables want. They are not being duped by populism. They are a receptive audience for Trump.
https://thedailybanter.com/2017/12/understanding-trump-supporters/
Economic anxiety is an excuse that does not hold up to scrutiny
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study
Trump supporters are motivated by racial hatred. We need to r.ecognize this simple truth if we are to survive.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/
White supremacist Richard Spencer is a Dallas Morning News finalist for Texan of the year.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2017/12/26/villainof-year-noxious-influence-alt-right-leader-richard-spencer
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 5:20pm
There's Nazi sympathizers and then there's the parents in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?"
That's a great comparison by AA but you don't seem to get it. There are all sorts of shades of gray. Not being able to recognize those shades of gray is like not being able to tell the difference between Weinstein attacking and raping women and Franken patting a women on the butt briefly while taking a photo.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 1:16am
I would just add that I used the term "swing voters" and not "Trump supporters" for a reason.
Anyone who is still a true avid Trump supporter is in a special demographic all to its own and isn't going to do anything but vote for whoever he says they should support until he is dead and gone. Don't see any reason to confuse the two.
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:05am
P.S. After saying that, comes to mind on topic: swing voters are those most likely to fall for the next demagogue whatever he or she might be espousing? Precisely because they don't like candidates who espouse the traditional platforms of either party? And are very likely to fall for charisma combined with new paradigm, someone who can offer a new party of one? Traditionally, someone like Obama wins some of the swings by pandering to certain specific issues in order to win them over, when they might not like other things he is offering. But when someone appears that seems to say "a pox on both your houses" and still can garner significant support, they often go for that. It's often a billionaire because of our funding situation. Was the case with Perot, and is why Bloomberg was always flirting.
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:14am
"Swingers" - they like taking it in various holes from who knows who, and still come out smiling. Go figure.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 1:57pm
Those comments were about white people. I repeatedly point out whites who are part of the Democratic Party coalition.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:10am
There is a new op-ed on topic by Venezuelan Rondon @ WaPo (author of the quote I cite above) published concurrent with Digby's post:
To beat President Trump, you have to learn to think like his supporters
Scandals will never defeat a populist.
By Andrés Miguel Rondón December 26
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 10:59am
The Rondón article does not apply to the situation we face with Trump.
https://thedailybanter.com/2017/12/understanding-trump-supporters/
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:13am
That is a good counterpoint piece to the new Dec. 26 Rondon op-ed that I posted above thank you for pointing it out. (To be clear: Digby pointed to a Rondon op-ed from early in the year, his arguments have been developed further since then.)
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 12:13pm
Democrats are gearing up to actually challenge Trump and the GOP in many races in 2018. I don’t think that voters who lean Democratic are distracted. Voting is the best option.
Edit to add:
This is not about whether Trump voters are racists. That is a settled issue. The question is why Trump voters are willing to ignore Russian hacks on our electoral system. Why do they ignore the emoluments clause? Why are they willing to take away healthcare and enrich the 1%. Trump supporters have a free speech right to vote for and excuses away racists. Our duty is to stop them from winning on Election Day.
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 6:24pm
Democrats are
1. Sounding the alarm on tax cuts
2. Sounding the alarm on healthcare
3. Finding challengers against Republicans
4. Warning about Republican attempts to crush the Russia investigation
5.Democrats are doing outreach and it is having an impact.
Name the Democrats who are repeatedly calling Trump supporters racists. It is not happening, Democrats are focused on policy.
When Trump shows up at the Nation African-American Museum in D.C. or the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum. Some Democrats complain. When Trump says there are good people among the Nazis in Charlottesville, people push back
Given 1-5, what else can Democrats do?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 12/27/2017 - 10:15pm
Be polite.
Defeating Judge Moore by 20K votes took a wonderful Black turn out.
But also a number of middle class whites- mostly women-switching sides. So it can happen.This time it took a republican candidate almost laughably vicious. But OK let's hear it for (those) middle class white women. And make it easy for them to do it again,please!
by Flavius on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 6:59am
Democrats can expect less than 50% of the white vote. Often much less. I repeatedly have said that they are part of our coalition. White women have trended Republican since Eisenhower. 63% of the white women in Alabama voted for a pedophile. Democrats are not going to face the circumstance where 35% of white women in Alabama support the Democratic candidate again. .
Ivanka was supposed to be the safeguard for Trump. Turns out she is just another greedy SOB. Blacks did not look at Omarosa or Ben Carson as saviors for black people as members of the Trump administration and blacks were not disappointed. You expect change from people who aren’t going to change.
Economic anxiety does not explain the white vote. This is why Sanders fails to inspire the black voter. Democrats are reaching out to white communities. Sanders is reaching out to white communities. The outreach to black communities was forced upon the Democratic Party, and there appears to be success. This is not a zero sum game. Reaching out to blacks does not mean that outreach to whites was being neglected. The fact was the majority of funds
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/us/blacks-alabama-doug-jones-.html
There is no evidence that white voters were being systematically ignored. Black voters were being ignored. When black activists got money to do outreach in the black community, they delivered votes. How about let’s be nice to black voters for a change.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 8:59am
Democrats will make appeals to Trump supporters. The problem Democrats have is in overcoming the cultural anxiety of Trump voters. Democrats may have an economic message,but as long as the Democrats promote diversity, they will lose the cultural battle.
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21730875-giving-up-them-not-option-democrats-will-struggle-win-back-obama-trump
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 10:23am
Who’s Winning the Culture War? Corporate America
By DAVID A. HOPKINS, guest op-ed @ NYTimes.com, Dec. 27
David A. Hopkins is an associate professor of political science at Boston College and the author of “Red Fighting Blue: How Geography and Electoral Rules Polarize American Politics.”
It's an old argument, but he does it well. Taken together with Digby's post, and to be honest, the phenomenon of the Trump presidency, it's finally sunk in for me what has always bothered me about people falling for the culture wars manipulation by politicians: it's populist demagoguery, stupids. And you're falling for it like falling for feeding an internet troll. There's really no reason even all those gerrymandered districts have to stay one color over the other. Not if people really voted on the issues that concern them and politicians were running on the same. That is actually how blue politicians win red districts if you read the stories, almost to a one: just say no to culture wars.
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 10:23am
Unfortunately, many people vote on cultural issues and ignore the economics. That is the point of the op-ed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/27/opinion/culture-war-corporate-america.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur
Tge corporations are the beneficiaries. I don’t think that Hopkins proposes a solution to this. The only solution that seems to work is to outvote the Republicans despite the voter suppression.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 10:39am
Yes, we all know, we've seen you say it here many many many times that you know the solution to how the Dems can win.
The mystery is why you keep preaching sermons on it to members of Dagblog over and over and over as if we are political operatives and have some power to hire you to direct the Dem party. Maybe you think there are a bunch of silent readers of dagblog who have a lot of power to do as you say? And furthermore that many readers of dagblog are white people who need to be taught about what blacks think, as if all blacks think alike and you represent them all?
Seems to me most of us active here are just interested in what published analysts are saying and thinking on what's happening in the news. We're not interested in advocating one position like you are and leaving out everything else.
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:35am
You repeatedly point out that there are swing voters that can be captured. I repeatedly point out that there are not. Democrats repeatedly sought out those swing voters to little benefit. You find articles that support your point of view and I point out articles that support my point of view. Rondón writes an article that you agree with. I find an analysis of his article that disagrees with his analysis. You find hope in white voters that can be persuaded. I find hope in black voters who actually voted for Democrats. You view your taking the same position that you have always taken as valid, while mine is somehow invalid.
My contention that, in many cases, the majority of white voters will not cast votes for Democrats is supported by the data. I posted data from polls on the elections of Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the recent elections in Virginia and Alabama to my statement. I don’t speak for all blacks, that is diversion. I stand by the fact that the overwhelming majority of blacks voted for the Democratic candidate. That is simply looking at the data.
If and when proposed tactics to get the majority of white voters into the Democratic column repeatedly, I’ll agree with that data. I don’t see an economic message that will succeed.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 4:14pm
You can find someone saying anything on the internet but no sensible pundit, the vast majority of pundits, is claiming we can, should, or need the majority of white voters for democrats to win in most states. The vast majority aren't saying we can or should ignore minority out reach. Your single minded obsession with minority outreach to the exclusion of all else is producing predictable pushback. There's not just one thing democrats need to do, not just appeal to swing white votes and not just increase minority turnout. We can and should do both.
There were white Obama voters in 2012 who voted for Trump in '16. There were minority Obama voters in '12 that didn't come out in '16.
In such a close election any one of those problems could be blamed as the cause of the electoral college loss. Those swing voter changes have little if anything to do with racism. In the end while black voter turnout can push a close race to the democrats the majority of votes a democratic candidate gets will almost always still be white voters. Demographics hasn't changed enough to change that. Democrats need to find ways to appeal to both black and white voters. They need to get good turnout among minority voters. They need to increase turnout among the young. And they need to get white swing voters to swing to them. It's not one solution, it's all of the above.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 5:10pm
Let’s recap
1. Black voters were not enthusiastic heading into this year’s elections. There were voices saying that if the blacks threatening to stay home did not require outreach.
Fortunately the Democratic Party did do outreach and it returned benefits.
2. I repeatedly noted that the Democratic Party and Bernie Sanders are doing outreach to white voters
I think that the chances of converting people who voted for Trump is going to be difficult
I disagree that racism does not explain the shift in votes cast. I will link again to an article from the Economist that notes that cultural issues were more important than economic anxiety.
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21730875-giving-up-them-not-option-democrats-will-struggle-win-back-obama-trump
3. You note that Hillary lost some black voters to low turnout. Black voting dropped 11%. I think this was because Hillary did not do enough outreach in the black community. I think it supports my call for more outreach.
Democrats are doing outreach to white communities. They need to continue to step up their game in minority communities.
What is your plan to attract disaffected white voters?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 6:53pm
Another article, this one from the Nation, noting cultural anxiety was more important than economics
https://www.thenation.com/article/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/
I’ve posted these before
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:05pm
Of course you did. You post the same links in the same comment over and over and over again. No one is saying that democrats shouldn't do any out reach to minority communities. We're just disagreeing with your point that, "You repeatedly point out that there are swing voters that can be captured. I repeatedly point out that there are not." Clearly there are white swing voters that can be reach since millions of them voted for Obama in '12 but voted for Trump in '16.
By the way at what point in this thread or anywhere did I claim economics was more important than cultural anxiety? I didn't, not anywhere. So why is that part of your response? You're just having the same debate and not with anyone here. You're having it with yourself and the strawmen you create.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:18pm
The culture versus economics line was in response to your statement that race did not explain the shift
What is your plan to win over these disaffected white voters? If cultural anxiety is important, what is your message?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:32pm
You simply don't know how to read these polls and I don't have time teach you. Take a course in statistical analysis some day. Some level of racism can be found in all Americans whether democrat, republican, or Trump voters. It doesn't explain everything. These are trend lines that show as certain attitudes increase probable voter outcomes increase. It's not a one to one correlation nor is every voter affected in the same way at the same rate. No research has ever found that 100% of an outcome is determined by one factor. Even if a survey attributes 80% of an outcome to one factor that means that 20% is for different reasons. From your link:
However much racism and sexism played a major role among Trump voters it is not the only factor. Once again there is no evidence that supports your point that, "You repeatedly point out that there are swing voters that can be captured. I repeatedly point out that there are not."
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 8:30pm
Your statement was that there was little evidence that racism played a role in the vote. That is not true. You now try diversion.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 9:22pm
Polls require thoughtful consideration to extract the information. Again I don't think you understand statistics enough to do that. First I never claimed that economic distress caused most people to vote for Trump. That's a strawman you introduced to have an easy target to knock down. I don't think economic distress was a major factor. The study only compared those two factors. There are other possible factors, like sexism, that weren't included in the study. I think it's likely that Hillary hatred which is rooted in sexism played a greater role among reluctant Trump voters who might actually been turned off by his racism.
But even if I accept the argument the study only tested personal economic distress. As Trump voters skewed older it's possible that while they felt no personal economic distress they were worried about their children's economic prospects and that affected their vote. That's the position my parents are in, comfortable in their retirement but worried about us kids. I'm not making that argument as I've never accepted the view that economic distress was a major factor for Trump voters. I'm just pointing out an obvious flaw in the study.
I specifically claimed that there is little evidence that racism motivated Obama to Trump voters not Trump voters in general. The vast majority of the article discusses Trump voters without separating out Obama/Trump voters and comparing Trump voters who did not vote for Obama with Trump voters who voted for Obama. There are only two sentences in the entire article that address the difference between Trump voters and Obama/Trump voters. That's insufficient evidence for me to draw a conclusion. Perhaps if I saw the raw data but with just this, little evidence indeed.
There's more I could ad but I've already wasted enough time on bullshit. I don't even give a shit about your link because I already don't think economic distress explains ones vote for Trump. It's not a diversion dude, it's the type of thinking one needs to do to understand polls. I critique everything I read, I look for flaws. Whether I do it well or poorly that's what I spend my time doing when I read the news. You just look for information that confirms your views.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:24pm
The study was of People who switched parties. The “Trump” data was of Obama to Trump voters.
Edit to add:
The pdf of the study
https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2017-voter-survey/party-hoppers
The methodology used is given in the appendices. The second appendix notes how beliefs beliefs predicted party switching,. In the Democratic column, note the impact of negative feelings towards blacks. Among Obama-Trump voters, racial bias was a predictor of switching to the GOP and Trump.
Racial bias impacted Trump’s base and Obama-Trump voters.
The study also notes the problem Democrats have with a subset of white voters. It is unclear what message Democrats can send to win these voters back.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 9:44am
Where did he say that? I honestly don't see it.
The Dems knew out-and-out racists would vote for Trump, they wrote them off. Accounted for them as lost and went looking for others. They will write them off in the future. Does that help if I say that? Racists voted for Trump, yes they did. Can we move on from that or must we keep repeating it?
To me, it looks like your problem is that you carry this way further, from having a president, on the Republican ticket, who sympathizes and appeals to racists, to seeing hidden racism everywhere in politics.
When Bernie doesn't pander to all of the top issues of what you see as those of "the black community," that's "racist." When pollsters create a demographic which they call "white working class," you see a code word for "racist" and therefore see Dems going after racist votes. When the Dems don't fight voter suppression zealously enough for you, that's racist. Etc.
To care far more for one's own special interest group over another special interest group is not equivalent with racism, it's selfishness, self-interest.
Even to dislike a policy of racial preferences is not necessarily racist! It could be quite the opposite in certain cases!
How in the world can you classify someone who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 as a racist? That's just a bridge too far!
I'd suggest to use another word, the one you're using is not working, at least not with anyone here. Go ahead and say the whole "white working class" demographic is not one the Dems should court. That's a reasonable argument. To imply that they are all racists is not! Simply because: that's not included in pollster's definition of the term! It's an artificial marketing demographic for crying out loud! For a certain class type. If they wanted it to mean racist, 100% racist group, they would be clearer about that.
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:38pm
I think you've nailed it. I was once anti black because I argued that democrats should stop fighting voter ID and reach a compromise on the issue. Of course I'm against voter suppression and I know it's racially targeted but the vast majority of Americans will never accept that you shouldn't show an ID to vote when you have to show one to buy a 6 pack of beer or a cigarette. It's a political loser. The bigger problem is while states are requiring ID's they are also closing DMV offices in black population areas. A good compromise is to accept voter ID while setting up a robust and easy way for every one to get one.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:58pm
There is no one on the other side to form a compromise. The cases have to be fought in court. North Carolina was a recent victory.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/15/528457693/supreme-court-declines-republican-bid-to-revive-north-carolina-voter-id-law
Trump now has a voter fraud “commission”..Do you think the commission will compromise?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 2:35am
North Carolina was a particularly egregious case. While that particular law might be blocked by the court other voter id laws have been found constitutional. 2/3 of the states have some version of a voter id law and several states have strict photo Id laws. Indiana in 2006 became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws that have failed in the courts failed for other provisions of the law not the Id requirement. In the end any state that wants to require a photo Id to vote can pass one. That's already been decided as a constitutional issue. It's done. Democrats can attempt to fight photo Id's and lose both legally and politically or they can attempt to compromise and perhaps get some provisions to help poorer residents get a photo Id. States with closely divided legislatures frequently compromise because they have to.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 4:05am
From your Wiki link. Voter ID often serves as a more expensive version of the outlawed poll tax
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 8:15am
What's your point? I tend to agree but it doesn't matter what our opinion is. All that matters is what the Supreme Court decides and they've decided photo Id laws are constitutional. It likely wouldn't be overturned if liberals controlled the court, Supreme Court justices don't like to overturn previous Supreme Court decisions. And it definitely won't be changed with the right wing in control. That's why the better path forward is to attempt to get easier and cheaper access to Id's rather than fighting a losing battle to stop the law.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 5:05pm
Separate but equal was law but the standards differed between schools. If the way the law is enforced is unjust like hidden fees, disappearing places where IDs are available, etc. The enforcement of the law should be challenged.
Edit to add:
Court battles continue
https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/naacp-v-steen
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 7:35pm
I agree with you on the ID issue, although I have also gotten much flak for that. You can’t cash a check, get a bank account, drive a car, or even apply for social security or Medicare ore Medicaid without an I.D. I simply don’t think it is an unreasonable request, but I agree that the sabotaging of the availability of ID’s is where our efforts should go.
This is not the same as segregation. It is simply a requirement that you identify yourself, which you also have to do if you fly on a plane, get a passport, a library card, go to a doctors office, or any number of things that everyone accepts is necessary to get along in the world.
I don’t know how anyone manages to get by without a picture ID, but since it is such a hot issue, the way to go is to assist people to get their ID’s. This would help people in ways that go far beyond voting, I think fighting the concept of showing an ID is silly, and a lost cause.
by CVille Dem on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 11:29pm
People do live without IDs. About 11% of the population does not have a photo ID. Trying to obtain a photo ID ab be an insurmountable obstacle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.9972cd6381a7
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 11:56pm
I’m OK with saying that they had no problem voting for a racist. From that standpoint, the Trump base and the Obama-Trump folks are identical.
What is your message to bring Obama-Trump voters back into the fold given that Trump has promised them a tax cut?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/29/2017 - 10:03am
Looking at old analysis, I find that enough were so unsure of whether they wanted to be racists or sexists or not, or economically anxious or not, that they waited until the day of election to decide what to be, which screwed up poller's predictions:
The Invisible Undecided Voter
Both reporters and models missed the importance of undecided and third-party voters.
By Nate Silver
Filed under The Real Story Of 2016
Published Jan. 23, 2017
12.5% on the day of the election were undecided or third party voters. That's a lotta votes.
Silver is basically saying in this piece that the last-week undecided won it for him by turning his way in the 4 crucial states:
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 10:49pm
The large number of late deciders in a major reason that Silver places so much blame on Comey for Hillary's loss. As I posted above I think that for the reluctant Trump voter sexism was more the motivation and many were likely turned off by the racism. Before rmrd strawmans me. I'm not saying that racism wasn't a major factor. It was likely the major factor for Trump's base. Just not necessarily for every faction of Trump voters.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:32pm
It was likely the major factor for Trump's base. Absolutely! But going forward that has nothing to do with what anyone going after center to left voters is doing. Those votes are always going to go to the most racist candidate and everyone in the game knows that. So much stupid energy wasted.about straw men supposedly going after this vote. It's paranoia is what it is. It's a societal and cultural problem, and Trump stoking it, playing culture wars with it, should actually be a topic of this thread as to how to react..
Mixing it up with analyzing current voters and where they might go is a waste. It's very rare for people to become racist or quit being racist overnight. That said, I think in a like a decade this is going to be pretty moot with the transfer to a more multi-racial (not to mention multi-multi-multi ethnic) generation enabled to vote and many racists just plain dying. And that's not a lot of planning time for a political party. So if it looks like they are not giving a lot of attention: well, maybe they can read the cards.
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 11:56pm
No one is saying we could or should get a majority of the white vote. All we're saying is some of them are getable and it would be good to get them. From your own link, " Some switchers {Obama/Trump voters} do seem open to persuasion. Almost 30% voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2016, which suggests both a residual tie to the party and how singularly Mrs Clinton was disliked."
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:27pm
Democrats average about 40% over the past 40 years.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:39pm
The only quibble is I'd add: for a national race, because of gerrymandering. (And of course in a local race, GOTV of different special interests can very much affect things. I'm pretty sure everyone who participates here knows that and doesn't need to be lectured about it, rather, I see most participants here admire it when that happens.)
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 7:22pm
I think most counterpoints to Digby & Rondon are veering off topic into electoral politics when the topic is how best to avoid feeding the troll demagogue who has become less popular once he is in power. Like Trump, Chavez' popular true support fell and many who were once okay with him became cynical that he was there to do good for them. But he stayed in power and did enormous damage by the national discourse and eventually moved on to actually controlling the media.
The way is to stop being his useful enemy, in Chavez' instance, maybe it was stop feeding cartoonish capitalist imagery, in Trump's instance, stop feeling the cartoonish p.c. liberal thing he finds so useful to divide with:
What he is saying is to look for the cues about the memes that the demagogue is using to divide, and don't feed them.
by artappraiser on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 1:00pm
I think the media thing might be a bit unfair - my understanding is these media outlets were all grandfathered in as a bevy of little naggy Fox News outlets as I recall, with just as much adherence to the facts & unbiased truth. Of course if a leader's nationalizing oil fields and such, you can imagine the reaction. (there was also quite a bit of howling that the Jewish community *had to* evacuate to Miami due to "discrimination" & danger et al, rather than deciding to leave largely based on shifting financial fortunes). But unlike the current asshole, I think Chavez *did* make sure a large (largest?) portion of oil money went to the poor while he was alive. Though perhaps I've got disinfo'd by another set of alt news.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 2:03pm
I think Chavez did do a lot to raise the standard of living of the poor. The problem with redistributionist economic policy, which I somewhat support, is that it produces short term relief but no long term gains. Any economic downturn leaves people worse off than before the redistribution. That seems to be what happened to Venezuela. When oil prices tanked they were left without the capital to continue the social programs that were so popular. The attempts to continue them made the economy worse. While attempting to hold onto power during the worsening economy civil liberties and human rights were sacrificed as well as the natural capitalistic impulses of people in general. The narrative was set up as a war between wonderful socialism and demon capitalism. The left in Venezuela never sought to find a balance. If there had been less redistribution to the poor and more of an attempt to build a more diversified economy away from near total dependence on oil money, if the money had been spent to at least build something with long term value, the people would have been better off in the long run.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/28/2017 - 3:49pm