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 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months 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 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 3 months ago
Biden has white men to thank for putting him in the White House
By ocean-kat on Mon, 11/30/2020 - 1:25pm |Donald Trump made gains among virtually every other demographic — Black men and women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and even white women. The one significant demographic in which his support cratered compared to 2016 was among white men, who make up more than one-third of the electorate. Biden made an impressive 11 percentage point gain among white, college-educated men and a 6 percentage point gain among white, non-college educated men, supposedly Trump’s core constituency.
URL:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/11/29/how-biden-needs-handle-his-new-voter-base-white-males-column/6347523002/
- Add new comment
- 6260 reads
Comments
yes, I read this elsewhere by others, never got around to posting it. I do believe it, too, if you are going to play demographic games by skin color and gender, they are the ones that made the real difference this time.
Another major trend is related: there is a growing divide between how college educated and non-college people vote. To the point where many analysts think the rural vs. urban vs. suburban thing was emphasized too much, and not enough realization how it's more about education level.
Edit to add: also that education level is a better indicator than income level, and that income level doesn't necessarily coincide.
Another edit: also recall reading that the non-college educateds' votes are a main reason many polls skewed too much towards Biden, that they weren't reflected in the polls enough.
by artappraiser on Mon, 11/30/2020 - 2:02pm
Yeah, I was reading all these articles that claimed Trump made gains with blacks etc and I was wondering how Biden won. Turns out it was white men. Probably white men who voted for Obama then decided they hated blacks and voted for Trump, only to discover they didn't hate blacks after all.
As you know I, like you, don't like these demographic games. Dems are a diverse coalition and the difficulty candidates face, especially national candidates face, is how to get enough votes from each part of the coalition because small changes in the vote of any group can be the difference between a win or a loss. But if rmrd is going to play the demographic game and claim it was the blacks that caused the win, well, I guess I'll play too.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 11/30/2020 - 2:09pm
The last few years took a lot of people on a postmodern trip that overemphasized race, and race baiting by the sitting president certainly helped us take that ride. As a result, a lot of us are working with the assumption that demography informs everything when it comes to voting.
I will say this though - during the primaries, Andrew Yang started picking up a lot of young men, including Trump supporters and Alt Righters, in support and he talked about how dramatically young men are generally failing in comparison with young women. There were a few people that reached the conclusion that this meant he was an Alt Right stealth candidate but in retrospect, it showed that a lot of young white men who might fit that profile aren't necessarily interested in extreme politics but are just looking for something that speaks to and includes them.
by Orion on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 2:00am
appreciate you sharing the thoughts about Yang especially.
by artappraiser on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 3:42am
Yang is the future.
by Orion on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 3:52am
The downside for Yang is a lack of actual government experience
So far, that lack of experience has not had good results.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 8:48am
Worked for Nelson Mandela and Václav Havel.
And doesn't mean Yang has to be president to be "the future" - other cabinet and non-cabinet positions he could do, maybe even the UN.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 8:58am
trial balloons
also @ Politico
Andrew Yang, said to be considering mayoral bid, tested in new online poll
11/30/2020 08:56 AM EST
Maybe planning to run for something, maybe turned Joe down?
by artappraiser on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 12:02pm
Mayor is a great place to start.
by OrionXP (not verified) on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 4:19pm
Yeah, but how far in the future is he? I think he's at least a couple of decades too early.
by ocean-kat on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 12:41pm
I think he's down with time horizons.
But Buck Rogers is prolly safe.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 4:18pm
PS - progressive love?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 4:48pm
The lesson in Trump is they realize the corporate/neoliberal approach can backfire and should be left behind.
by Orion on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 6:13pm
Maybe "neoliberal" doesn't mean a fucking thing, just a way to piss off erstwhile allies with intolerant mostly indecipherable and no way achievable wokespeak.
Or do you have a definition that doesn't mean "all those selfish tightass world-destroying collaborationist Dems to the right of me"? At least "Blue Dogs" had some creed and validation to it.
And what pray tell is the "corporate approach"? Which corporations doing what? I seem to recall Trump tossing massive taxfunded contracts to recently incorporated tiny "businesses" with no track record and no ability to perform. He always complained about the Amazons and Twitters and any large corporation that made him feel small and didn't show fealty. Not sure what the philosophical lesson is in *that*, aside from "don't let insecure grifters run government.
And I knew before Obama was elected he was no progressive wet dream, despite all the unrealistic expectations many on the left had. He was always no drama, inched his way to change, and then the Crash prevented him from doing much else. Maybe Biden's gift in this situation is a) so many are seriously sick of Trump that there is a huge groundswell of support, and b) he was largely out there through luck and agreements, so he has incentive to compromise and build coalitions. c) maybe he feels a Zeitgeist, which is fine.
However, time will tell how much progressive gets passed, vs stocking gov with the diverse personnel to make those who track such things happy.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 6:23pm
"According to one study of 148 scholarly articles, neoliberalism is almost never defined but used in several senses to describe ideology, economic theory, development theory, or economic reform policy."
by Orion on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 3:40am
Exactly - an ill-defined slur. That it's not defined makes it hard to push back.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 6:41pm
Seemed to me to be more well defined during the Bush years, especially frequenting TPM Cafe and TPM before the 2008 primary when Josh opened floodgates of the political section of the site to TPM Cafe. It really was like NeoLiberal central, all of Josh's neo-liberal D.C. friends were blogging there. It meant: interventionist liberal foreign policy and liberal free-trade economics. It was a term meant to compete with neo-conservatism, which was still relatively new in itself, which was supposed to be a kinder gentler version of conservatism, as opposed to paleo-conservatism. And the latter was also for free trade and interventionism.
Where the trouble started was with the Iraq war. The original neo-cons were big supporters thinking America would be greeted with flowers and sweets, not "to get the oil". (If you believe in global economics, then anybody "getting the oil" doesn't make much sense anyways.) They were the naifs (as were the neo-libs that went along) fooled by the machinations of Cheney and friends.
Anyhew, Josh had a round robin blog with like 5 neo-libs on foreign policy, all wonks from think tanks, and also several pro-Israel liberals like Rosenberg, and then on economics he had free traders like Jared Bernstein
And even on domestic politics, he would have centrists like Thomas Frank (of "What's the matter with Kansas?") and of course Professor Liz Warren and her students taking on issues about consumer rights, as in "the new consumer economy, how to regulate it?" I would definitely have called her neo-liberal at the time.
And there were lots of paleo liberals frequenting in comments, attacking every single thing they'd say, just hated them all, came to the site to attack them.
For that short period in time, it really did seem like the country would go in the direction of two totally different parties, the neo's, who would be centrist free traders and global interventionists, and then joining together from opposing ends, the paleos, who would be for protectionism, strong unionism, and isolationism (no surprise to like the working class of Michigan who found both Jesse Jackson and Patrick Buchanan to be appealing candidates for prez.)
It really was like neo-liberal central, circa 2005-2007, that's why many of us spent a lot of time there. It was still "neo", new thinking.
by artappraiser on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 7:09pm
Thanks for the rundown, guess my memory's not that good or i just didn't retain the jist of that whole battle after 2007.
So how did "neoliberal" turn into "Clinton's" especially, considering her very hedged vote on Iraq (vesting more faith in the UN than Bush) and his staying out of global conflicts except for an aerial show in Kosovo? Or was it driven by Jewish neolibs thinking they could finally rearrange the Mideast a bit to their liking post-9/11, and other issues fell to the side? Still, 2005-2007 was post-failure reality check - were neolibs expectations still running high or were failures of execution put on Bush while the interventionist approach itself kept pristine and primed?
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 9:14pm
well neo-liberal grows out of "third way" and DLC (which itself was reaction to losing so much against the Reagan Revolution) which Bill Clinton was a big part of as Gov. of Arkansas. And then classic DNC people very much hated that they took over when Clinton-Gore won, along with Bill Rubin, I would think he might be the essence of neo-liberalism to some. Hillary didn't just get stuck with it, she was never enemy of capitalism and "rising tide lifts all boats" a supporter of market-based health care back when she was in charge of trying to make it single payer, nor of interventionism.
It's easy to forget how before DLC how Bernie-Sanders-like the Democratic party was, very anti "Wall Street", very pro union worker, buy American, big FDR government, tax and spend, eat the rich. And how revolutionary DLC-neoliberal takeover was. (Wondering now when Bernie left the party to be an Independent and why--don't remember paying attention to that.)
Likewise neo-cons like Bill Kristol adore Reagan, still do. It's the shining city on the hill thing, the American Exceptionalism thing, everyone wants to be like us.
by artappraiser on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 9:36pm
I remember Gore abandoning his tech partnership pro-Silicon Valley stance in 1999-2000 to wage a retro union label war against oldstyle lib Bill Bradley, which i thought was ceding his major forward-thinker advantage for November. And I remember Hillary making an effort to be "serious on defense" as Senator, though not quite Henry Jackson hawkish, but to bring some balance post-9/11 where the GOP didn't own any defense security discussion by default and presumption. The left hated her for that, especially post-Iraq invasion. Being anti-business, anti-security wasn't winning the party many elections, especially as every laptop and mobile phone in average people's hands connecting them to the internet emphasized the promise of technology and business. Bush's Schedule D prescription support was clever, as it bolstered the pill-popping Big Pharma presence at home, while avoiding the expensive complexities of hospital healthcare - so every time granny reaches for her pills, she's getting a campaign push for that nice Bush guy and his party making her life easier.
by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 9:59pm
Maybe some of the change can be ascribed to a withdrawal by the conservatives from the work of making policy. The T administration's agencies' charts of organization were left empty in many cases. Political appointees were assigned who had little regard for the people who worked there or how decisions got made.
The return to meritocracy occurs when the brain trust of the opposition has been drained like gravy from Rudy's skull.
by moat on Tue, 12/01/2020 - 7:52pm
Conservatism is about as absent/unpopular now as it has ever been.
by Orion on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 3:37am
I wasn't thinking of it as popular or not. The health of economic instruments such as the banks and trade deals to establish manufacturing contracts is not just a product of one school of thought or another but the real time cooperation or struggle between corporations and the agencies who regulate them.
The big difference between the Bush to Obama transition compared to what is unfolding now is that the shared sense of urgency to protect institutions that was on display in 2008 has been replaced by one camp preparing for an avalanche of trouble while the other throws parties and pretends nothing bad is going on.
by moat on Wed, 12/02/2020 - 6:28pm