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 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
How the Rural-Urban Divide Became America’s Political Fault Line
By artappraiser on Tue, 05/21/2019 - 1:56pm |Such a conflict isn’t unique to the U.S., but the consequences are far-reaching here. Caption to first graph illustration: Most Americans voted for Hillary Clinton, but most Americans live in a neighborhood won by President Trump
By Emily Badger @ NYTimes.com, May 21
It’s true across many industrialized democracies that rural areas lean conservative while cities tend to be more liberal, a pattern partly rooted in the history of workers’ parties that grew up where urban factories did.
But urban-rural polarization has become particularly acute in America: particularly entrenched, particularly hostile, particularly lopsided in its consequences. Urban voters, and the party that has come to represent them, now routinely lose elections and power even when they win more votes.
Democrats have blamed the Senate, the Electoral College and gerrymandering for their disadvantage. But the problem runs deeper, according to Jonathan Rodden, a Stanford political scientist: The American form of government is uniquely structured to exacerbate the urban-rural divide — and to translate it into enduring bias against the Democratic voters, clustered at the left of the accompanying chart.
Yes, the Senate gives rural areas (and small states) disproportionate strength. “That’s an obvious problem for Democrats,” Mr. Rodden said. “This other problem is a lot less obvious.” In a new book, “Why Cities Lose,” he describes the problem as endemic, affecting Congress but also state legislatures; red states but blue ones, too [....]
URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/upshot/america-political-divide-urban-rural.html
- Add new comment
- 19239 reads
Comments
Also, Emily Badger's Rural-Urban NYTimes article highly recommended, this retweeted by Josh Marshall:
by artappraiser on Wed, 05/22/2019 - 11:59pm
We can go over and over things like this. Rural urban divide, demographics, gender gaps. Thing is, just 10 years ago democrats won the presidency, 60 votes in the senate, and 257 to 178 in the house. How did that happen? Really no one knows. And no one knows if or when it might happen again.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 1:59pm
May have had something to do with driving yhe global economy into a ditch.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 3:08pm
People in urban areas were thrown into the ditch. So far they haven’t responded with hatred of racial minorities.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 3:45pm
I've just gotten back from a vacation in Florida to visit my parents. While there we discussed our choice of ice creme flavors, mint chocolate chip or vanilla. What does ice creme choice have to do with racism? I'm sure you have a complete story to explain why what ever ice creme flavor I or my parents or anyone picks illustrates their relative degree of racism.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 4:20pm
Ocean-Kat, race plays a critical role in Trump’s maintains his base
Race played a role in Trump’s election
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/15/16781222/trump-racism-economic-anxiety-study
Obama voters switched to Trump because of racial bias
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
The Russians knew that race could be used to hack the 2016 election. They will repeat the hack in 2020.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-documents-reveal-desire-sow-racial-discord-violence-u-s-n1008051
Race is playing a critical role in the run up to the 2020 election
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/opinion/trump-obama-race.html
Do you have data that says race did not play n important role?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 5:05pm
A new study of white Iowa voters who switched from Obama to Trump indicates that they were motivated by race
https://psmag.com/news/new-study-confirms-again-that-race-not-economics-drove-former-democrats-to-trump
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 5:36pm
Race is everything to you. Racism is all you think about. No matter what the subject your response is it's racism. What ever we talk about all you have to add or discuss is racism. That's why I'm sure if I blogged about my trip to Florida and my choice of mint chocolate chip ice creme and my parents eating vanilla you'd explain how race played a critical role in that decision.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 7:17pm
Ocean- kat. Race is an important factor. Race is so important that the Russians knew they could use racial divisions as a means of hacking our election. The Russian hack is not being addressed by Congress or Trump. The Russians are coming for the elections again in 2020. Whether you like it or not, race is important. Multiple studies show that Trump voters were motivated by race. We can laugh about ice cream or we can admit that race is going to be important. You choose to look away.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:32pm
It's not just important to you. Race is everything to you. Racism is all you think about. No matter what the subject your response is it's racism. What ever we talk about all you have to add or discuss is racism. That's why I'm sure if I blogged about my trip to Florida and my choice of mint chocolate chip ice creme and my parents eating vanilla you'd explain how race played a critical role in that decision.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:55pm
I was trying to say the same thing the other day by asking: doesn't anything that's not about race interest rmrd? I was even recalling how "barefooted" tried to get him to talk about wine once when the unrelenting myopia and preachiness of it all was getting on nerves.
Then Flavius says he wants to hear it. And all one needs sometimes is one person who likes what you are doing, out of many who give you a bad review about how you are going about things, to keep going. Whatcha gonna do....it's a free country. And we are free to give our opinion about how counterproductive we think tribal activities are, especially when most of the tribe is missing in action...
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:10pm
What is your master plan to pull people out of the Trump tribe?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:38pm
Yeah, I know. I'm happy to discuss race but jeez, does every fucking thread have to be about it. Isn't there any other subject in the whole world worth a conversation other than racism.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 10:19pm
The candidates know that 2020 will be about race. Race will be front and center.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/politics/2020-democrats-race-policy.html
Race is not discussed in every thread.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 10:44pm
Race is not discussed in every thread.
Just every thread you post on.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 10:48pm
Why should that matter? In the case of the Presidential race, the racial biases of Trump voters are important. We are told that we need to appeal to these voters. How can we appeal if we pretend that it was economics that drove them from the Democratic Party? They realize they are being hurt by Trump policies, but want to take out anger on immigrants. They are willing to pay more for goods and suffer loss of sales of goods to China as long as the Chinese are getting punched in the face. How can voters with those attitudes be appeased?
There are “In the News” posts about black maternal health care, the rural-urban divide, the segregation of suburban areas. I have a different view of these issues. I provide links to support my views. Race remains important.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 11:01pm
Why should that matter?
Because talking about the same thing over and over and over again bores me. Do you realize I don't even bother reading your posts?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 11:11pm
Yes, it's the same exact thing over and over, preaching to the choir. But the mystifying thing in this case is that: there is no choir here!. So one is left to presume he just thinks us few readers are stupid and that's why the same memes are repeated a gazillion times, as if he can knock it into us by repetition. (PP used my mom's favorite the other day "will you just stop, you sound like a broken record!"). I can only think of these conclusions: he thinks we are stupid; he thinks we are racists and that haranguing us will change us; he thinks of us as guinea pigs to try out different ways of saying the same thing and how we react, to hone his sermons for another venue. I find it especially insulting when it's a hijack off topic.
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 11:34pm
I said that Trump voters are racially biased. You respond by trying to find data that says racism isn’t a factor in the votes Trump receives. You ignore the fact that his polling numbers are rock steady, and try to let his supporters off the hook. You also divert by posting a poll that shows Democrats are willing to support minority candidates. You say that we need to appease Trump voters because a small percentage will break away. He kidnapped babies, communicated with Russians, had associates indicted, has the worst cabinet in history, profits from his business while in office, and his poll numbers are rock steady.
You see all this and say we can appease Trump voters. You post about things like the black maternal mortality rate, something that came to public attention by black women protesting and then turn around and yammer about pity olympics.
You have nothing that shows the the fever among Trump voters is breaking, or what will make them vote for Democrats
I talked about Trump voters, and you take as a personal attack.
My opinion, Democratic candidates need to energize their base and do outreach to Independents. It worked in 2018. The fever may break for some Trump supporters if they associate high prices with Trump’s tariffs. When we see a fall in Trump’s support numbers, there may be some hope.
i don’t know why you feel a personal attack when I mention the reality of the Trump voter.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 1:05am
If economics is not the major factor in the vote for Trump, what is your plan to convert supporters to Democratic Party voters?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:36pm
Well looks like hardly anyone finds vanilla ice cream exciting anymore:
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:20pm
That data concerns Democratic voters. I was showing data related to Trump supporters.
Biden is ahead in key early voting states including South Carolina. Biden is at 46% while Harris is 10% in South Carolina
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-lot-of-americans-say-they-dont-want-a-president-who-is-over-70-really/
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:39pm
Sounds to me you like Victim Olympics. Instead of saying "yay!", you have a lot vested in making sure everyone thinks all white voters are racist in some way and life is going to remain the cruelest for those of color.
I, on the other hand, would tend to surmise that some of this Harris is 10% in South Carolina is about not trusting a fancy schmancy hoity toity California cosmopolitan type who also happens to have been a prosecutor and who has immigrant parents from strange foreign cultures like India and Jamaica
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:23pm
PP, Your comment reminded me of how I have seen you more than once express puzzlement about the hardly moving Trump approval rating day in, day out, no matter what the ruckus or reveal about him. My own feeling about that has always been that it's not a mystery to me, that it makes sense in that I think presidential approval polls are nearly always really about:
it's the economy stupids
(unless there is some uncontroversial major war effort like Gulf War I or an attack on the country like 9/11).
More specifically the unemployment rate.
Over the decades that I've paid attention It seems to me that unemployment rate has a direct correlation with presidential approval. People care about it more than anything else, and they care about it a lot even if it doesn't affect them, it threatens to affect them, it's part of their psyche, it's about whether they can feel confident in their own person at work , whether they can feel they can complain or quit, it's about whether they feel empowered or not, whether they have value or are just another piece of meat that "the man" can abuse. Same goes for their friends and family, they don't like to see them treated like disposables but like they can offer something of value.
So as president you can get away with all kinds of shit as long as the unemployment is low. And inflation isn't so high as to make most jobs worthless.
I see evidence for my belief here. Some of these people, they may not vote for Trump again, but they give him approval now because there is low unemployment. They got jobs = they got nothing against this president, he's keeping it together. Just because he's doing that and they approve doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for someone who could both chew gum and walk at the same time. On the other hand, if the other candidate threatens in some way to upset the rising tide, no way will they vote for him/her:
P.S. I think it also behooves to keep in mind that it's common that non-political people don't really "like" of "approve of" any elected politician, they dislike all of them and don't approve of their chosen profession, like with lawyers, they think they are all crooks or jerks. (And it's also common to think of them as narcissist bloviators, so what's new about that to them?) I think many say they "approve" or "don't approve" of the job the president is doing depending upon whether they and everyone they know has a job full time if they want one. I think it is just that simple. Because too often since WWII that's not been the case.And especially in rural and rust belt areas. Right now the job market must seem miraculous to some long term unemployed, and I can understand some of them thinking ill of those that might upset their applecart by attacking Trump. It's not like they are fans, it's more like voodoo, i.e., don't you dare hurt the man who is doing this....
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:49pm
The new Pew report does have info on GOP primary voters. In stressing that the majority still wants Trump, the writer here is underplaying the quite considerable number that would welcome a challenger, 43%!
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:01pm
Ocean-kat, FWIW I notice a lot of the financial trend spotter types talking about, predicting millennials moving to small towns for the cheap rent both personal and business (examples in my own field, already happening: art/antique/collectibles dealers, sell online, need cheap storage for inventory.).So sure, there's an example of your change in the demography again, if it happens. It really is true that the only constant is change. But that would be like: 10 years.Which doesn't help much with 2020. And keep in mind the urban vs. rural trend is huge right now, worldwide, ironically in the end a protest against too rapid change by folks who can't handle that, too stressful compared to what they are used to for most of their lives.
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 1:07am
I didn't mean to disparage the post and I do find looking at and thinking about the rural divide, demographic changes, gender gaps, etc interesting. I just want to push back a bit. We, and other nations, haven't changed that much in ten years. Some of these changes are moving in opposite directions. Eventually they may begin to even each other out or one may overwhelm the other. Many of these elections are close. Even in other nations. Brexit was only a few % and Hillary did win the popular vote. A relatively small number of swing votes across the nation can result in large changes in the politicians elected. It could swing back quickly or be a trend.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 3:06am
Rodden notes the divide, but at least in a short segment on C-SPAN, does not have a solution. He noted that some European countries use proportional representation, but there appears to be little taste for this in the United States.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?460087-1/why-cities-lose
Part of the divide includes the sentiment of a Trump voter who suffers because of the tariffs
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida
and
But even though stresses on families and communities are already acute, Mr. Trump appears to have lost little of his blue-collar support here.
It is a sign of how tight a bond he has with voters who were once staunch Democrats, in an allegiance as much cultural as economic. But it also undermines the argument of the Democrats’ leading 2020 candidate, Joseph R. Biden Jr., that he would be the best nominee to win back Midwest states because of his own appeal to working-class voters.
Mr. Biden kicked off his campaign April 29 an hour from Youngstown, in Pittsburgh, where he laid down his blue-collar bona fides by appearing at a Teamsters hall and declaring, “I am a union man.”
Still, on the campaign trail, Mr. Biden has downplayed China’s global economic threat. “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man!” he exclaimed at a rally in Iowa, adding, “They’re not competition for us.”
Democrats in Youngstown said that is exactly the wrong message.
The president is “punching China in the face” with tariffs, while the “leading candidate on our side is saying China is not even an issue,” said Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat whose district includes Youngstown and who is himself a presidential candidate. “If we go into the election with that as our message, we’ll get beat again.”
aso
“The communities were cut loose and ignored and then they voted for Trump because at least he’s punching somebody in the face, and no one else is,” Mr. Ryan said.
One of those voters is Darrell Franks, a retired tool and die maker, who was once a Democrat but now votes Republican.
“What I want from a president is the rest of the world to look at him and go, ‘Don’t mess with that guy, he will get even,’” Mr. Franks said one morning in the Yankee Kitchen in Vienna Township, Ohio. “I don’t want kinder, gentler. I don’t want some female that wants her agenda.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/us/politics/trump-voters-job-layoffs.html
I don’t know how Democrats craft a message that addresses the anger in a way that is better at stoking the anger than Trump.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:04am
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 8:17pm
Just for fun weekend type reading!
Race and Ethnicity in Rural America, 11 page PDF
Edit to add: including on page 4 that
with graphs and maps following
by artappraiser on Thu, 05/23/2019 - 9:37pm
AA suggested that I hijacked the post. My links to polling about the racial bias was in direct response to a post suggesting that the rural-urban divide was based on economic stress. Multiple studies indicate that racial bias among Trump voters was a more important factor than economics among Trump voters. If the Democratic Party is going to do outreach to Trump voters they will need to understand basic facts about Trump voters.
The economic stress meme is a myth.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 1:23am
So let her fucking do a thread ad on *non-racial* issues for once - yeah, those exist, and if the article doesn't mention race, keep it out for once or start your own diary. Too many goddamn times.
We get it, race exists in America. Race problems exist in Anerica.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 2:12am
The Rural-Urban divide as discussed in Rodden’s book is not a non-racial issue.
https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/jonathan-a-rodden/why-cities-lose/9781...
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jonathan-rodden/why-cities-lose/
Race is a part of the discussion.
Edit to add:
Rodden’s book doesn’t come out until June 4th, but here are comments by Rodden in a NYT article from 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/opinion/republicans-democrats-trump-urban-rural.html
Wow , he even makes a connection to slavery.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 8:41am
So go write a diary on his fucking book.
You are such a fucking idiot.
There is *0* mention of "race", "racial" or "black" in the NY Times article that started this thread.
If you want to drag another conversation off into racial land, start it yourself. Other people want to discuss other aspects now and then.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 9:13am
The Rural-Urban divide fuels the Trump supporter-Democratic Party chasm. Rodden sees the solution as proportional voting. Because the current system benefits Republicans, there is zero possibility of a change in the way elections occur. The only other option is converting Trump supporters into Democrats. How do we convert those voters if racial bias is more important than economic stress in why they cast their votes? That would seem to be a rational question that that needs to be answered. What appeal do we make to Trump supporters if economic stress is not a motivator? Trump’s numbers at 538, for example, have it decreased. Your solution?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 9:48am
You continually focus on a straw man of someone out there saying that the Dems are trying to win over voters who are still diehard Trump fans. No one is doing that or saying that. It is the case that some are working at winning over types that voted for Obama and then Trump and in the end weren't happy with either. Others are thinking about preventing Trump getting re-elected because swing voters find the new Dem candidate so odious to them policy-wise that they hold their nose and vote for Trump again
I see you as continually doing this over and over: you have this sick desire to make a narrative where every single person who voted for Trump is a vile racist and must be pointed out, labeled and punished somehow. You sometimes modify your language to sound less crazed, but you eventually lapse back into this thought crime terrority, in order to verify your fears that there are all these evil people out there. It's very clear reading you over time that you don't think any Trump voters are not racists. To the point of scaring yourself silly sometimes. This is counterproductive in democracy where to win elections, one must build bridges wherever one can. I think you would be much happier as a card carrying member of the Communist Party in China than the U.S. Democratic party, where people who don't think right like the majority are sent to re-education camps until they do.
For more than a quarter of a century now, it's clear to the Democratic party that they are not going to get 1/3 of the votes in the country, the conservatives. And they don't go after those. Nothing has changed about that. I don't see how you think someone is advising they try. No one is saying that.
In addition, some conservative Republicans are against Trump (i.e., the Kochs many never Trumpers who have left the GOP). I don't see the Democratic party or any pundits suggesting Dems trying to go after them, either. If they want to vote Dem as a protest, fine, not going to look a gift horse in the mouth. I get the impression that you, on the other hand, would like to forbid them from voting Dem....
racist straw men everywhere, tired of arguing they ain't real, over and over and over...for two years, same topic from you, and a delusional one at that.
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 1:37pm
Democrats went after Democratic voters in rural areas who had been ignored. These Democrats were forgotten until the 2018 midterms
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/16/democrats-midterms-results-lessons-2020-presidential-election
Democrats have a plan that can be repeated in 2020. There are Republicans who dislike Trump enough to vote for a Democratic candidate. That is not a response to a Democratic message, that is a rejection of Trump.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 4:09pm
You seem to be saying that racism is the motivation and "economic stress is not a motivator." People, even simple people with little education and knowledge are complex. They have multiple motivations. A good case can be made that economic stress increases racism as simple people seek scapegoats for their struggles. That seems to be a large part of the anti immigrant bias. So should we focus superficially on the symptom of that racism or look at the underlining cause, economic stress.
by ocean-kat on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 2:43pm
What I am saying is that they are willing to ride out the financial hardship, as noted by the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/business/economy/farmers-trump-trade.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Trump’s poll numbers are not going down per 538.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
Other groups are undergoing similar economic stress and are not using their situation to justify racism.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 3:52pm
The real (surprisingly comforting) reason rural America is doomed to decline .
by ocean-kat on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 4:56pm
yeah, I've seen lot of articles like that. It's the rents and the internet making remote work not just possible, but if you are selling anything, more like required. The kiddies are leaving places like NYC and SanFran in droves as the grind of paying the rent on a shithole grows tiresome and they want to live like humans. And when they do, they basically "gentrify" wherever they go.
One sticking point: the rural areas that have shitty internet access and communications still. Until that's fixed, it's out of the loop,and therefore still stays an area of luddites, hermits with few jobs. But I know you know that scenario well, ain't telling you nothing on that front, Mr. Ghost Town.
I know for a fact it is seriously happening with art gallery businesses that never wanted part of the big bullshit art market to begin with, those that like represent just Joe Schmo artists. Or sell art books. Or antiques. They are moving to like little town in Georgia or Maine. Why not? Quality of life.
Shipping costs have become exorbitant though, the major sticking point with this trend. USPS is truly subsidizing Amazon and going broke doing so (just saw an article again the other day.). FedEx, UPS prices if you can't negotiate a discount: through the roof.
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 5:47pm
Interesting article, but I don’t know that I entirely agree with it, although there are fundamental flaws in how we elect a President.
I think that the deregulation of our airwaves (fairness doctrine) is how we got to where we are now. Our democracy has been fundamentally changed because of the spectacle nature of media, because that is what sells. Without Fox or CNN or MSNBC or CBN, whatever Pat Robertson is doing, has lead to all this. Is it a Rural Urban divide, somewhat, is it a latitude divide, somewhat, but all of that is a result of pervasive propaganda in our media that convinces all of us, we are different from them.
Fundamentally, we aren’t different, not as people, going to work every day, going home at the end of the day, making dinner, doing the dishes, starting the dryer with the close you forgot to dry last night, getting ready for bed, watching some TV and passing out. We aren’t different, but we have been lead to believe we are different and so we don’t trust each other. This is bad and it’s hurting the entire nation maybe even the world. I really do blame propaganda which leads us all to buy into certain stereotypes i.e., your from the south so your racist, you’re from Seattle so you’re a vegan, you’re a farmer you wear dungarees, I don’t know the list goes on. In reality those media companies and other large corporate entities, need us to hate each other, to be wary of each other, that way we aren’t really watching out for the people who are really screwing us over.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 5:43pm
Thanks TMac for the fine essay about how the ginned up tribalism is bullshit.
I would just like to add: in addition to everyone going to work and doing the dishes, sometimes seems to me like everyone is also watching the same Netflix! What is actually going on is a much more rapid sharing of culture change than ever before. It's really very tough to stay an isolated tribe these days. There has never been a time, for example, when as many white people knew about stuff from black culture and appreciated it and followed it in sports or music. Those that are angry, I tend to think that for most of them it's just too much too fast....overwhelming, hence a crazy desire to turn back the clock. But not really, ask great granny if she'd give up her cell phone and ability to see the great grandkids video and she'd day no.
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 5:55pm
Thanks AA.. excuse my typos and the stupid autocorrection of close from clothes, which I probably misspelled but damn it, i was on my phone!
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 6:17pm
Tmac, a critical mass of Democrats won their elections by identifying people who had never been sought out by the Democratic Party. Georgia Republicans realized this and managed to steal an election out in the open from Stacey Abrams.
Regarding Republican voters, I find that when you approach Republicans with facts, they often double down on their support for Trump. There are some who become disgusted enough with Trump that they leave on their own. I haven't seen a high volume of Trump voters leave the GOP because they got an awakening after something said by a Democrat. Never Trumpers fall into this category.
I cite the polls that show that race was a major factor in the vote for Trump. Republican voters are angry, they feel left behind. They want revenge on minorities, Gays, women, etc. Many are willing to suffer higher prices to punch the Chinese in the face.
Democrats repeatedly tried reaching out to Republicans to convert them. The result, Democrats lost those races. In 2018 they looked for people willing to listen to a Democratic message even in rural areas, they won seats in unexpected areas in the North, Midwest, and West. There were a couple of victories in Virginia, and Lucy McBath won in Florida. GOP attempts to repeal Obamacare was a major factor in 2018. The impact of the tariffs may be the factor in 2020.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/6/18070396/midterm-elections-2018-live-results-house-seats-flip
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-democrats-choice-the-midterm-elections-and-the-road-to-2020/
Democrats will campaign in the South, but I doubt there will be major progress. The Democrats can reach out to voters. who were not energized by Hillary. Virginia maybe in play.
I see outreach to Democrats who need to be energized as a better option than converting Republicans.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 11:48pm
You aren’t making the connection with what you wrote rm, but it perfectly illustrates what I wrote. You too, are all in on the great American political divide. But regardless of what you write, we aren’t different. Regular people wouldn’t take such joy in our division if they understood who is playing the strings of our marionette lives.
You’re saying that all people think about is race and punching others in the face, etc, I’m saying the reason people are acting like this is because of our inability to fight propaganda that has insidiously infiltrated our lives. I know you’re all in on the division because you sit here all day and argue with AA, PP and Kat, who are actually on your side! Holy shit, but because they don’t agree 100% with your thesis’s you see it as a worthwhile cause to continually argue on the internets with them. Trust me, they are your allies not your enemies. You’re arguing with them because that is the nature of the corporatization of America, you too are playing right into the hands of those people who need to keep us divided so they can continue to take advantage of our division.
While many issues do come down to race, why do they come down to race? Because the media conglomerates and corporate America get their way when we are fighting with each other, they get tax breaks and payoffs through lobbying, etc. Have you ever really listened to the folks on CNN or MSNBC? Are they really that different than those folks on Fox? They all present Trumps latest bullshit in that breathless way, which is always a lie with some tiny embedded truth, which is propaganda. How many times do they predict someone going to jail and that Trump would be indicted by Mueller, and that Pence will be impeached with Trump because of some misreading of the US Constitution. I repeat, they all need us to hate each other and it doesn’t matter why.
There are real societal issues we must solve, i.e. climate change, prescription drug costs, etc and so on, but because we are so divided we ain’t ever going to do anything about those issues. Those issues should draw us together but they don’t because of propaganda.
Honestly, you can continue to argue with PP, AA and Kat all day long, and they with you, but if we were all being honest, this is what corporate America needs, they need us to be wary of each other, they need us to not trust each other, because if we didn’t we’d all get together and we’d have basic universal health care, drug price controls, modern roads and better public transportation, and other things, we’d have the things that make us better as a nation. We don’t because we let them media tell us every day that we are so different, we can never, ever be together again.. That is playing right into the hands of our enemies.
by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 05/25/2019 - 9:01am
I do think that the discussions on MSNBC are much different than the discussions on Fox. I reject the premise that both sides do it. Democrats are reluctant to impeach Trump because they do not want to offend people who still support Trump or who haven’t come to the conclusion that Trump should be impeached. Republicans would have started impeachment against Obama and Hillary a long time ago.
Fox brings on abominations and stereotypes like Diamond and Silk to represent the black community. The black pundits on MSNBC come with a fund of knowledge, not a Step N Fetchit act. We already have coalitions among what I call the tribes, Ocasio-Cortez appears with Elizabeth Warren. AOC works with Omar and Presley. Pelosi, so far, has manage to herd the cats that make up the Democratic Party. There is unity on condemning kidnapping of children, strengthening health care, fighting voter suppression, fighting to increase minimum wages, funding Puerto Rico, etc.
What I see on the other side of the aisle is obstruction, assaults on women’s rights, a cavalier attitude about Russian hacking, etc. We all have access to the same media. We select media based on what represents our core values.
We are not the same. I will ask again, how many Trump supporters have you seen convert because of a Democratic message. I have seen Republicans walk away from Trump because they are disgusted, not because of a Democratic epiphany.
I wish things were as rosy as you paint the picture. Martin Luther King Jr prayed for the souls of the white supremacists, but he did not give up the fight. I think there that Democrats will do better by going after Democratic voters who have overlooked than by going after Trump supporters.
The tariffs may awaken some Trump supporters but I can’t think of a Democratic message that will change minds.
by rmrd0000 on Sat, 05/25/2019 - 10:42am
Where did she say Democrats should go after current actual Trump supporters? Where did anyone say that? Why would anyone suggest going after fans of any presidential candidate, seems like a waste of time. The whole idea of campaigning is to go after the undecideds and the wavering and unsure.
And just curious: what are you going to do when Trump is gone and you don't have him to define your enemy tribe for you?
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/25/2019 - 1:04pm
P.S. An example: political science instructions right here on how to win over conservatives and moderates to progressive economic policies, and how progressives lose by how they frame things and turn moderates and conservatives off. How you frame things without initially turning people off to listening is what campaigning is all about.
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/25/2019 - 1:50pm
Trump is simply a symptom of a Republican Party that was already racially biased.Once Trump leaves, there will be others to take his place. Republicans were silent on kidnapping babies, ignoring the Russian hack, giving cover to Barr, etc. The Republican tribe will remain.
To get back to the post, which focuses on an urban-rural divide. It is impossible to imagine race not being in the discussion. I expressed my opinion that Democrats should go after neglected Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents. Urban means higher education and more diverse. Rural is more white. Immigrants and minorities tend to concentrate it cities. To be told that the article does not mention race is laughable. It also ignores what Rodden says in other articles.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/opinion/republicans-democrats-trump-urban-rural.html
Democrats can win votes in rural areas, there are Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters in those areas. Rodden is fully aware of racial and cultural bias. You want to ignore reality. Race is at the core of the rural-urban divide.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 8:50pm
Race is at the core of the rural-urban divide.
Um no. That's why they call it the rural-urban divide and not part of any black vs. white divide.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 9:57pm
p.s. Second time I posted this: Race and Ethnicity in Rural America. On the first page there are two wheel charts that show the mixture in rural areas is not extremely different from the nation as a whole.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 10:47pm
AA’s right rm, I never wrote anything about trying to attract Trump voters, nothing, zero, nada.
I’m afraid you don’t see it, you’re deep into Us vs Them, but doesn’t it tire you? Are you tired of disliking and hating people? Are you tired of seeing everyone as an enemy? Have you ever asked yourself why those channels are feeding into that hatred creating and then exasperating the great American divide? You’re a smart guy, but this propaganda is so ingrained in our modern lives even you can’t break away from it, so how is some dumb Fox viewer going to break away from it?
If you can’t see that those things exist to keep us divided, to keep us from enacting good laws that benefit everyone, I don’t have any hope for this country at all. It’s too bad, but FYI, CNN, MSNBC, they don’t exist to inform the public of anything, they exist to make money for the corporation that owns them. They are ruining America and too many people dont care about that, but I am not going to see everyone as my enemy, even if they voted for the Mamalade Mussolini. I am definitely going to keep talking about the spectacle nature of those channels and corporate entities that can only exist and control our civilization by keeping America divided. That is why corporations keep winning, why they control tax laws, why we don’t have universal health care or basic health care, and they will keep doing this until we turn the tide on our own, until we stop corporations from controlling us like marionettes on a string.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 9:03am
Twitter's a flutter today over Maggie & the NY Times saying Hope Hicks has an "existential question" since "now she must decide whether to talk to Congress". Like if she didn't look like a model, her "existential question" would be "will the court marshal bang on my door at 6am tomorrow and throw my crooked conniving & pampered ass in jail, or will he wait til noon, or will I do the sane thing and just obey the subpoena?" - with a picture of Hope looking pretty and demurely looking down somewhere off-camera. How come they only caught Hillary in awkward poses between mouthfuls or mid-sentence in a speech? Fait and balanced... So Corsi and Barr and all these other creeps just get encouraged to disobey the law - brilliant, guys... while Reality Winner's serving more time than everyone for actually leaking stuff we needed to know that was on its way to being suppressed (plus either set up by the Intercept or felled by their repeated incompetence).
No, NYT's not as bad as Fox, but it's certainly bad enough to piss us all off quite frequently.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 10:06am
There is no solution to what you are angry about as regards to this type of thing and how you think Hillary was unfairly branded. And I think it different than what TMac is talking about, the media cos. ramping up tribalization and/or passionate partisanship because it sells, it makes money. (And nothing new about the latter since talk radio of the late 80's, the more outrageous the more hooked people got.)
It's branding and marketing of candidates and its not going away, rather the playing field has grown much more complex than just the MSM as every Jack and Jill thinks about branding themselves on Instagram and curating their public persona now. The MSM was always just trying to find memes and dramas that got people reading their paper or tuning into their channel. But they will continue to have less influence and social media, from the streets up, will have more. The Hillary's of the world got to learn how to brand themselves like Obama knew how he was going to brand himself since he set his goal on the White House (rock star.)
There's no getting around this, PP. A popularity contest is not "fair". And in a democracy where we do not have poll testing, like-ability and personality branding and physical appearance and real drama and fake drama are going to count big time.
This is all different from what I expect from members on a site like Dagblog. We are unashamed elite. But it is what comes with democracy. It's in old graffitti from the Roman empire, i..e., Senator so-and-so is an ugly prick. And less and less can we blame the MSM, more and more they are actually running about trying to decode all the spin bubbling from the street up.
Meanwhile the likeable thing grows ever more important. As in "liking" a post. It's power to get "likes". I've even seen you complain about a poverty of "likes" on another site.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 11:09am
p.s. Can't make the masses eat their oatmeal and read dry white paper analysis, there's no way around that. No way to make the bias most have towards more attractive and charming people go away either.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 11:11am
When I was growing up, pretty people were still largely expected to follow the law and would still be jailed. Now it's media picking winners and losers for court summons. That's not branding themselves - this is an extension of the Scooter Libby and Colin Powell social club, who's in, who's out - the beautiful people, the country club set, the Martha's Vineyard summer homes. That's part of why Barr's had it so easy, part of why the entrenched political media thing seems to never actually challenge anyone. It's part of why Trump was so poorly vetted - too familiar a face on the scene, wealth and parties - no one wants the parties to stop.
And yes, NYTimes & WaPo took a transparently poorly documented oppo paper, "Clinton Cash", and pumped it to the front page with multiple stories. 0 kudos for their supposed adults-in-the-room reputation.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 2:23pm
When I was growing up, pretty people were still largely expected to follow the law and would still be jailed
Not in politics. Kennedy family: ring a bell?...
I think you need a refresh on the cynicism front, falling for a little too much for the good people vs. bad people thing. Go re-watch Primary Colors, that might help.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 3:07pm
And I was thinking of personal Kennedy things only, after a minute or two, I also thought of things like appointing one's brother as Attorney General: no big deal.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 3:08pm
I didn't say there weren't double standards or privilege, but Chappaquiddick would never leave Ted - every time he had an "existential question", it was right there. And that's built on a family with a large degree of political & financial success - Times is playing cute with Hope Hicks because... she's cute? or why else? They didn't even send goddamn reporters down to Quantico to cover the Bradly Manning trial - FireDogLake & EmptyWheel were doing all the citizen journalism for that. Reality Winner didn't get any media love over the tough choice she made only to be screwed by the paper that should have protected her. But now the princess from Connecticut who lied to Congress and others and enabled Trump for years gets a by and some loving pictures - why?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 3:11pm
People like pretty people, we all know that. It isn’t fair, as AA says, but that’s the way it is. And you know what I am not the only person who thinks all those fake news stations, Fox, CNN, MSNBC are hurting America.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/birthing-centers-for-polarizing-rhetoric-the-outsize-influence-of-fox-cnn-and-msnbc/2019/05/23/2bcc429a-7cbe-11e9-8ede-f4abf521ef17_story.html
They are all making this situation worse. How many people do we need to see yelling at each other? We don’t need to see any; that is the real answer. This is how corporations control the population and their gain is money and that’s what is behind all of this. They will continue to benefit by keeping us all divided.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 1:56pm
This is ridiculous. it's the kind of left wing rant I totally disagree with and hate. There are very real divisions in this country. To look at the most recent example the abortion laws passed in many conservative states. Cable news didn't create that disagreement. At the most they take advantage of the disagreement to push their news coverage and monetize their brand. The fight over abortion existed before cable news and the internet existed. There are several other real differences between people on the issues. They're real. They're not caused by cable news.
Then there's the both sides do it part of your argument. While cable news might spin the story to match the views of their viewers none of them are fake news. Even fox news people as contrasted by their opinion people aren't fake. News people like Chris Wallace are putting out real news with a conservative spin. Just as MSNBC put out real news with a liberal spin. Yes there are some on fox that engage in fake news. Hannity, Carlson, Pirro, Ingraham traffic in lies and demagoguery. While that does taint the whole network it's different than the work Wallace does and there are no equivalents on the left in the MSM and left leaning cable news.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 4:47pm
My point isn’t that both sides do it, my point is Fox and CNN and MSNBC are on the same side that is pushing propaganda which further divides us. That isn’t both sides, corporations are one side only, that is their own side, the side of money.
The more we argue with each other, is exactly what they want, exactly what they need. I’m just surprised that so many people on the progressive/liberal side can’t see it.
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 6:47pm
Arguing with each other is the natural way of things. Trump supporters are not going to give up. Appeasement means giving int it Trump’s authoritarian administration. How do you see us making progress without argument?
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 8:54pm
I can't even fathom thinking like that. Increased divisiveness from people screaming at each other rather than communicating is cited every day as the reason nothing is getting done and most blame Trump's trolling for it. Simple math requires bipartisan agreement to get bills passed in Congress.
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 10:03pm
AA, bipartisanship is not magic. Democrats in Congress have passed bills. Mitch McConnell will not take up the bills in the Senate. This is not both sides do it. We have serious political differences.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 6:41pm
well gosh darn with this comment you just totally convinced me that I was wrong and supporting arguing more and more divisiveness is the solution.And I've got to admit your arguments (of simplistic dogma combined with ignoratio elenchi technique*) on Dagblog are so incredibly successful at convincing others here. Not.
Edit to add: *telling me something I well know and you know I well know, instead of continuing to address that which we talked about and gave our opinion. Why even bother? That's the mystery. Why not just let your statement and my statement stand? Why do you feel it necessary to continually go on to another harangue that is only vaguely related? To lecture me? Or to get more argument? Do you think I will take the lecturing well? Is it intended for some phantom reader out there? Or what?
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 7:30pm
The question is why do you keep repeating that simple math says bipartisanship is the only solution if you know that it is not going to happen because of Republican obstruction?
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 10:02pm
I’m just surprised that so many people on the progressive/liberal side can’t see it.
How condescending. You're just so fucking smart that you see what so many other people on the progressive/liberal side can't. You weren't smart enough to comprehend my post and respond to it. So why should I believe you can see what so many people on the progressive/liberal side can’t see. I'm surprised that you see something that isn't there. Actually I'm not surprised. Your posts are evidence there are conspiracy theorists on the left as well as the right.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 9:17pm
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 2:20pm
PP, you putting up these sassy comparisons made me realize exactly why the Times' choice of picture did not bother me in the least: the message it gives me, and many others, I am sure: this is a very shallow person who mostly cares about her looks, and perhaps similarly mundane things, a Melania type person.
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 5:38pm
Yeah, I ran out of potential sympathy for Melania about a year ago as well - shallow just no longer seemed to cut it as an excuse for society-destroying moral vacuity.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/28/2019 - 12:56pm
If you are not going after Trump voters, who is Us and who is Them?
Edit to add:
Rural vs urban brings certain imagery
MSNBC viewers vs Fox New viewers brings up certain imagery
Rural areas favored Trump
Urban areas favored Clinton
Fox is a Trump stronghold
MSNBC is more identified with Clinton and Obama
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 9:39pm
Who is Us and who is Them. You already know the answer, Us is everyone but Them is also everyone, which is the very problem with thinking in those terms.
by tmccarthy0 on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 9:51am
Makes absolutely no sense. There are people willing to lock children seeking asylum in cages. There are people willing to ignore Russian hacking. There are others taking steps to address these things. We are not the same. The rural-urban divide involves race. If you can’t see that, you aren’t equipped to deal with the problem. You are simply avoiding the issue because it makes you, personally, uncomfortable.
If a person feels that abortion is murder, rape and incest are not exceptions for an abortion. You cannot appease that person. That person ‘s moral code is simply different than your code. It is a line in the sand for them.
On a larger scale, the argument parallels Trump’s there were “good people” on both sides.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 2:45pm
I have no idea what sort of point you're trying to make. It sounds like pollyannish bullshit to me. There are several major issues that divide the nation, and the world. Here's another example: I accept that science has enough convincing evidence that the climate is warming, that it is human caused, and that it will have catastrophic effects. I/we are part of a like minded group. We are not everyone. There are those who don't accept the findings of science on climate change. We want to limit the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. They do not. We are part of a group with similar views that are different, often diametrically opposed, to those in the other group. The policy goals each group seeks to pass are in opposition to each other. This is just one of several issues that the American people fracture over.
Everything you've posted in this thread sounds stupid to me. Like some New Age nonsense. Or perhaps you just never learned how to properly understand and use pronouns.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 3:35pm
Tmac, when it comes to race, many people have convinced themselves that we are dealing with isolated incidents. A post about the high black maternal mortality rate can be posted. Another about injustices in the legal system. Another about voter suppression, another about police abuse. They are all considered individual problems. They are not viewed as systemic problems. Because blinders are on, the racial aspect of an urban-rural divide can be completely ignored, because we talk about race “too much”. We degenerate into “both sides do it”, or pity olympics to divert from the structural problems.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 6:38pm
A breakdown of "key social and political issues" by age instead, from Pew in January, just tweeted by Frank Luntz. I suspect he tweeted it because the subtitle to the article is Among Republicans, Gen Z stands out in views on race, climate and the role of government. But the full article has lot more than just that, including lots of charts.
by artappraiser on Fri, 05/24/2019 - 8:35pm
Interesting stuff AA. I wonder if Frank Luntz read that entire thing!
by tmccarthy0 on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 9:04am
I still don't think space age Kennedy-era births are quite WWII "boomers", and I'd put Gen-Z as 2000 or 9/11 and after - always having Google search to "you can look it up", & especially 8 years old when iPhone/Android started becoming big - i.e. childhood all warped by social media and being online & traceable, along with 1st black president about same time [not sure the 2008 crash was as traumatic for them as sometimes posited]
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 5:19pm
In Andrew Sullivan's latest column, there is this section on urban vs. rural in Australia's latest elections (even tho most of the article is on the UK, it also bounces to Modi's election in India and the EU parliament elections):
from Good-bye, Theresa. Hello, Boris?, May 24
by artappraiser on Sun, 05/26/2019 - 9:46pm
This tweet yelled at me "there's an elephant in the room that's being ignored." That is: the folks who are passionate about their religion. He's the Senior Demographer @ Pew:
by artappraiser on Mon, 05/27/2019 - 5:14pm