The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    When the dogs stopped eating the dog food.

    By Flavius on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 6:24am |

    Ocean-kat asked 'Why did HIllary do better than Feingold in Wisconsin. But why did he lose and so did she.As she did elsewhere even though she did better than many other democrats on the ticket '

    Bernie was right that Hillary was  somewhat  to the right of many of his supporters. AOBTW of Russ Feingold and of many others of our candidates this year. She did better than him and them ,not despite being to their right but because of it.

    One more time. Yes Hillary was further right than Bernie. And his supporters.But that wasn't what cost her the election.

    Economics. Take off your socks because you'll need to use your toes  and  fingers  for counting.

    We had a Recession. Remember.I call it the Ayn Greenspan (AG for short) Recession. You could also call it the Depression that didn't quite happen. Here.But we came close. And much of the EU didn't just come close,

    It happened.AOBTW that slow-motion EU Recession slowed down our recovery long enough to tar this year's democratic candidates. But I get ahead of myself. 

    Going back.

    In a fit of absent mindedness AG let the subprime perversion develop a full head of steam.  No secret. Dean Baker offered a prize tied to acknowledging it was coming. Shiller used to occasionally address meetings of

    the New York Fed. Until Geithner became Chairman. By accident at  Geithner's  first meeting as Chairman Shiller gave one of those  occasional addresses  and explained that by all historical precedents the Real Estate market was oversold and was going south.

    Wasn't invited back.

    What has to happen, happens and the dogs stopped eating the dog food. And McMansions stopped being sold with  mortgages cleverly  syndicated. And the risk- distribution theoretically  achieved by slicing and dicing was found  to have been mostly  unachieved when e.g. AIG  insured them.

    Prompting AG to say he never believed bankers could take such risks  altho one could argue if wasn't "bankers" who took the risk, they'd shifted it to the market where AIG incredibly created a risk by unsyndicating

    the syndicated  sub- prime mortgages. 

    As Gillian Tett understood (perhaps because she's an anthropologist ) and explained, at the time, in the FT.

    Still reading?

    You may remember the brief revolt when the AIG unsyndictors got million dollar bonuses after Obama  took AIG over and saved its' and their nether extremities.

    With US real estate not just heading south but gone so far it looked like North, dog food and everything else headed south too to the extent that Spain's balanced budget  wasn't proof against 20% unemployment.

    Now comes  history. Yawn. You could skip here and go down several paragraphs. You might get lucky.

    Back around 1900 the  "classical" economists ( Marshall is usually mentioned, but Keynes was one. Then.)

    believed that Recessions automatically righted themselves. Dogs stopped eating DF,  Joe Capitalist fired Joe Lunchpail. Joe agree to work for less, Cat food was reduced in price .Cats resumed eating and the economy purred back into life.

    Keynes noticed something new . Wasn't happening. Joe Lunchpail wouldn't work for less. Why ?

    Probably I'm the only one still alive, or at least the only one hanging our here at dagblog who has read

    "Middletown"  Its authors noticed  something. This.

     Workers used to get hired and fired as the Economy went up and down. When they were fired they had no money. Natch. And no debts.  Then in the 20s we began "Life on the Installment Plan."  Workers could buy a mangle , or whatever, and pay for it over time.

    Something new had happened.

    Workers now had debts.When the economy hit bottom and Joe Capitalist demanded Joe Lunchpail to work for less.,. he didn't. He had debts.

    Keynes concluded it was a whole new ball game. Recessions weren't righting themselves anymore.Someone had to do something .Keynesian economics was born and enjoyed a short happy life until stifled by Ayn Rand and devotees like, Alan Greenspan . 

    Then  came  2008 and W's Secretary of Treasury down on his knees begging Nancy Pelosi to save the economy from the stupidities of his fellow Republicans. (She  did)

    But.

    As Obama occasionally remarks,  in the month when he was inaugerated, the country was losing jobs

    at the rate of 800,000 per month.

    In less time than Trump is taking to choose between unqualified subordinates Obama assembled a "Band of Bro talents. But 4 years later when he was re- elected  unemployment still sufficiently  high that in 

    Saturday's FT Amity Schlaes  (groan ,she's back ) described it as a "disappointing recovery."

    And it was disappointing to millions , everywhere , who got laid off in 2009 and stayed that way until

    they decided to vote for Trump. So the liberal Russ Feingold was defeated because he was one of those

    (liberals, democrats,elitists,whatever) whom Joe Lunchpail was taught  to blame for his having lost his job

    in Recession that W and AG created.

     

     

    Comments

    The elephant in the room continues to be the racial breakdown. Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Muslims are working class people. Minority wealth was impacted by the housing crash in a more devastating fashion than in white households. The majority of minority working class voters saw that the Republicans had no solution. Unemployment in the black community has always been twice that of whites, but Joe Lunchpail is in despair. What message is Joe Lunchpail waiting for and how is it package so that working class minority voters who have been loyal to the Democratic Party do not get the message that they are not considered of value when it comes to what workers need to hear? When heroin was a Black problem, it was a crime. When heroin hits white New England, it is a medical condition. Blacks suffered and are suffering. In recent history, Joe Lunchpail has never cast a majority vote for Democrats. Bernie Sanders did not connect with Blacks and Latinos specifically because he saw addressing Joe Lunchpail as his primary mission. Joe Lunchpail wants to maintain his white privilege and is not interested in minority groups being his equal.

    Edit to add:

    Given the way Joe Lunchpail voted and the implications for healthcare, social justice, downsizing government with the accompanying loss of jobs in minority communities, there is very little reason for loyal Democrats in minority communities to trust Joe Lunchpail as a member of the Democratic Party. There are white voters who stayed home. These voters may be a better source of New Democrats.

    2nd Edit to add:

    While you are bending over for Joe Lunchpail, you might take a little time to note that white Trump supporters are having mini-Klan eruptions putting Swastikas on things, being total horses behinds on Delta flights, and yelling at Black workers in places like Starbucks and Michael's. In addition, Latino children are being told that they will be sent back to Mexico and black kids are being told that they will be shipped to African. There are at least two cabinet selections who believe in conversion therapy for Gays. As you are making nice with Joe Lunchpail, try to remember that people who actually voted for the Democrats are suffering a little trauma because of how Joe Lunchpail voted. Those working class people have to work beside Joe Lunchpail despite their Sadness at how Joe Lunchpail voted against his own interests and threw his minority co-workers to the wolves. Joe was the only working class voter who decided to cut his own throats but he threw his co-workers under the bus before he bled to death.

    Why is Joe willing to do himself in and take other workers with him?


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 5:04pm

    Or, put another, very old-fashioned way:

    Let's say the Democrats put nets out to catch people jumping off a cliff, and the GOP is actively slashing holes in those nets, and setting the food trucks on fire that the Dems put in place to feed the jumpers...

    Let's say the Republicans are standing at the cliff saying, "JUMP, baby JUMP, because Dems help people inferior to you!"

    And the Dems are also standing there saying, "If you will all just help each other out, we can get down the cliff using this rope ladder to get to the food trucks!

    And thousands of people jump off the cliff, fall through the holes in the net and land in a heap near the blown up food trucks.

    WOULD YOU JUMP OFF TOO?

     

    ...with humble apologies to all parents who have used this metaphor....


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 5:44pm

    Thanks for taking the time to interpret my rant.

    Edit to add:

    This crap vote cannot be normalized 


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 5:53pm

    Glad to.  Please do the same for me.  ANY TIME!  LOL


    by CVille Dem on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 6:23pm

    The message Joe want's to hear is "You're hired."

    And what we want from Joe is:his vote. Not because he's a prince among men. Because  that's  how you win elections.

    I wish  Joe were perfect. Like me. But mostly what  I wish is that he votes  with us next time.

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 9:36pm

    Flavius, my frustration is that this was clearly a white identity vote. We saw it with Brexit. We see it with Le Pen in France. 

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/world/americas/brexit-donald-trump-whi...

    Hillary got the votes of whites earning < $50K. Trump got the votes of whites making > $50K. Your Joe Lunchpail has a job. Joe voted for a racist because he felt that he wasn't being respected. White who were hurting voted for Hillary.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-don...

    ​Joe's vote ushered in a period where hate crimes are increasing his vote created a threat to my family. Additionally, there are whites who supported Hillary who are also in shock. They fear losing healthcare, destruction of unions, and a host of other ills. You might consider giving some aid and comfort to them.

    What Joe did, was not done because he was hurting. Joe acted out of vengeance. We cannot excuse or normalize the election of Trump. Joe knew exactly what he was doing. He is no different than the people who ignored white citizen's councils in the past. The Joe Lunchpail's of that era wanted a comfortable life and did not care about what harm befell his darker skinned and Jewish neighbors. Before you go chasing Joe's vote, at least acknowledge what he did.

    There were whites who stayed home or voted third party. Those voters may be responsive to coming to our side in 2018 and 2020. Joe Lunchpail his happy with what he did.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 9:59pm

    But TPP is largely a white identity issue for the left too - we stopped caring about the plight of the 3re world - it's those white factory jobs. TPP, imperfect as it is/was, was supposed to balance Chinese hegemony over other Asian countries - nope, American jingoism about trade kills it without even knowing why , "all trade deals bad". We've no conception of the American goods we dump on the rest of the world - we just see one side of production and ignore the other. We can't even manage to make corporations pay their taxes, but blame it on trade itself.

    Every 4 years we spend an eternity listening to Iowa farmers and New Hampshire "live free or die" types. How about next primaries start with Michigan or Ohio, get it out of the way. Find out about black needs in Missouri, white needs in Kentucky. We just lost the Cuban vote because we forgot "Hispanic" also means the Batista right out of Miami, the free open borders to Cuba but no warming to Castro contingent. Think Obama's opening with Havana won Hillary any votes? José Lunchpail is a single issue voter.

    Rural jobs in Michigan are finally increasing after a long hard slog, wages are slowly improving. But Joe Lunchpail is impatient and goes back to the guys who lost him his job in the first place, the guys who've always been against any auto bailout?  The Republicans' big "reform" in Wisconsin was killing unions out for better wages. So Joe Lunchpail votes with the company owners for lower wages because what? The Mexicans? The Muslims?

    We're missing something.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 10:45pm

    We see Detroit devastated and black unemployment skyrocket, yet when we talk about the pain of the working class it's the white working class it's Joe Lunchpail not Omar. Omar knew hard times were here and voted for the Democratic Party. Omar is depressed because he knows that Trump is surrounded by Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions, and blacks like David Clarke who gain fame by criticizing blacks in front of white audiences. Omar can't be given time to grieve about the election before he hears Bernie Sanders mumble something about "identity politics". What does Sanders think the election was about?

    Everybody is in pain, but we have to give comfort to Joe Lunchpail, while ignoring the hate crimes that Omar fears his children will face. A Jeff Sessions DOJ will not challenge police departments who kill unarmed blacks. Police will be emboldened. Omar is crying but screw him, let give comfort to Joe who will never vote for a Democrat, literally even to save his own life via healthcare.

    Unions brought people of all races together for common goals. This year, even members of teacher's union voted for Republican union buster's. There are other union member's who see the bleak future, we can work together with them. Joe Lunchpail is lost to us. He will not complain about the loss of unions because his kind of people are now in charge of the government.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 11/29/2016 - 11:27pm

    My subject was how  to get more  white working class votes next time. Doing well while doing good.

    (Responding to  ocean-kat's  asking why we didn't  get more this time.)

     I don't apologize for wanting to give  workers , work.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't do  lots of other things too. As  many suggest above. Go for it. That happens not to  be my topic this time.

    I believe more of them will  vote Democratic if they think the Democrats want to  help them. For a change.Trump convinced them that a vote for him was a vote  against imports. So they voted for him.

    If we want their vote  we have to convince them that a vote for us is a vote against imports.But in order to convince them of that we have to mean it. At the moment we don't.  We should.

    Are many  white working class people racists? I expect so. All of them , certainly not. And certainly not the union leaders. At least not the ones I've known. .Whatever. The Democratic  policy should be to help workers,  work.. Period.

    Won't that mean we're helping  some racists get jobs? Yes. ( As well as non racists.)

    Good.

    It's a good thing to help any unemployed person find work. And people who have jobs  behave  better. They're easier to be around. They don't  attend Trump rallies, shouting hateful things and behaving hatefully. Maybe even they become less racist. Or at least behave less so. I'll settle for that.

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 5:15am

    My graph elsewhere showed steady drop in unemployment 7 years in a row, with wages finally starting to go up, & elsewhere the deficit finally below 2008 levels. And then they vote back in the guys who broke it in 2001-2008 in so many ways. and would have been faster if the GOP didn't obstruct every step of the way.

    What's our takeaway? clean up the GOP's mess somehow even still faster? do better messaging to somehow sneak through the GOP misleading noise machine? More people on the ground in red-leaning areas to explain the madness to them every day of the week? do they need a pillow?

    We only needed a solid 5% of the populace outside the casts to make decent headway. But who are those 5%? And I'm pretty convinced pulling that current 52-54% is going to be a helluva lot harder without Hillary despite the left's optimism that neocon Hillary's been the problem all this time. sure, if national elections were caucuses, but look how well Republicans draw crowds. And who do we think our rising star(s) is - more 70-year-olds?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 5:46am

    Flavius, you miss the point. Joe Lunchpail was employed and had healthcare. What he responded to was the threat that Blacks and Latinos were taking stuff from him and that Muslims wanted him dead. He is celebrating his victory by committing hate crimes. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 6:59am

    Sadly I agree - while they said it was the economy stupid, in reality they reacted to Maslow's hygiene issues of security & fear. Bait-and-switch? Or anchoring (in NLP terms)?

    There's a lot of transferance going on - somehow the GOP has the working man (and woman?) seeing success through the Dow Jones average, and through a businessman like Trump. I saw this in the 90's when everyone started doing their small investing with their 401's or disposable savings, when not investing in housing, but when they got taken to the cleaners on both by 2008, they're still favorably disposed towards Wall Street's success irregardless, even though they're complaining about sucking up to Wall Street & big business. They supposedly say (if it's not just media driving this) that there's too much money in politics, but then reward the big-money individuals propping up the big donor buy-influence approach.

    I saw something regarding Trump's use of a rule of 3, very similar statements, but the first slams the overall problem in very generalized terms, the 2nd posits that it's all the Democrats' (or other enemy's) fault, the 3rd puts it that only Trump can solve this intractable problem. I'll keep looking for the reference.

    Curiously for your point, they pull out the Jewish financier fear when it's a Democratic donor (Soros, with Trump's star of David everywhere), but not when it's a Republican donor (say Sheldon Adelson) or sucking up to Bibi on security/foreign policy...), and they're able to balance these 2 postures on the head of a pin. Amazing. I can see it when it's just anti-black fervor and suspicion and resentment they're stoking, but when they manage the 2 conflicting realities thing, I'm left impressed and stupefied.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 7:14am

    Facts no longer matter.Trump is bringing in the usual crowd of Wall Street people to run the commercial aspects of the government. Joe Lunchpail will still tell us that Trump is cleaning the swamp. Trying to get Joe to join hands with Democrats is an effort in futility. We need to energize the folks who stayed home. 

    Regarding 70 year olds, it will be interesting to see if Nancy Pelosi survives the challenge to her leadership. It is a secret ballot so anything can happen. I'm betting that she stays in place rather than seeing a younger person in the position.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 7:56am

    I don't really care about the age, I just care about a compelling new face/voice if we're really going to revive things, not just someone brought in because we're (supposedly) sick of Pelosi, Hillary, etc.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 8:18am

    Flavius, here is a link noted 897 hate crimes since Joe Lunchpail voted for Trump

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hate-incidents_us_583dd...

    ​Joe Lunchpail is not going to speak out about these incidents. The guy he voted for can send out tweets about a beauty pageant contestant and blast actors in a Broadway play. Trump cannot bring himself to tweet or talk about these hate crimes. That is the new reality minority communities are facing. That is the result of Joe's vote.

    Good luck getting Joe, who has a job, doing something that he thinks will help Omar who is unemployed. Joe happily went shopping on Black Friday. He could care less about Democratic goals. There are people who did not vote, who see what Trump is creating. I think these people are a better source of Democratic Party voters than those who voted for Trump. Joe will be fine with less health care as long as blacks are doing worse than he is, Joe will be happy with nationalized Stop and Frisk and will ignore when police shot unarmed minorities. Joe has a job, but he is ready to see others get hurt to boost his ego.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 10:13am

    % of white working class vote

      Gore 40% , 2004 ; Obama 40%,  2008.

     

    Unemployment %

                  Mar       June      Sept     Dec

    2008      5.1          5.6        6.1         7.3 

    2009      8.7          9.5        9.8         9.9

    2010       9.9         9.4        9.5         9.3

     2011      9.0         9.1         9.0         8.5

    2012       8.2         8.2         7.8

    % of white working class vote

                                      Obama 36% 2012

                                                              


    by Flavius on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 1:57pm

    I'm not clear on your point. The October 2016 unemployment rate under a Democratic President was 4.9%.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

    If Joe Lunchpail was focused on his job, why did he abandon the Democrats? The reason is because he was told that blacks and Latinos were taking his stuff. Joe had a job.

    Edit to add: 

    The unemployment rate for Omar Lunchpail was 8.6%. This rate was higher than the 2012 rate for white unemployment that you gave as an example of why Obama got only 36% of the white vote. Omar voted for the Democratic Party because he knew the GOP was going to engage in a full on assault on black civil rights. They would also try to drown government in a bubble. Omar knew that his family and friends who worked in government would be in the unemployment line because he had seen it happen before. Joe doesn't care about Omar's situation. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 3:00pm

     

    To clarify  my belief

    o the 4% drop in Obama's 2012 vote from non college educated whites was caused by their experience over the whole period of the previous 4 years rather than just in  Nov 2012.

    o Similarly Joe' s vote this November was connected with his experience over the previous 8 years rather than his specific Oct 2016 situation now that  he  finally has a job.

    o finally , who knows  the extent, if any,  he abandoned the democrats because he was told blacks and Latinos were taking his stuff. Or that he doesn't "care"  when Omar  is in trouble.

    Let me try this anecdote.  I brought a friend home because there wasn't time for him to get back to Idaho for Christmas.. We had a continuing argument about charity. Which he considered suspect- a way you made yourself "better " than the person you "helped." Over that weekend , there was a flood and a local family lost their home. My parents invited them to stay in a house which they  used for income from  summer rentals.

    I small mindedly said to Bill ' you see charity isn't a way to make yourself appear superior.'

     My guess is whether Joe cares about Omar's troubles would   more  reflect  personal  family practices  rather than membership in a sterile category like non-college educated working class.   Or maybe things are just different in Idaho.

     

     

      

     

     

      

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 4:50pm

    Omar has tried to get Joe to see that they were in the same boat. Latinos see this, Asians, see this, Muslims see this. All the other groups see common ground, Joe does not. Joe hasn't voted in the majority for Democrats since LBJ passed the Civil Rights bills. Omar supports Joe's basic interests like healthcare. Joe feels no obligation to support Omar.  Again, the majority of every other Lunchpail group votes on Omar's side, Joe could care less about Omar, Jesus, and Takeshi Lunchpail. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 5:17pm

    I agree with Flavius.  This is all about the labor vote.  You can't let 70% of the country struggle to make ends meet and not fix that because you will lose elections. A lesson that was forgotten by the Democrats.  For eight years the Democrats took care of the corporations but sat on their hands helping labor recover. Why did they do that?  Because they thought they only needed donations from the fat cats to win elections, so they did their bidding. Labor saw this and the excuse that Republicans are obstructing wasn't enough. Where was the White House leadership?  Working on the next trade agreement.  

    It is not social identity politics that is at play here, folks. It is the economy and jobs. 


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 3:45pm

    The unemployment rate is 4.9%. Obamacare gave access to healthcare to millions. Obama changed overtime reimbursement. Obamacare will be gutted and the overtime changes willed be halted.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 4:00pm

    What absolute bullshit. Obamacare was "taking care of the corporations"? The auto bailout including the nationwide dealers was "taking care of the corporations"? The student loan restructuring Hillary proposed was "taking care of the corporations"? 

    Why don't you just read from the Breitbart script for everything - at least I'll be able to follow your logic - here it is. There, Democrats are responsible for all our failures. Not a word about the 2008 crash - just Obama's weakness. Student loans are just an evil elite plan from those Democrats covering for weak jobs and trying to get people into even more suspect home ownership on the government's nickel. Everything's rigged. Sound familiar? Got grievance, turn to Breitbart - it's like the Better Business Bureau from hell.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 4:10pm

    You can't let 70% of the country struggle to make ends meet and not fix that because you will lose elections.

    How about letting 70% of the country struggle to make ends meet and not fix it but you win elections anyway?  That would be the GOP!  They fought tooth and nail, every program that Democrats tried to put in place that would help that 70%.  Affordable Health Care, Medicare Expansion, and hosts of other programs all aimed at the middle class and below TO HELP THEM MAKE ENDS MEET!  So they win an election and now they want to kill Medicare, Social Security, and all programs that the non-rich have depended on to keep their heads above water.

    I really resent this conceit of yours that Democrats are deaf to this 70% -- huh?  

     

    A lesson that was forgotten by the Democrats. 

    The lesson was not forgotten by Democrats; it was reverse-high-jacked by the GOP by their evil agility with using fear, lies, dog-whistles, etc.  And the rubes fell for it.

    Laying this at the Democrats feet is just wrong -  the same old false equivalence that drives me nuts!  Putting a little thought into this is all it takes.


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 6:57pm

    it is maddening. The Democrats forced Joe Lunchpail to vote for the racist because the unemployment rate did not come down to  4.9% fast enough. Joe was forced to vote for the Party that Wa nuts do lower the minimum wage, take away healthcare, destroy unions, etc. Minority groups saw this and voted for the Democrats in overwhelming numbers. Joe voted against his own interest. Joe ushered in an increase in hate.crimes. Some think that instead of acknowledging the fear minority groups have we should address  Joe's hurt feelings and tell minorities that "identity politics" is bad. Basically, the message is that we don't have time to address your concerns about hate crimes, Joe's feelings are hurt. Oh by the way, we know Joe voted for a racist. We will deal with your feelings about that later, Joe is sad because the unemployment rate is 4.9%.

    We saw the great Bernie fail among minority voters. Let's make that failing message the new theme of the Democratic Party. 


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 9:54pm

    I would have rather had Sanders for a President than Trump. How about you? But damn, if we could have only got the black people on board. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 10:55pm

    Obviously, Sanders would have been preferable to Trump. Sanders did not excite black voters. Hillary got 2.5 million more votes than Trump. It is not clear that Sanders would have done that after being characterized as a Socialist. Hillary did better than Progressives like Feingold.

    Edit to add:

    Hillary had a diverse coalition. Hillary got more votes. Her coalition was much more diverse than Trump or Sanders. Why are whites the default position when we talk about the working class? Why are black concerns about things like voter suppression and the justice system labeled identity politics? Why was it an outrage when only 80% of black voters in Ohio voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate but the fact that white majorities have never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since LBJ an acceptable norm?

    What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America Paperback

    https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/0805...

    What's the Matter with White People?: Finding Our Way in the Next America

    https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-White-People-Finding/dp/1476733120/r...

    The books above attempt to explain why whites vote against their interest

    Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis

    https://www.amazon.com/Hillbilly-Elegy-Memoir-Family-Culture/dp/00623005...

    Flyover Nation: You Can't Run a Country You've Never Been To

    https://www.amazon.com/Flyover-Nation-Country-Youve-Never/dp/0399563881/...

    These two books describe the frustrations of whites living outside of urban centers  in decaying small towns

    White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide 

    https://www.amazon.com/White-Rage-Unspoken-Racial-Divide/dp/1632864126/r...

    The above book details that when blacks make a certain degree of progress, there is a backlash from whites.

    Blacks can understand that Joe is hurting. Blacks have been hurting for a long time. Joe is suspicious of government despite needing help from government. Blacks feel that Joe is willing to tear things down because he feels cheated. Blacks see common ground with Joe but knows that Joe will trample them to get the benefits he deserves. We see the rise in hate crimes. When we now hear Progressives talk about ending "identity politics, we fear what may be coming next. Progressives will begin a futile attempt to curry favor with Joe by turning their backs on minority voters who have supported Democrats by overwhelming majorities. Identity Politics is a right wing dog-whistle and it carries the same notes when Progressives play the tune.

     

     

     

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 12:34am

    Better comeback: blacks *were* on board, greatly, just not enough for the kibitzers ignoring the elephant of everything else.

    However, no offense intended but whites are the default or primary position because they're by far the majority. Women *should be* the default position because they're the majority. Urban dwellers on the 2 coasts plus Texas are the primary position because they make up the majority of the population, produce the most goods & revenue, and have the larger problems.

    While we need to balance attention so it's spread to various needs, especially when in crisis, and should approach solutions as a whole, not just a pecking order, we still should keep in mind both where the effort produces the greatest effect, as well as who the larger constituencies are - that's all part of Democracy, and sometimes we as a party lose sight of that in trying to help those left behind - that the ones we see as running ahead - sometimes mistakenly - still count too.

    Really, the amount of gloating about how soon the white privileged male would no longer be the majority has been a significant meme in progressives' toolkit, and besides being obviously premature, it's not a progressive position, and it's loaded with all sorts of unhelpful vitriol, since nobody quite likes hearing about the millennia-old sins-of-their-fathers every time they try to find a parking space. There's enough guilt to spread around to most everyone, rightly-or-wrongly, but it largely doesn't win elections either, aside from that put on immigrants - always a winner since the time of the Maccabees and before.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:51am

    This is not about back in the day issues.Blacks were attacked by whites at Trump rallies. Trump tweets about nonsense at 3 A.M. but remains silent on bigotry.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 6:29am

    Not referring to "back in the day", and I realize even black Trump supporters were attacked. (and yes, I remember the sucker punch).

    In any case, defining white voters in terms of Trump, his rallies or in terms of blacks or their attitude towards blacks is arguably a not very productive strategy for GOTV. No, we don't want the KKK or the worst of Alt-right, but we also don't want a rigorous white behavior purity test either, certainly not on the front end. When we go and ask for support from poor or successful blacks in North Carolina, we don't start off evaluating them on how sexist they are, what their attitude is towards Hispanics or immigration, how they feel about white people (obviously), are they fundmentalist, etc. etc.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:32am

    I don't think there is a purity test required of white voters. The problem comes when they are willing to dismantle things that benefit their own interests. They grumble about Obamacare and are willing to have millions of whites suffer the consequences. They will praise Trump dismantling overtime pay changes, taking money out of their own pockets. It is not about purity tests based on race, it is about policies they want to destroy.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:41am

    Grumbling is one of the things people do best, and they're often self-destructive or destructive of others.

    In any case, we mostly just need to figure out messaging gets some of them in the belly without going for the racist/anti-social angles, or at least softens that bigotry into a more acceptable need. We don't have to take them home and live with them, but we do have to find some points of persuasion - a better dog whistle.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 9:44am

    When you figure out what they need to hear, let me know. Unemployment is under 5%. They grumble about increasing minimum wage because they see it as mainly benefiting minorities. It's hard to find common ground.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 10:01am

    "It's hard to find common ground." - ain't it, though.

    Updated to note that as Trump sets up shop to reward billionaires and put "law and order" on any immigrant or person of color, these unlikely allies might become more important.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 12:26pm

    As [Judith] Stein points out, Democratic neoliberalism “never aimed to strengthen the working class, only to provide opportunity to leave it.” That opportunity can be for individuals only, and the implication is that those who fail to take advantage of it are in some way or other defective. But the view that expanding opportunities for individual upward mobility can create a just, or even a generally acceptable, society is only a convenient fantasy for the New Democrats whose class commitments don’t include working people. There is no capitalism without a working class, and there can’t be. And a politics built around dismissing or disparaging economic concerns of the working class—of all races, genders, and sexual orientations—in favor of counter-solidaristic discourses of “privilege” and disparity, while depending on working-class votes, is vulnerable to exactly the kind of reactionary tendencies Tony Mazzocchi warned about.

    My emphasis added. The full article is here. A very worthwhile interview with Stein that expands on her views is here. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 12:40pm

    What the fuck is she smoking? There's so much bullshit wound into  1 paragraph I don't know where to begin, so I simply won't. #PretentiousFail


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 1:09pm

    'When you find out what  the non -college' educated  working class people need to hear  let me know.'

    They don't need to "hear" something.  They just need a job.

    To repeat 

    2000 Gore  got 40 % of the votes of white non college educated males.

    2008 Obama got 40% of white non college educated males.

    Joe's response to a black candidate  was to

                  vote as he always had.  He did not  desert the democratic party. 

    Since most of my relatives are white non college educated males those numbers are just in line with

    what I heard around me.   In 2008  I didn't hear complaints about Liberals or favoritism to blacks. .  Mostly  I heard "What's the matter with the Red Sox." 

    But , in fact , it doesn't matter what I heard.  Or what any one else heard. Or thought they heard.  Because, you know, sometimes we aren't so good at hearing things that don't agree with what we already think.

    What matters is the numbers like

    2000 share of working class white vote: Gore 40%

    2008, Obama 40% 

    Unemployment ,July 2008, 5.6 %.

    Unemployment  July 2010  9.4%

     2012 share of the white working class vote Obama 36%

    Aha, prejudice rearing its ugly head.  No. A rational response to being kicked in teeth.

    We all know that  2012's unemployment was the result of President Bush's policies. But we're not

    non college educated  voters standing in line for unemployment compensation.

    Finally.  As to  the Trump thugs who assaulted objectors at his  rallies. They should have been charged and a trial date set. Chiefly because they should be punished.  But I confess it would also interest me if it came out at the trial   whether any of them were non college educated  white former Democrats .

    . 

     


    by Flavius on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:05pm

    Flavius, I pointed out that the unemployment rate in October 2016 was 4.9%. Your response was to shift the blame to something else. The fact is that since LBJ and the Civil Rights bills, the Democrats never got a majority of the white vote. Obama grew jobs. Obama worked on the minimum wage. Obama worked on overtime pay. Obama worked to save the auto industry. Obama wanted to build infrastructure projects but was blocked by Republicans. Other ethnic groups saw the unemployment rate go down. Why didn't the majority of the white working class see that. They voted for a known con man who tweets at 3 A.M. I don't understand.

    Here is a link detailing the racist response to Obama's election in 2008.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27738018/ns/us_news-life/t/obama-election-spur...

    ​You may not remember, but Obama had to have Secret Service protection earlier than any candidate in history because of racist threats. That was done in 2007.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us/politics/04obama.html

    You can be dismissive, but blacks feel justified in being suspicious of Joe Lunchpail. They are concerned that Joe may be throwing a sucker-punch when he gets frustrated. Joe had a job Flavius, he still voted for Trump.

    Edit add:

    Joe has a job

    What do Democrats need to do?


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:41pm

    Yes Joe had a job in October, and yes unemployment was only  (only?) 4.9% and he still voted for  Trump.

    He also had a job in 2008  when Obama got the same 40% of his vote as Gore in 2000.

    Racist?

    So what was different  this time.   October's relatively acceptable  4.9% came after  8 years during much of which  it was double that.. And who were those  extra unemployed?  CPAs.? Code writers.?

    Political strategists ? Attorneys ?Charter School Principals? Cardiologist?   Forget about it.

    Joe .

    And while I'm at it during those 8 years unemployment wasn't just double the normal level..That supposedly "normal" 4.5% is comprised of  two chunks: say 2.3% of "frictional"  i.e. temporary, unemployment ,( some companies failing before start ups came absorb those being laid off) and another 2.2% of  fundamental  unemployment : people ready and willing to  work and can't get a job. During the financial crisis/recession we still had 2.3% of frictional but the fundamental   unemployment was   7% plus.. Not double  ,triple

    When he's  out of work for a month or two Joe can handle it. But when unemployment is triple normal he isn't out for a month or two , he's out for years. And when it's years ,he fights with his wife. Hits the kids and stops going to their baseball games because he's ashamed to be seen.. Either dodges his mates or drinks far too much. Loses his  skill as a "pattern maker" ,knows he's losing it and that makes him even more desperate.

     I've  worked in a factory  with desperate employees.

    Coming back from a two year strike. .A real " dark satanic mill". Ten thousand employees. A stream running past  with a draw bridge The site of fierce daily battles  as the scabs tried to break through the massed picket line. Management paid  for metal plates over their car windows. .And for the movie it made of the violence.

    Murders . Guys shot putting out the trash. Or through the window while watching TV..

    The union caved. A few weeks  before Christmas . On Christmas Eve  Management handed out presents,( A mistake) Small but expensive. As the workers filed out so many presents were thrown in the stream  it overflowed.

    I  asked  Mike ......ovitch  , a shop steward , about the violence- which he said he'd  tried to control. 

    "Flav these are simple men. They express themselves simply by doing physical things"

    Whatever Joe Lunchpail  felt about Obama in 2008 when-one more time- he  gave him the same % 

    of the vote as Gore-  if Obama had given Joe a present this October he''d  have thrown it in the river.

    ..............................................................................................................................................................

     

    What do the democrats need to do for Joe? Respect? Better communication?

    Support for the  VFW or the Police Atheltic League.?Give me a break.

     A job.

     

     

      

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 1:08am

    Good luck with your recruitment efforts. There are events that result in voting shifts that last for decades. Whites bolted the Democratic Party after the Civil Rights bills. Obama delivers healthcare and lose the House as white voters flee. When Goldwater showed up talking state's Right, Blacks, fled the GOP. Goldwater got 6% of the Black vote. Romney got 7%. Trump got 8%. Goldwater tossed Blacks out of the GOP. Trump gives a message that a significant chunk of white voters want to hear. That is  history. We are witnessing a shift. White voters left  Democrats after the Civil Rights bills and again after Obamacare. When they heard Trump speaking to them they responded. Trump voters like doing physical stuff. Hate crimes are increasing. Listen to the response Trump voter's gave at his disjointed rally yesterday. They are foaming when he lashes out at the media. The crowd cheered putting restrictions on news outlets. They chanted "Lock her up" spontaneously. Listen to the Trump supporters interviewed by CNN in the link I supplied above and tell me that you really believe that there is a Democratic Party message that will get through. Those voters are gone. You are trying to normalize some very lethal behavior.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 7:58am

    The people in the CNN clip are stupid and racist. I will never respect them. Trump lies to their faces and they laugh. Trump says that he will lock out the press and they cackle.What is respectable about that position? Trump has ushered in a racist kackistocracy. 

    BTW

    November unemployment rate 4.8%. Joe has a job and is still pissed. What now?


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:10am

    I understand your point of view rmrd. But the swing of poor white votes towards Trump includes more than just bigots and misogynists. Outside the hard core Trumpites we have to take into account those on the margins - those who voted for someone they knew scumbag out of desperation - an electoral hail Mary pass - and those who weren't energized enough to vote at all - Trump's racism wasn't enough to get them off their couch. 

    A big part of Hillary's loss in the swing states was depressed democratic vote turnout compared to Obama's numbers, while republicans turned out the same numbers of their voters. 

    http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/09/how-clinton-lost-blue-wall-states-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/

    It's about the enthusiasm gap. 

     


    by Obey on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:21am

    What do the democrats need to do for Joe? Respect? Better communication?

    Support for the  VFW or the Police Atheltic League.?Give me a break.

     A job.

    Great comment.  My son was out of work for 6 years. All he could get was under the table handy man work. He has a skill trade.  He is working for a half of the money he used to work for.

    So a message was sent by labor tto the Democratic Party.  "Can you hear us now?"    


    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 3:57am

    Looks like we had to turn comments off on story about Mall of America's first black Santa. Merry Christmas everyone!http://www.startribune.com/mall-of-america-welcomes-its-first-black-santa/404070096/ …

    Since nothing is ever about race, let's just say that freaking out over a black Santa is a very strange way for America's working class to manifest their economic anxieties.

    I wonder where America's Most Aggrieved Idiots ever got the idea that is was acceptable -- nay, even patriotic -- to get publicly whipped up over the skin color of a fictional character? 

    Oh yeah... (from Politico):

    Megyn Kelly: Jesus and Santa were white

    On Wednesday night Megyn Kelly declared on her Fox News show that both Santa Claus and Jesus were white.


    by NCD on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 1:32am

    It happens all the time. There was a big to do about Rue, a fictional girl in the Hunger Games, when she was played by a black actor.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 2:33am

    I posted a link last week to "Scotland, PA" - version of Macbeth that takes place in small town Pennsylvania. Horrible appropriation of culture - in fact we shouldn't perform Shakespeare at all unless we have the proper Danes, Itals, Welshmen, Jews, Scots and whoever else populates these stories. And originally these plays were performed by men dressed in drag for the female roles - it's an insult to the author(s) to do anything but. I think overall we should get back to original intent thusly, stop destroying our heritage.

    That said, black Santa looks an awful lot like Uncle Remus - how's that gonna play? So glad I live in Europe where traditional values reign.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 3:14am

    There was also the outrage about the interracial couple and child in the Cheerios ad.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/cheerios-commercial-racist-back...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 8:03am

    I hear Tinky Winky eats Fruit Loops. You never know, the subliminal messages they're sending to our kids....


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:16am

    That's really not saying much. I'd rather have Jeb Bush than Trump. How about you?


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 1:20am

    Two things: Look at the 16% swing towards the GOP among poor whites between 2012 and 2016 and lets ask why that happened. Two dominant theories - they were attracted to the overt racism/sexism of Trump or they were attracted to the economic populism: cutting better trade deals and so bringing jobs back. 

    I think it's more that latter than the former. Whatever Clinton may have said, I don't think anyone believed her sudden public epiphany about the evils of NAFTA/TPP etc. And they prefered Trump's more empowering pitch about ending trade 'cheats' - letting the American worker compete on an even footing, rather than Clinton's pitch about inevitable globalization and various government handouts to compensate for the harm suffered. 

    For the past 20 years the democrats have based their coalition around the idea that swing voters are professional class suburbanites who are socially liberal and economically conservative. The current internal debate among progressives is at least in part about casting doubt on that assumption. Maybe the swing votes - that decisive 16% swing towards the GOP - lies among a less economically conservative population, but a population that doesn't like to be cast as dependents of the state. 

    Second, progressives need to check themselves when it comes to the amount of contempt they exhibited for poor  rural whites of Trumpland, as if insulting them and smearing them wholesale as racist hick privileged whites was somehow going to shame them into seeing the light jumping on the progressive bandwagon. "Trust us and join us, you mindless inbred redneck spawn of Satan". - not an inspiring message. 

    So it's not so much about making concessions to racism or weakening any commitment to civil rights, protection of minorities, etc. It's exploring to see whether there is common ground without those concessions. Not obvious to me that the answer is yes, but it seems pointless to slam the door in the face of a possible solution. At least unless you start putting another solution on the table. 


    by Obey on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 5:53am

    Obamacare gave millions of whites access to healthcare. Saving the auto industry save white jobs.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 6:26am

    I point out that Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Muslims appear to hear the message the Democrats offer. I don't know what the segment of white voters who support Trump want to hear. Trump is a sexual abuser but is praised by white Evangelicals as the second coming. I don't know how to overcome that reality. Please enlighten me.

    Regarding stereotyping of poor rural whites. The stereotypes create themselves. Blacks were attacked by whites at Trump rallies. The classic example was a Black protester sucker-punched by an elderly white guy as the black protester was peacefully leaving the venue escorted by police. After the punch, the black man fell to the ground. The police handcuffed the black man who was sucker-punched and did nothing to the white guy who threw the punch! The white guy was later seen on screen saying that they would kill the black protester if he came back. Black guy punched  got handcuffed. White guy throws punch gets to boast about it on television. The white guy was only charged later after outrage over the sequence of events was televised. Blacks are not creating stereotypes, they are reporting current experience.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12190521/Video-of...

    I bet if you talk to black friends and acquaintances, they remember that event. Most whites do not remember that event. The punched black guy getting handcuffed and the white guy boasting speaks volumes about law enforcement and the mood of the Trump voters. Blacks are not surprised by the raise in hate crimes.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 7:56am

    Two dominant theories - they were attracted to the overt racism/sexism of Trump or they were attracted to the economic populism.

    Theory #3: It's about class identity. Republicans have systematically nurtured the false consciousness of the "Real American" among white, working-class Christians. Like most class identities, the Real American is partly defined by the other--politically-correct eggheads, fatcat bankers, LGBT, African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims.

    Theory #3 subsumes #1 & #2. Racism and economic populism both play into the myth of the Real American.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:02am

    Sure - for the bigger picture as to why they have generally been more reticent than one might expect to join an economically progressive coalition. But I was thinking about the specific swing between 2012 and 2016. 


    by Obey on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 8:20am

    Romney wasn't a "Real American" like Trump.

    Or to put it another way, Romney played down the Republican class rhetoric; Trump amped it up to 11.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 9:48am

    Yes I can see that as a factor. But also somewhat makes my point. No Romney-like candidate was going to get anywhere this election not just because the base is radicalized, but also because the socially moderate, economically conservative voting blcok has lost its swing status. There's no there there anymore. And as for the amped up identity politics, the democrats enabled them with the 'deplorables' comments, embarassing 'punch Trump in the face' ads, stupid hick "Moran" memes, etc. Want them to listen to progressive ideas, want them to believe we are their allies, well then stop slinging feces at them. That was what I meant about the 'let us check ourselves' comment. 


    by Obey on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 12:37pm

    I'm basically in agreement with you. I would frame this issue in larger terms though. The whole axis of politics is changing. In the 20th century, the primary political division was labor-vs-capital. At first, both parties were divided between pro-labor and pro-capital factions, but by the 1930s, it was all sorted out. Democrats-labor, Republicans-capital.

    That conflict is becoming obsolete. The new division is between globalism/institutionalism/multiculturalism vs provincialism/individualism/chauvinism. Left vs right is becoming up vs down. As in the early 20th century, both parties are riven by factions, but they are starting to sort themselves out with Dems gravitating up (eg Obama/Clinton) and Republicans gravitating down (eg Trump/Cruz/Palin).

    Those socially moderate, economically conservative types you mentioned are uppers, and they've been moving toward the Democrats, but they're counterbalanced by the socially conservative, economically progressive types on the down side, who have been moving Republican.

    In 2012, there were two uppers running, so the distinction wasn't so clear. But in 2016, it was an upper vs a downer. And so here we are, sliding down.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:02pm

    So few words, yet so much wisdom.  Thanks.  I'll be thinking about this for a while (especially the inside-out mind bending idea of Trump being down).


    by CVille Dem on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 4:46pm

    Thanks, CVille


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:50am

    Maybe the slide down will interfere with the sorting process you describe.

    If Clinton had won, it would have made the party more of the cluster of "uppers" that could find common ground with the economically conservative types you refer to. But now that Trump has won, it seems likely that those types will get whatever they can by staying with the winning team.

    As you have said elsewhere, it is hard to know exactly what Trump will do. If he goes straight up bait and switch, there is money that never was interested in what he promised to some losers and will now celebrate the guy who everyone said would destroy the GOP but made it great again instead.


    by moat on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 9:58pm

    Possibly. It depends in part on Trump and in part on Democrats. He may talk "down" but govern "up" which may attract fiscal conservatives and dismay his populist supporters.  

    After Hillary's loss, Democrats seem to be shifting back "down" toward Sanders/Warren, but I'm not convinced that it will stick. If they come to believe that a centrist is their best chance for defeating Trump in 2020, they won't hesitate to reverse direction.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:45am

    I don't really see what "centrist" or "leftist" or "populist" has to do with simply focusing hard & messaging hard on jobs and the economy rather than transgender bathrooms and pipelines in Dakota. Hillary seemed to have good enough ideas - on her web page. Whether those penetrated any Joe/Josephine Lunchpail consciousness is doubtful, especially with the constant tsunami of disinformation.

    For all the praise of Bernie, I'm not sure anything he and his gang said touched this group we're talking about other than "Hillary's the establishment, the elite, corrupt, a crook" as well as to dismiss voting for a woman as being sexist. Oh yeah, "get money out of politics" - great line, complete bullshit as we've seen just these last 3 weeks.

    Policies? they hate the idea of affordable healthcare - it's unAmerican, socialist, wrong. Forget about "single payer" - just warmed up Obamacare. "Free education?" something for the elitist kids on the coasts - Joe & Jo's kids aren't going to college - they've got a construction gig or doing real estate or driving a truck or selling insurance.Social Security? well, it helps pay the bills but they wish they didn't have to live off the government's tit. And then there's war and security - we used to not worry about terrorism here in Nebraska, but now there are these dark skin people everywhere, and who knows if they're Mexicans or Arabs or what, but they don't act like us plus I hear they're taking our jobs.

    So Bernie has an anti-Wall Street message that will fly, maybe the minimum wage gets a few (though the small business owners in the heartland will hate it and once Republicans re-message it..., but still "wage equality" may cut through. And then what else? No one there's listening to "global warming" or if they do it's Satan's work. "Women's issues" mean "menstruation" as far as we can tell - something distasteful and to be kept quiet. Bernie doesn't do racism, and "class" mostly means jobs & money unless Bernie understands country music, trucks and complaining about blacks or Mexicans. And the heartland loves them wars whatever they say - right up there with guns. (okay, Bernie scored some points with the 2nd Amendment - yay!!!)

    Really, the biggest thing we need to improve on is getting a big dick out there on stage - someone who knows how to be a charmer, act like a dawg, tell the right jokes, be politically incorrect, the kool kid from the back row who cheated on everyone's homework but managed to get the cutest girls. That's what AMerica's looking for, let's not overbake it. Hillary's stage thing was okay, but still just okay - she's not a riot. Bernie's outrage is fun, but after a while it's still old curmudgeon grandpa. Kaine's a smarmy weasel at heart - nice guy, but not going further. Alan Grayson is too smug and now on the outs. Al Franken is too cute for his own good, and not aggressive enough. Rahm might be good if he didn't have the core sensitivity and compassion of Satan. Etc, etc.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 11:57am

    Get out of the weeds, PP. According to the norms of American history, Donald Trump should have been laughed off the stage in the Republican primary. The fact that he won it and actually got elected president of the United States, means that something very strange and significant is happening. So applying the usual conventional explanations for Hillary's loss misses the forest for the trees. While you sit here trying to puzzle out what went wrong with your mousetrap, a 10,000-pound rodent of usual size is about to eat you for dinner.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 2:55pm

    I would alter your analysis to say that there was an upper and a con man running for President. The con captured College educated whites. The con man is filling his Cabinet with uppers. He also was able to mainstream the white identity movement.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 3:05pm

    I'm just proposing we need our big dick supersized megalomaniac too - Godzilla meets Gamera. We can do all this traditional political crap in one of the side rings - need the Big Tent for the main act. But who we got?


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 3:39pm

    Pretty good deconstruction.  (hattip Digby)


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 12:42pm

    Konczal makes some good points. I especially like the way he separates the topic of messaging and rhetoric from the problem of actually figuring out what we should do next. The essay he links to from Joan C Williams hits upon something that makes a lot of sense to me:

    Back when blue-collar voters used to be solidly Democratic (1930–1970), good jobs were at the core of the progressive agenda. A modern industrial policy would follow Germany’s path. (Want really good scissors? Buy German.) Massive funding is needed for community college programs linked with local businesses to train workers for well-paying new economy jobs. Clinton mentioned this approach, along with 600,000 other policy suggestions. She did not stress it.

    She presents a critically important element to any actual infrastructure development in the context of a post-mortem analysis of what went wrong in the election. This is not only a messaging problem. This nation needs an industrial policy and not just a way to get to a place by monitoring market conditions ala Hayek or Keynes.

    Another thing that William's essay observes correctly is that resentment of the professional class is stronger than resentment of rich people. This reminds me of Veblen in the Theory of the Leisure Class where he notes how conspicuous consumption was developed as a form of recognition amongst the ruling class but was replicated as a form of life for the lower classes. And this raises the question: what are we talking about when we talk about "populism"?


    by moat on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 4:57pm

    Interesting take. Thanks Michael. The current coalitions as of 2016 may be aligning along those lines, but it hasn't quite crystalized. It's still in flux. The whole Sanders phenomenon cuts across those battle lines by combining anti-globalization (at least in its current corporate-dominated form) with what you are calling 'institutionalization'. 


    by Obey on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:07am

    I totally agree. Democrats could still shift back the other direction toward Sanders; Trump could reverse course and bearhug globalism. But ultimately, the parties won't stabilize until they reflect the new axis, and right now Republicans have the populist momentum. Nate Silver sez: 70%-30%.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:50am

    So it's not so much about making concessions to racism or weakening any commitment to civil rights, protection of minorities, etc. It's exploring to see whether there is common ground without those concessions.

    Democratic Party needs to pick up the pieces and start looking into forming new coalitions with the working poor and skilled labor that is now making pizzas to keep a roof over their heads.   

    Yes the liberal class needs to tone down the contempt.  First it poured out to Sanders supporters and now it is flowing for Trump voters. That will keep the party in the weeds for the next election. 


    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 4:45am

    Does this mean you can also find common ground with "centrists", "neoliberal" Democrats, or is that a bridge too far?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 7:55am

    This Joe guy seems to have a lot of power for a self admitted pawn of industry with little influence over what happens to him and his descendants.


    by moat on Wed, 11/30/2016 - 10:12pm

    The problem we face is the knowledge base of the Trrump supporter as shown in a segment on CNN

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/12/cnn-video-of-trump-supporters/

    These voters are not going to support Democrats. They will double down on their mistake like voters in Kansas. Several Democrats facing reelection in 2018 are from states that Trump carried by yuge numbers. These Trump supporters are not going to be Democrats in 2018. We need to develop techniques to arose people would would support goals of the Democratic Party who stay home during midterms.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/several-democrats-facing-2018-re-ele...

    The challenge to Nancy Pelosi's leadership was based on a desire to focus on the white working class rather than the entire working class.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/12/nancy-pelosi-going-to-war/

    As I noted above, those voters are not coming back to the Democrats. Hillary leads trump by 2.55 million votes and counting.Trump has no mandate. Democrats need to energize their diverse base to come out in 2018. Arguing about i"identity politics " tells many in the base that the Democrats are abandoning core values. 

    I think Trump's first 100 days will light a fire under Democrats who tend to stay home during the midterms.

     

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 12/01/2016 - 9:58pm

    One of the interesting disconnects is that the argument is that white voters did not receive a message directed at them. Blacks would argue that the message sent by the Democrats was geared to the general public and not directly at the black community. That was the argument Jill Stein and Cornel West made. Latinos did get executive orders, but they also got deportation on steroids. Asians were not even mentioned by Democrats. Yet these groups favored the Democrats. I find it interesting that Blacks did not hear a specific message. Note that neither Clinton or Sanders were trusted by Black Lives Matter and Latinos saw deportation processing at a raid clip. Neither group thought that the GOP was a viable alternative. Trump ran a white identity campaign.The Democrats, in comparison, were appealing to a general population. That is how Hillary got 2.5 million more votes than Trump.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 10:43am

     

    1. Black Lives Matter  caused Trump to win.  

    2.The Blacks were right to organize it anyway. 

    3 If they  suspected  ( 1)  ,should they  have  deferred organizing   BLM ? No.Evil should be confronted even when that  risks  collateral damage provided it's probably acceptable.

    Same hypothetical  questions. But with respect to Ted Cruz 

      3 a  If the Blacks  suspected  organizing BLM would cause Cruz to win should they  have had deferred. it?  Yes.       probably un acceptable. damage. If you can't afford to lose, don't take a hand.

       b. If they were convinced.  See above. 

    I'm out of here. Finally!

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 4:22pm

    The Blacks didn't know that Trump would run for President 

    The Blacks didn't think the country would elect Trump.

    The Blacks didn't think the country would elect Cruz

    The Blacks were obviously incorrect.

    Black Lives Matter didn't elect Trump

       Obama elected Trump because he was the first Black President

       Eric Holder elected Trump because he fought voter suppression  

       Beyoncé elected Trump because .....,   "Formation"

       Kaepernick elected Trump because he knelt silently

    Black Lives Matter didn't elect Trump, white voters did that

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 2:21pm

    There is homophobia in the Black community. 20% of Black voters in Ohio voted for GW because he was lobbying against Gay marriage. The homophobes were called out for being homophobes. People in error had to be named. Those Black voters in all likelihood would not harm Gay people, but they were comfortable limiting the civil rights of Gay people. That was not acceptable. Trump supporters are comfortable with restrictions being placed on their fellow citizens. We cannot normalize and excuse their behavior.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 2:54pm

    I think "homophobia" is a rather strong word for people adapting to a rather new and shocking social construct. I'm glad it seems to have all worked out pretty well, but I wouldn't demonize those who had objections for example without showing say hate?


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 5:03pm

    I think many black churches have come to grips with the harm done by their past stance on homosexuality. I don't think they would object to the term. Obviously, there are churches in the black community that maintain a fire and brimstone view of homosexuals. I would criticize white churches who still preached the curse of Ham.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 12/02/2016 - 9:47pm

    I object to the term. It tosses good people in with assholes to make them all feel bad. It's elitist and an example of why we come across as elitist - on global warming, on jobs, on military, etc. It conflates opinion, cultural custom and fact without acknowledging it. And often we're hurting our own electoral chances at the same time. Did it help us to call everyone in North Carolina "homophobic" for not finding the new "human right" of transgender bathrooms and changing rooms quintessentially correct. And talk about putting the needs/wants of a very tiny minority over the wishes of the vast majority. We as a party/political faction love these descents into purity obsession - they feel so good, we get to throw so much shade at dumbass Joe Lunchpail, and even when we get creamed in elections we can still feel smug and superior. We can't be bothered to stay on the highway - say jobs, duh - we have to get absorbed in the backwaters.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 4:32am

    People are labeled. The entire state of North Carolina is targeted when people and corporations boycott the state because of the legalized homophobia. Reverend William Barber lives in North Carolina and does not object to Bruce Springsteen's canceling a concert or corporate threats to boycott the state. 

    https://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/18/this_is_not_a_bathroom_bill

    It appears that the people of North Carolina acted to remove the homophobic label by voting the Governor who signed anti-Gay legislation out of office. The Governor is objecting to the election results. 

    http://www.newsweek.com/north-carolina-governor-recount-changing-south-5...

    Pointing out homophobia in the Black community led to the first Black President speaking out. The Black community seemed to look inward and some hearts changed. Calling out homophobia in North Carolina seems to have helped voters reject a homophobe.

    Naming evil is important. We should not sanitize evil. The media is trying to normalize Trump and that is dangerous. The term alt-right is a sanitation term. The alt-right is a civil term for white supremacists like Steve Bannon, Trump's senior adviser. We have to name evil.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 11:44am

    Brilliant. We lose the Presidency, the next 2-3 or maybe 4 Supreme Court picks and control of the Senate so we can call out "evil" over a dozen trangender bathroom passes? What're our priorities? All those police attacks on blacks tha would have been high priority under Clinton are just "law and order" under Trump, as just one of so many things that needed to be done. I'm destroyed - I don't know how to take all this. All our get out the vote just brought out more people pissed at us. what good does that do?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 1:12pm

    There appears to be a worldwide identity crisis. Voters in England gave a finger to the so-called Elites buy voting for Brexit. There is an attempt to sugarcoat what happened in this election as the rebellion of the poor working class. The truth is that that average income of the Trump supporters was $72K. Trump voters had jobs but they "felt" threatened by the other. The GDP is good and unemployment is down. Trump support voted for a con man and are surprised when he picks millionaires and billionaires for his Cabinet. You cannot apply logic when your opponents can tap into delusion.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-clas...

    Liberals are dealing with the crap that is shoved in their faces. Liberals are not crazy. Homophobes created the crisis of transgender bathrooms. The Republican Governor and legislature crafted the homophobic legislation. Should Democrats have remained silent. Black Lives Matter responded to a real issue. As I write this, a jury in North Charleston, South Carolina is deadlocked in a case where a police officer shoot a black man in the back 5 times and tried to plant evidence. That is an action taken by our fellow citizens. Eric Garner died because he sold loose cigarettes. Our fellow citizens found nothing wrong with that. Liberals are not doing identity politics, they are doing justice.

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2016/12/walterscott-jury-deadlock-m...

    A large chunk of white voters are not with us now. A large chunk of white voters left the Democrats after the Civil Rights bills. The abandonment of the Democratic Party happened overnight in both cases. Democrats are going to try to save Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare. A large chunk of white voters will not stand up to defend these programs. Instead, they will let Trump have his first 100 days to do his damage.

    I don't see the Trump supporters coming back if Democrats push minorities and LGBT people under the bus.Trevor Noah had an interesting interview with Tomi Lahren, a young Conservative on the "Daily Show". Noah asked what the proper method of complaining against the system is allowable by a black person. Lohren objected to Black Lives Matter as fomenting violence by public protests. Colin Kaepernick remaining on one knee is not acceptable because he is insulting the troops. There is no acceptable form of protest. Basically, we should all shut  up. Trump supporters are angry. They won and they are still angry. I pointed out the outburst by Trump supporters at Starbucks. Michael's and on a Delta flight. Trump supporters emboldened. In the Michael's incident, a white woman did speak and. She also recorded the incident. We need to have each other's backs because a sizeable portion of the country is delusional.

    Tomi Lahren

    http://time.com/4587240/trevor-noah-tomi-lahren-daily-show-interview/

    Micheal's

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/racist-pro-trump-tirade-over-bag_us_...

    Delta

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/delta-bans-trump-supporter_us_583ce5...

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 2:12pm

    Labeling has worked well for Republicans. Crooked, Kenyan usurper, worse than slavery, (not) Real Americans, rigged, promoters vote fraud, weak, imperial presidency, baby killers, sharia enablers, rape your daughter enablers, death panels, terrorist consorters, gun grabbers, ACORN frauders, job destroyers...

    Democrats likely need to do more of it. Facts and policy haven't stirred almost half the electorate to bother to vote. The GOP language gets every rube and bigot out from under every rock.


    by NCD on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 12:35pm

    Well we've gone round and round on this.

    Obama, Holder, Beyonce'  and  Kaepernick each caused some (stupid) white voters to vote for Trump.

    As did Black Lives Matter.

    For that matter, "Occupy Wall Street"  cost Obama votes in 2012, I'm sorry to say in my own family

    .Doing the right thing can have bad results. Repeat. Doing the right thing can have bad results.

    That absolutely doesn't necessarily  mean one  shouldn't do it. It means one should as dispassionately as possible  calculate the consequences  before acting.

    Were it up to me in 2014 I would have fully endorsed  the organizers of Black Live Matters.  .The  clear benefit of taking that correct moral stand would  have outweighed with me the probable cost of electing  someone like Jeb or Kasich.

     As expected BLM did  cost  the votes of some  whites , not  just the entrenched ,knee jerk racists who were always going to vote wrong  but  sadly,of some  reasonably- fair minded people deeply depressed by being out of work  and convinced by the brilliantly lying   Fox and Co .that any help  given to the Blacks was financed by stealing from whites. 

    Now I really am going to shut up.

    See ya.

     


    by Flavius on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 3:04pm

    Only about half the country votes that could vote.  So the parties try to get the half of the voters  that is still voting to line up on their side.  Has it ever dawned on modern politics of the two major parties to find out why the other half isn't voting and getting them to vote.  This was something that was actually going on with Sanders' campaign.  He drew in people who had given up on voting and gave them a reason to vote. The only way to find out is to ask questions and listen to this group. 


    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 5:09am

    I've seen almost no evidence that Sanders drew in non voters. In 08 both Hillary and Obama got about 17 million votes. Almost a dead heat. In 16 Hillary got about the same, 17 million votes. Sanders got 13 million. 4 million less people voted in the 2016 democratic primary and you're claiming Sanders drew in non voters. The numbers make that supposition extremely unlikely.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 1:12pm

    Looks like 17.9 million in 2008, Obama got 17.6 million. Funny to think John Kerry won the primaries with <10 million vote, Gore with 10.9m, while Bush v Gore was 50 million votes each vs Obama's max 69 million or Hillary's ~65.2 million & still climbing this year.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 12/03/2016 - 2:32pm