|
Bip Roberts posted:oh okay cool I'll elaborate further. http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/16/13645116/rural-resentment-elites-trump quote:So racism is a part of this resentment, but we are failing to fully understand these perspectives when we assume that racism is more fundamental than calculations of injustice. The two elements are intertwined. The way these folks described the world to me, their basic concern was that people like them, in places like theirs, were overlooked and disrespected. They were doing what they perceived good Americans ought to do to have the good life. And the good life seemed to be passing them by. No one is arguing that race doesn't play a role, but it's not THE fundamental piece and saying so throws on the blinders and ignores everything else that allowed Trump to do what he did. I'm reading her book now, so I'll see what she has to say, but I grew up in rural Wisconsin, family and freinds still live there, and so far her thoughts on the matter hit home. Boon fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Nov 19, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
99 CENTS AMIGO posted:Would it be fair to say that the buy-in for a Trump vote was, at the very least, uncaring soft bigotry, if not quite full-white-hooded racism? Whatever. As long as we can blame it all on racist whites and not think about how bad our candidate was or how loving terrified Democrats should be of the fact that Clinton got a smaller percentage of the Latino vote than Obama and what that means for the Democrats' Eternal Plan B of "wait for the Latinos to outbreed the whites"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:When you say swing voters are dead, do you mean that you think all the swing voters died? They didn't ossify into solid D or solid R voters, all the swing voters are dead? Because that's the only way your argument that no Trump voter ever would've voted for a Democrat in the past makes sense Lmao are you seriously trying to nit pick someone saying "dead" and "literally"? Why not try to make an actual point instead?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Lmao are you seriously trying to nit pick someone saying "dead" and "literally"? Why not try to make an actual point instead? OK, here's a point, if you don't think a single Trump voter was a dissatisfied Clinton or Obama voter, you're dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Guess who saw Hamilton tonight (and got booed hard and speech from Aaron Burr)... https://twitter.com/hamiltonmusical/status/799828567941120000
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Whatever. As long as we can blame it all on racist whites and not think about how bad our candidate was or how loving terrified Democrats should be of the fact that Clinton got a smaller percentage of the Latino vote than Obama and what that means for the Democrats' Eternal Plan B of "wait for the Latinos to outbreed the whites" That's a real fine-lookin' man of straw you put out in that thar field. It can definitely be both. Lemming definitely was on-point when he said that it was a bad candidate with a non-existent, non-targeted message, especially in the flipped states; simultaneously, this was the election that finally made it super blatant that the GOP voters who aren't your typical Jeff Sessions-types don't care about the many, many groups that Trump shat on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
99 CENTS AMIGO posted:Would it be fair to say that the buy-in for a Trump vote was, at the very least, uncaring soft bigotry, if not quite full-white-hooded racism? I feel like his candidacy was a crucible for "Respectable Republicans" who voted for Romney and then had the choice whether to vote for someone so super-mega-racist or sit it out. i just feel like thats are really soft(  ) argument i mean it might be true, and i agree that soft racism is a thing but there's no limit to soft racism. its an argument that never ends. these people don't see themselves as racist, and they resent being labeled as such. there's a huge backlash against that line of discourse. i think soft racism is an academic argument with merit, but has limited impact outside of that sphere. in other words, even if its true, i don't think it has a place in the public discourse because its counter-effective and self defeating do i think it should never be discussed? no. but i don't think it should be the go to argument or position.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
I mean, even if racism wasn't the specific thing that put Trump over the edge, the Republican base was largely built out of racism through the southern strategy and etc. Without racism you don't have the modern Republican party, full stop, so in that sense yes it was racism that let Trump win. That's just not a particularly useful observation when examining this specific election's outcome though, since it's basically a constant. Dems probably should be focusing more on how to get Democrats excited and willing to go vote even through what will surely be intense voter suppression efforts, than on yelling about how bad Trump is/Trump voters are (we just saw how well that works).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:There will likely be a heavy crackdown which causes a split between those who want to fight back and those who think peaceful protest is the only way. It isn't hard to imagine Deray Mckesson becoming a talking head who attacks BLM activists for not protesting peacefully enough. This is a wildly garbage opinion on every level possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Oh, of course! The main takeaway should certainly be that Clinton did a real poop job and not only lost the election, but probably depressed people like Feingold with her rancid coattails. I'm just still going to be running into HENRYs at Thanksgiving who don't really have a leg to stand on regarding their Trump vote anymore, and I'm trying to find some minuscule, cold comfort in my interactions with 'em.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:Guess who saw Hamilton tonight (and got booed hard and speech from Aaron Burr)... Kind of wonder what it feels like to have a entire audience boo you like that to bad it didn't get caught on film
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/gilbertjasono/status/799804914918690816
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:OK, here's a point, if you don't think a single Trump voter was a dissatisfied Clinton or Obama voter, you're dumb. A negligible amount were. Few enough that they don't matter. Do not fall for the trap of trying to convince them they shouldn't stick a fork in an electrical socket, much less who they should vote for for president
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Trump's most prominent political act prior to this cycle was denying the first black POTUS's status as an American, and labeling him a muslim. He launched his campaign with two main themes - get THEM (rapists & murders & some good people) out, and make america great again. MAGA is an appeal to nostalgia, but you're naive if you can't recognize the parts of nostalgia for the days when whites had a firmer and more secure grip on power. Was the election about more than racism? Of course. But racism was essential. How could it not be? This is America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Kind of wonder what it feels like to have a entire audience boo you like that to bad it didn't get caught on film https://twitter.com/dkipke12/status/799802254794571777
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Eh that's more like a few people booing and most clapping.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
z0glin Warchief posted:Dems probably should be focusing more on how to get Democrats excited and willing to go vote even through what will surely be intense voter suppression efforts, than on yelling about how bad Trump is/Trump voters are (we just saw how well that works). nah its a lot easier to navel gaze
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Lemming posted:A negligible amount were. Few enough that they don't matter. Do not fall for the trap of trying to convince them they shouldn't stick a fork in an electrical socket, much less who they should vote for for president What is your basis for saying that these numbers were negligible? Everything I've seen has suggested there were enough of these people to make a difference in MI/PA/OH/WI (and almost MN). Have you had a chance to read this? http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/ A couple of excerpts: Article posted:Take Macomb County and Oakland County in Michigan. Macomb County is mostly white and has a median household income of around $53,000. It is not particularly poor, but also not affluent. It is often characterized as “working class” and “socially conservative”. The county voted enthusiastically for Kennedy in 1960, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984. It voted for Obama twice (+9 in 2008, +4 in 2012). Trump won Macomb by nine points. The number of voters was the same. Edited to add one more part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
 why are you caring about the people who voted for trump as opposed to the much larger proportion of democratic voters that stayed at home
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
the white hand posted:I sure wouldn't. Obama came to prominence in 2004, so we should already have some idea who this great 2020 candidate would be. Cory Booker ain't it, either. Neither is Julian Castro.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
I care about both. But if Trump didn't get Democrats to turn out, I'm honestly not sure what will. A better candidate would be nice, but I figured that was something we all implicitly agreed. I don't think getting out more registered Democrats alone is going to do anything to allow us to retake the House or state legislatures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
The reason the democrat voters stayed home was because they also love racism!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Trump's about to be POTUS, and people are already rewriting the history of how he got there. Of course we're going to talk about that. This isn't a loving election strategy meeting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:I care about both. But if Trump didn't get Democrats to turn out, I'm honestly not sure what will. A better candidate would be nice, but I figured that was something we all implicitly agreed. this might shock you but if both candidates are poo poo people might just stay home 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:I care about both. But if Trump didn't get Democrats to turn out, I'm honestly not sure what will. A better candidate would be nice, but I figured that was something we all implicitly agreed. Millions of Democrats didn't show up vs twelve who flipped to Trump. Why on God's green earth would you spend any time thinking about the second group as opposed to the first. The lesson is you can't just demonize your opponent. Your base wasn't going to vote for them anyway. If you can't offer them something they just won't show up. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. If they can be convinced to show up, they can win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
Yeah this seems like the bigger issue. Nobody loving voted!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:I care about both. But if Trump didn't get Democrats to turn out, I'm honestly not sure what will. A better candidate would be nice, but I figured that was something we all implicitly agreed. Democrats didn't learn this after Kerry, I have doubts that they're gonna learn it now, but there's a very clear lesson: People don't vote against candidates. People want to vote for a candidate they support, they won't vote for just any warm body because they don't like the other guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Suckthemonkey posted:What is your basis for saying that these numbers were negligible? Everything I've seen has suggested there were enough of these people to make a difference in MI/PA/OH/WI (and almost MN). They possibly weren't negligible in terms of this particular election due to how close it was, but they are negligible compared to how many Democratic voters just didn't bother to come out and vote due to low enthusiasm (and perhaps voter suppression laws, to a probably unknown extent). Rather than focus efforts on convincing people who thought voting Trump was a good idea to come back, which will probably alienate a lot of people who voted for Hillary, you're better off trying to motivate the people who stayed home to vote next time. Suckthemonkey posted:I care about both. But if Trump didn't get Democrats to turn out, I'm honestly not sure what will. A better candidate would be nice, but I figured that was something we all implicitly agreed. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump wasn't as big a motivating factor for Dems as expected because almost nobody thought he could win. Even he and his campaign thought he was going to lose. And I think increased Dem turnout is exactly what will allow us to retake state legislatures, we just have to actually make it to happen even in non-Presidential election years (and apparently even in Presidential election years, that's not a given anymore).
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
ways to motivate your base: - have platforms that affect their lives - intend to actually follow up on said platforms - choose a candidate with charisma ways to not motivate your base: - sit in your board room hoping the other guy slips on a banana peel - rant about frog memes - choose the iconic definition of a neoliberal politician when the tone of the election is "gently caress THE RICH" Business Gorillas fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Nov 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Millions of Democrats didn't show up vs twelve who flipped to Trump. Why on God's green earth would you spend any time thinking about the second group as opposed to the first. Honestly, I've had a hard time finding numbers of 2016 vs. 08/12 turnout by party. I'd definitely be in seeing them (or indirect figures) if you have them available. My bad if you already did on a previous page. The impression I had was that overall turnout was similar to 2012 but not as high as 2008 (correcting for population change), and I just kind of attributed that to turnout for both parties being reasonable -- but I could completely be wrong about this. Yeah, of course the extent to which more people (especially those in states with important ECs) either are switching or just not turning out would influence future strategies. I just haven't really seen much to indicate turnout was generally down to 2012, though I definitely could've missed something. I agree with your last two points though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
reminder even the clintonistas said that clinton was a terrible campaigner and thought that this wouldn't affect her against a literal showman that managed to outswindle the entirey of the thieves' guild and den of ill repute known as the republican primary "  THE IRON ABUELA will be the scourge of the republican party, a hellion so horrifying to come up against that the RNC leadership forbade their reps to meet with her alone. also, she is afraid of talking to large crowds" - actual opinions that were heard and agreed upon by more than one person
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
That's why I'm so pessimistic, dems don't vote in midterms. 2018 is just gonna make things worse, and I can't think of a candidate for 2020. This is just gonna be the new normal for a long time. I'd take Dubya back in a heartbeat at this point. I never thought I'd speak those words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
Harton posted:That's why I'm so pessimistic, dems don't vote in midterms. 2018 is just gonna make things worse, and I can't think of a candidate for 2020. This is just gonna be the new normal for a long time. I'd take Dubya back in a heartbeat at this point. I never thought I'd speak those words. We'll just nominate the most economic populist we can find and basically we cannot lose in 2020. If we lose it will be because our candidate wasn't enough of an economic populist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Democrats didn't turn out because they disliked clinton and the democratic party stands for literally nothing. If you have to go to work on a tuesday and your boss is going to jack you for taking time off to vote why would you wait 2 hours in line for some vague promises and inscrutable technocratic reforms? Politics nerds might've read harold bloom's 20 point plan to fix the ACA but literally nobody else gives a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
I wish the "Left" was a unified disciplined force for change to the extent the Right thinks it was. I blame the People's Front of Judea, splinterers!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
they probably wont make the same mistake the next time 2024 I'm not making any predictions
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We'll just nominate the most economic populist we can find and basically we cannot lose in 2020. If we lose it will be because our candidate wasn't enough of an economic populist. I don't know about "cannot" lose. But it's certainly the best plan available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We'll just nominate the most economic populist we can find and basically we cannot lose in 2020. If we lose it will be because our candidate wasn't enough of an economic populist. i know you're new to this whole "shitposting" thing but you're typically not supposed to say things that are true when you're trying to be ironic
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
have you guys considered that for 2020 we should go after Texas? i'm sure we can do the mexican hat dance with that hot telemundo weather girl to really lock in that hispanic vote (this shitpost is for demonstration purposes only)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2016 07:44
|
|