|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:What Trump believes didn't really matter as far as the election was concerned, though. I believe that Trump is a neoliberal at heart because it allows him to enrich himself, but what he personally believes could not be less relevant. What matters is what he could convince people about his plans once elected. My fetish for controlling conversations is second only to my fetish for smashing brandy bottles on my head. Cool, more irrelevancies based on your childish desire to win this discussion.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
People wanted an "outsider" who would "get things done" because the Neoliberal status quo under Obama was "insider" and "didn't get things done". Even if they did get sweet benefits they didn't feel that way because Rust Belters (suburbanites in general) have incredibly fragile egos. Messaging "Go gently caress yourself!" to a group with an inferiority complex is going to produce a response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Were Trump's positions even that unique? I mean other than running independent Ross Perot pretty much said and was accused of the same poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Perot ran against globalization and free trade. Bush ran on less intervention and nation building, and lowering taxes. Not surprisingly, all those things featured prominently in Trump's campaign. But it's much easier to blame racism and Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Were Trump's positions even that unique? I mean other than running independent Ross Perot pretty much said and was accused of the same poo poo. Trump's positions during the campaign were far from unique and have pretty clear historical ancedents, but during the primaries he was effectively unique among Republican candidates in his willingness to both completely disregard the dictates of movement conservatism and make relatively direct appeals to the most rancid parts of the GOP base. This gave him a pretty major advantage, because the assumptions and policy goals of the GOP establishment are highly disconnected from the actual concerns and priorities of the people who vote for them. They also were helpful during the general election because most of his heterodox positions were much more popular with the general public than prevailing GOP orthodoxy. He's a charlatan who has obviously not followed through on his promises or given the impression he cares about or is capable of doing so, but the fault line he identified and exploited isn't going away and it'll be interesting to see who leverages it in the future and how.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Perot of course won the 1992 and 1996 elections by doing so, since that's all you need to do to win an election in America, ahahahaha.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Perot of course won the 1992 and 1996 elections by doing so, since that's all you need to do to win an election in America, ahahahaha. The best thing you need to win an election is a garbage opponent. (see: Gore, Romney, Hillary) Also, you're such a disingenuous dipshit that you would dismiss Perot winning 19% of the popular vote. Frijolero fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:The best thing you need to win an election is a garbage opponent. (see: Gore, Romney, Hillary) Oh boy, another person that's going to end up spilling their fantasies about former Secretary of State Clinton to the wrong person, liberating us from their posting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Were Trump's positions even that unique? I mean other than running independent Ross Perot pretty much said and was accused of the same poo poo. Position-wise, they were pretty similar. The big difference between their outcomes is, of course, that Perot didn't have some of the advantages that Trump had, ie: a lineup of primary candidates who were much weaker than they initially seemed (as opposed to an incumbent, which Perot faced in Bush '41), support from at least some of the Republican Party from early on, considerably greater name recognition, a better sense of marketing himself, etc. Also, Perot did say he would cut Medicare and Social Security, but only "for those who don't need it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Perot talking about NAFTA in 1996 actually increased support for NAFTA significantly, but that will all go down the memory hole once you guys manage to "purge" the Democratic Party lmao.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Perot talking about NAFTA in 1996 actually increased support for NAFTA significantly, It probably helped that it hadn't gone into effect yet. quote:but that will all go down the memory hole once you guys manage to "purge" the Democratic Party lmao. You really are scared that the Bernies are going to purge everybody who isn't like them, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It probably helped that it hadn't gone into effect yet. Or it could be that Perot's popularity was more complicated than the cancer Frijolero vomited out in order to beatify Trump voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think this probably isn't a very good source of data for your argument dude. Ok, if you think that data is flawed, here's another independent data set showing exactly the same thing. 1) The issues where a significant number of Obama voters could have been peeled off were trade, immigration and Obamacare.  2) Racial resentment among former Obama voters was highly correlated with positive opinions of Trump.  3) Opposition to free trade agreements among former Obama voters was far less correlated with positive opinions of Trump.  4) Blaming competition from minorities by former Obama voters was significantly correlated with positive opinions of Trump.  5) Negative feelings about the direction of the economy by former Obama voters were correlated with positive opinions of trump, but the effect was not as large as immigration and job competition.  These graphs are from this post https://www.salon.com/2016/11/27/obama-to-trump-voters-are-not-a-myth-mdash-but-theyre-also-not-the-real-story/ which has a conclusion about turnout that we now know is incorrect. Obama to Trump voters were a more significant factor in the election than turning out the base. Ytlaya posted:I'm not saying that there weren't some voters who may have switched from Obama to Trump due to dissatisfaction with Obama's immigration policy, but you're oversimplifying things to the point of downright absurdity. Ideally some polling organization will actually poll people who voted Obama -> Trump (which I guess would have to be based on self-reporting), because that's the only way we can ever truly get a clear sense of why people did so. I think this data is pretty close to what you wanted. It certainly suggests the narrative I'm articulating isn't wildly off-base. Main Paineframe posted:Why don't we take this (inane, ridiculous) discussion a bit further and look at people who voted for Obama in 2008 but not 2012? It hasn't been examined or analyzed or polled nearly as deeply because no one really saw any mysteries in "extremely popular incumbent who won first election in huge landslide won in slightly smaller landslide", but Obama lost two states in 2012 that he'd won in 2008 (Indiana and North Carolina), and his margin of victory shrank massively in states like FL, PA, WI, and MI - the same four states in which Trump had the smallest margin of victory over Clinton. This isn't inane. We learned only recently that Obama to Trump voters were a bigger issue than base turnout. The reason democrats lost is former obama voters abandoned them for trump. So figuring out exactly why they made that decision is vital. It sure looks like it had a lot to do with racism and immigration policy. I think data about why Obama lost vote share to Romney would be interesting and relevant to discuss as well. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Perot talking about NAFTA in 1996 actually increased support for NAFTA significantly, but that will all go down the memory hole once you guys manage to "purge" the Democratic Party lmao. No need to do anything, Perez is purging them for us
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:No need to do anything, Perez is purging them for us That happens every time the DNC chair changes you radio simpleton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ok, if you think that data is flawed, here's another independent data set showing exactly the same thing. Yes, it does show exactly the same thing - because like the last set of data you tried to feed us, it doesn't actually break down the data between different regions of the country. No poo poo there was more racial resentment among Trump voters - but we're not talking about Trump voters as a whole. We're talking about Obama voters who defected to Trump in the former "Blue Wall" states. In the context of this discussion, I don't particularly care about what motivated Trump voters as a whole. I do care about what the data shows us about why those Rust Belt voters behaved as they did. Right now you're not giving me anything that comes close to answering that question. Your job, in this discussion, is to prove that racial resentment was the decisive factor in how most of them voted - as opposed to a (misguided) belief that Trump would do better at bringing their jobs back and revitalizing their communities/dissatisfaction with the Democrats' apparent commitment to these objectives. So far you have not succeeded in this. Nor does the data you've provided contradict what I've said about Obama-to-Trump voters' attitudes towards immigration many times over: they cared about immigration as it pertained to their ability to find jobs. (or at least as they believed it pertained to this) Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, it does show exactly the same thing - because like the last set of data you tried to feed us, it doesn't actually break down the data between different regions of the country. No poo poo there was more racial resentment among Trump voters - but we're not talking about Trump voters as a whole. We're talking about Obama voters who defected to Trump in the former "Blue Wall" states. In the context of this discussion, I don't particularly care about what motivated Trump voters as a whole. I do care about what the data shows us about why those Rust Belt voters behaved as they did. Right now you're not giving me anything that comes close to answering that question. Your job, in this discussion, is to prove that racial resentment was the decisive issue for most of them. So far you have not succeeded in this. Okay, so the Rust Belt are saintly non-racists, in your view from California, and race has nothing to do with why people have so much antipathy towards undocumented Latinx immigration but not undocumented Irish immigration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so the Rust Belt are saintly non-racists Nope. They're just largely uneducated, desperate folks who got bilked by a con-man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope. Okay, so the Rust Belt can be divided into the (Great Lakes) coastal elites of Detroit, Flint, etc. and the pitiful morons of Warren, Bloomfield Hills, etc. and it's the latter who are non-racist, or at least less racist than the rest of the country such that racism is totally, finally, completely, and absolutely irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:That happens every time the DNC chair changes you radio simpleton. brains boggled by abuela losing 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Cool, more irrelevancies based on your childish desire to win this discussion.  So meanwhile on actual topics. I was thinking but there has been some pushback by some liberals who want to protect Obama's "Legacy" over Obamacare over single payer. I was wondering if considering that now Obamacare is starting to get positive results if we should switch from Medicare for all to expanding Obamacare> To also loops some of the dumberliberal centrists in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, it does show exactly the same thing - because like the last set of data you tried to feed us, it doesn't actually break down the data between different regions of the country. No poo poo there was more racial resentment among Trump voters - but we're not talking about Trump voters as a whole. We're talking about Obama voters who defected to Trump in the former "Blue Wall" states. quote:. What's your point here, then? what difference does it make if Obama to trump voters were motivated by racism about employment? That doesn't make the assertions about obama voters abandoning Dems because they didn't expand the welfare state enough, or because of NAFTA, or neoliberalism, any more true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:
I was wondering if the fascism produced your inability to write coherently, or if the inability to write coherently produced the fascism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:. This isn't data from trump voters as a whole. It's data from Obama voters. It demonstrates pretty convincingly that the mindsets and issues that made Obama voters receptive to trump were racial resentment and immigration. Actually, it pretty clearly demonstrates that economic anxiety, and disappointment with a lack of assistance from Democratic politicians, played the dominant role in Rust Belt Democrats defecting to Trump. Even their preoccupation with immigration has a significant economic component; they almost certainly wouldn't care that much about undocumented workers, if they hadn't been fed the lie that those workers have stolen their jobs. I'm kind of amazed that I keep having to explain this to you, particularly when literally every piece of evidence on the topic backs me up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:. This isn't data from trump voters as a whole. It's data from Obama voters. It demonstrates pretty convincingly that the mindsets and issues that made Obama voters receptive to trump were racial resentment and immigration. If you think that's irrelevant because we're only talking about the rust belt (we're not, Florida was a big deal as well) then by all means, find something more concrete than your earnest assertions that rust belt voters did not follow this pattern. Not only that, but doesn't this data show us that we should be appealing to the people who didn't bother to vote rather than these racists?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually, it pretty clearly demonstrates that economic anxiety, and disappointment with a lack of assistance from Democratic politicians, played the dominant role in Rust Belt Democrats defecting to Trump. Even their preoccupation with immigration has a significant economic component; they almost certainly wouldn't care that much about undocumented workers, if they hadn't been fed the lie that those workers have stolen their jobs. Whoa. They would not be racist if racist ideas hadn't been communicated to them somehow. My mind has just been fuckin' blown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Actually, it pretty clearly demonstrates that economic anxiety, and disappointment with a lack of assistance from Democratic politicians, played the dominant role in Rust Belt Democrats defecting to Trump. Even their preoccupation with immigration has a significant economic component; they almost certainly wouldn't care that much about undocumented workers, if they hadn't been fed the lie that those workers have stolen their jobs. But they weren't motivated by economic anxiety, they were motivated by racism. At the end of the day, why should we appeal to these people rather than the people who were too fatigued or did not have the ability through say structural issues like suppression or being forced to work and didn't vote? e: Moreover, given who vital POC voters are to the democratic base and retention and growth, why should we invite in people who actively voted for a racist rather than those who didn't vote? Where is the room in the party for people who despise minorities and why should we welcome them over those some 45% plus of registered voters who didn't vote? stone cold fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Not only that, but doesn't this data show us that we should be appealing to the people who didn't bother to vote rather than these racists? Because appealing to voters in the Rust Belt who didn't turn out to vote, will likely similarly appeal to the voters represented in this data as well. Racist or not racist, they voted for the candidate who balanced antiracism and promises to strengthen the social safety net in 2008 and 2012. So I don't buy JC's argument that left-wing economic populist appeals will be rejected by these voters unless they are also explicitly racist. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because appealing to voters in the Rust Belt who didn't turn out to vote, will likely similarly appeal to the voters represented in this data as well. I know this from my extensive hands-on exploration of sheep anuses. Why, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Why, exactly? Hmmm... Brainiac Five posted:Cool, more irrelevancies based on your childish desire to win this discussion. Oh Effectronica, you card.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Having managed to drag myself away from rolling drunks for their wallets, I will edit this post to have a simulacrum of an argument. Racist or not racist, they voted for the candidate who balanced antiracism and promises to strengthen the social safety net in 2008 and 2012. So I don't buy JC's argument that left-wing economic populist appeals will be rejected by these voters unless they are also explicitly racist. This doesn't say a single goddamn thing about people who didn't vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because appealing to voters in the Rust Belt who didn't turn out to vote, will likely similarly appeal to the voters represented in this data as well. Racist or not racist, they voted for the candidate who balanced antiracism and promises to strengthen the social safety net in 2008 and 2012. So I don't buy JC's argument that left-wing economic populist appeals will be rejected by these voters unless they are also explicitly racist. I mean or they voted for the guy from the non-recession party, if you buy into your argument that these people don't really care about politics. So why should we throw our loyal mass turnouting consistent Dem voting minorities and POCs for racists over apathetics? And I mean, they turned out for Trump, so pretending they're not racist is willfully naive at best. Maybe you should question why you sympathize with them over minority working class voters. Just a thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This doesn't say a single goddamn thing about people who didn't vote. Yes, but stone cold asked about them and I answered her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, but stone cold asked about them and I answered her, before I went back to carving up this homeless guy. You led off with a statement about how the same tactics would attract non-voters, and you're failing to justify it, instead beatifying racists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, but stone cold asked about them and I answered her. No, you didn't, you provided zero answers or analysis as to either their political views or why they didn't vote. You said a load of nothing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I mean or they voted for the guy from the non-recession party, if you buy into your argument that these people don't really care about politics. So why should we throw our loyal mass turnouting consistent Dem voting minorities and POCs for racists over apathetics? Why would we be "throwing" anybody? Again, the Dems have managed to hold together all these groups of people under one coalition. They did it twice: in '08 and '12. So why must we assume that by appealing to blue collar workers in the Rust Belt, we have to necessarily jettison another part of the coalition? quote:And I mean, they turned out for Trump, so pretending they're not racist is willfully naive at best. Maybe you should question why you sympathize with them over minority working class voters. Just a thought. I don't "sympathize" with them over anybody. These were voters whose votes were decisive in the 2016 election. I am interested in finding out why they voted as they did, and what can be done to make them return to the Democratic fold that doesn't abandon left-of-center principles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why would we be "throwing" anybody? Again, the Dems have managed to hold together all these groups of people under one coalition. They did it twice: in '08 and '12. So why must we assume that by appealing to blue collar workers in the Rust Belt, we have to necessarily jettison another part of the coalition? Bear in mind that I'm posting while I cut someone's liver out so my attention is not all there. Why would courting racists cause you to lose support with racial minorities, Majorian? It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
stone cold posted:No, you didn't, you provided zero answers or analysis as to either their political views or why they didn't vote. You said a load of nothing. As someone posted a couple pages back, Democratic voters staying home was not a particularly large factor in Clinton not winning. Turnout was not the decisive factor in this election; Obama voters who defected to Trump were. Brainiac Five posted:Why would courting racists cause you to lose support with racial minorities, Majorian? It just doesn't make sense. It's almost as if...left-wing populism appeals to racists and non-racists alike. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Why would we be "throwing" anybody? Again, the Dems have managed to hold together all these groups of people under one coalition. They did it twice: in '08 and '12. So why must we assume that by appealing to blue collar workers in the Rust Belt, we have to necessarily jettison another part of the coalition? By appealing to Trump voters who were one time Obama voters, over the people who didn't vote, you somehow don't see how that would be a slap in the face to the people Trump has sought to oppress and these people enthusiastically nodded along to? Again, why don't we appeal to the people who didn't vote? Majorian posted:I don't "sympathize" with them over anybody. These were voters whose votes were decisive in the 2016 election. I am interested in finding out why they voted as they did, and what can be done to make them return to the Democratic fold that doesn't abandon left-of-center principles. I find that very hard to believe. Also, if we're talking about decisive votes, I mean Trump only won Michigan by 13000 votes, so is this an appeal to racists deal or get the loving vote out spend money and get actual boots on the ground kind of deal? Or maybe we can focus on labor principles that help all labor not just the wwc? You are aware that the working class broke Hillary in no small part due to POC working class voters....right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Majorian posted:As someone posted a couple pages back, Democratic voters staying home was not a particularly large factor in Clinton not winning. Turnout was not the decisive factor in this election; Obama voters who defected to Trump were. This is a non-sequitur and it's a black mark against the colleges that graduated you that you post like this. Majorian posted:It's almost as if...left-wing populism appeals to racists and non-racists alike. Now justify this, you weaselly little Valley motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:18
|
|