joepinetree posted:

What the gently caress does this mean? How the gently caress does using exit polls from 2016 (when Hispanic turn out was less than 50%) tell you anything about "political homogeneity?"

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

How people vote is the obvious definition from context. I mean, c'mon.

Famethrowa posted:

A significant connective tissue in that voting bloc is personally felt racism stemming from the racism white voting bloc. Ironically, the thing uniting disparate Spanish speaking communities is that they are generalized against. If that racial antagonism was erased, I guarantee that you would see a shift to reflect their identities values more. In fact, I wager their shared catholicism is much more of a factor then speaking Spanish.

Related, have you heard how much poo poo Spanish speakers from different countries talk about each other? The racism directed at Mexican people by a lot of Cubans is unreal.

That, coincidentally, is also the connective tissue for the African diaspora + recent African immigrant community. Those two groups have a lot of tension between them, but anti- black racism certainly unites them.

joepinetree posted:

It's a non sequitur and unrelated to the question. Sometimes it's ok to say that Biden said a dumb thing, people don't need to defend every stupid thing Biden says.

quote:

What the gently caress does this mean? How the gently caress does using exit polls from 2016 (when Hispanic turn out was less than 50%) tell you anything about "political homogeneity?"

Timeless Appeal posted:

Yo, who is calling their food Hispanic? Dominican, Colombian, Mexican, and Cuban food are all pretty different. Is this a Mid-West thing?

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

It is not racist to analyze the world with the axiom that racism exists. 'Hispanics/Latinos have a lot to divide them, but their politics are more congruent because of racism' results in Hispanic being a useful lens through which to analyze politics. It has its limits, which is looping back around to the point Joe Biden was making.

It's also okay to admit that words aren't poisoned by coming out of Joe Biden's mouth!

How people vote is the obvious definition from context. I mean, c'mon.

I was originally using 2014 but i grabbed slightly more recent data. It really doesn't matter, the point remains the same regardless of year.

Noone makes Hispanic food. But all the ingredients are in the same section of the store cuz of commonalities of interest, origin, and the specific spices etc. used.

Same thing for Asian. Noone makes 'Asian food'. But all the Thai, Japanese, Chinese, etc. stuff I might want to pick up is all in the same section, or in the same specialty store. It's a useful meta-category.

Sorry for not responding to everyone or in detail but only so much time in the day.

joepinetree posted:

This is all so incredibly stupid.

The question wasn't about voting, it was about extending TPS to Venezuela. In his answer, it becomes obvious that he doesn't know what TPS is. His answer is completely unrelated to TPS for Cuba or reengaging with Cuba diplomatically.
As such, "How people vote is the obvious definition from context" is utter nonsense (and even if it were you're still ignoring turn out). It is incredible how you just make stuff up (e.g., Carter and lefty kookiness) and then just move on when proven to be wrong again and again.

joepinetree posted:

This is all so incredibly stupid.

The question wasn't about voting, it was about extending TPS to Venezuela. In his answer, it becomes obvious that he doesn't know what TPS is. His answer is completely unrelated to TPS for Cuba or reengaging with Cuba diplomatically.
As such, "How people vote is the obvious definition from context" is utter nonsense (and even if it were you're still ignoring turn out). It is incredible how you just make stuff up (e.g., Carter and lefty kookiness) and then just move on when proven to be wrong again and again.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

It was the context of the thread conversation. We were talking about the greater implications of Biden referring the diverse political opinions of hispanics, especially as compared to blacks.

It is definitely weird how threads move on while i'm not reading them! I find it inconvenient personally. But to respond, since you feel so strongly about this, Carter's left-wing kookiness was a narrative at the time (late 80s), as was the complete failure of his administration. Narratives like this were a big reason that Reagan immediately stripped solar panels from the White House. Carter suffered in this regard in part was because he was the victim of the embryonic right wing media - he was also a victim of the Moral Majority movement, which sought to purge and render illegitimate any competing authority for Evangelical voters. In particular, refusing to embrace the pro-life platform literally resulted in his being labeled "a traitor to the South" and "not a Christian". None of this had any direct relationship to the actual truth of where Carter fell on the political spectrum or how he governed.

Only the distance of time has even somewhat rehabilitated the Carter Administration. Historians have a much better opinion of him than was the contemporary conventional wisdom, though he's still viewed as somewhat ineffective.

quote:

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions 'yes', why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."

bobjr posted:

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1291371568225017856?s=21

The Glumslinger posted:

Joe Biden's handlers finally realized that Onion Joe Biden is the most popular version of him and decided to lean in

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1291111736167211008

GreyjoyBastard posted:

it's actually a pretty good ad imo

especially with the electric vehicle thing

Nonsense posted:

Goddamned gently caress Ronald Reagan that's masterful.

quote:

As I've studied the record between myself and Governor Reagan, I've been impressed with the stark differences that exist between us. I think the result of this debate indicates that that fact is true. I consider myself in the mainstream of my party. I consider myself in the mainstream even of the bipartisan list of Presidents who served before me. The United States must be a nation strong; the United States must be a nation secure. We must have a society that's just and fair. And we must extend the benefits of our own commitment to peace, to create a peaceful world.

joepinetree posted:

Carter's "lefty kookiness" was never a narrative. It became a narrative when democrats had to defend moving right. Carter lost because the economy sucked because he put Volcker in charge. Reagan's closing statement on the last debate was


You're making poo poo up after the fact.

Just like with this whole "Hispanics are more politically homogeneous than whites" nonsense. I mean, the thread is right here, so I am not going to go over the argument again.

quote:

“Ours is the party that welcomed generations of immigrants—the Jews, the Irish, the Italians, the Poles and all the others, enlisted them in its ranks and fought the political battles that helped bring them into the American mainstream,” Carter noted in his 1976 acceptance speech at the Democratic convention. He continued, with words that Bernie Sanders echoes today, “Too many have had to suffer at the hands of a political economic elite who have shaped decisions and never had to account for mistakes or to suffer from injustice. When unemployment prevails, they never stand in line looking for a job. When deprivation results from a confused and bewildering welfare system, they never do without food or clothing or a place to sleep. When the public schools are inferior or torn by strife, their children go to exclusive private schools. … An unfair tax structure serves their needs. And tight secrecy always seems to prevent reform.”

He went on to call for universal voter registration, a nationwide comprehensive health program for everyone and “a complete overhaul of our income tax system.” And little did he know how prescient this would be: “We can have an American government that does not oppress or spy on its own people but respects our dignity and our privacy and our right to be let alone.”

In his January 1978 State of the Union address, he named “the final elimination of the barriers that restrict the opportunities available to women and also to black people and Hispanics and other minorities” a national priority.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

That you find it weird doesn't mean its not true.

For example, there is a greater divide amongst white people as to white privilege than there is amongst Hispanics.



And white privilege is definitely a hot button political topic, even before the recent protests and the resurgence of BLM.


As for Carter:

What centrist bilge!

The narratives about Carter are inextricably tied up with opinions at the time about pacifism and environmentalism. Carter was a weak do-gooder, a hippie. And hippies were the all-purpose avatar of the left at the time. Punch hippies, get votes, that's the method...

It's amusing to me though that you are posting Reagan quotes about how America is worse off under Carter in order to disprove a post I made about how Carter was viewed as an ineffective at best President. Like, you really do just seize on a single phrase. I'm not sure you even read anything in the post but that one phrase.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

joepinetree posted:

Carter's "lefty kookiness" was never a narrative. It became a narrative when democrats had to defend moving right. Carter lost because the economy sucked because he put Volcker in charge. Reagan's closing statement on the last debate was

You're making poo poo up after the fact.

Timeless Appeal posted:

I think you're bringing in some legitimate insights, and it is worth remembering that Carter was to the Right of establishment Dems like Ted Kennedy on several issues. But it's also true that one of the most iconic Reagan moments was him dunking on Carter talking about the importance of social security and proposing (very limited) national insurance and going onto defend his opposition against medicare.

Painting Carter as a Leftist is not true at all, but I'm not sure I buy into the notion that the Reagan administration didn't drag the general political discourse severely to the right. The Reagan administration led an incredibly insidious and successful campaign against the concept of welfare.

joepinetree posted:

"The Reagan administration dragged the government to the right" is a completely different argument than "Carter lost because he was too much of a lefty." Especially in the context of trying to paint the shift rightward by democrats as a consequence of "the left" losing so much between 1968 and 1992. Carter was already part of the rightward shift of democrats. He reacted to the stagflation of the 70s by deregulating industries, crushing unions and appointing a guy who raised interest rates to unprecedented heights.

Timeless Appeal posted:

Okay, but really are there Hispanic sections to grocery stores outside of tortilla stuff being grouped together?

Timeless Appeal posted:

I think we're in agreement that Democrats were not just victims or even bystanders in this.

Wicked Them Beats posted:

Seen a Hispanic section in literally every grocery store I've ever been in. Not sure where you'd have to live to not encounter one, because even chuds like tacos.

Timeless Appeal posted:

Okay, but really are there Hispanic sections to grocery stores outside of tortilla stuff being grouped together? I mean I'm fine with that being true, but whenever I make Mexican or Colombian stuff, the materials are just kind of around. Like I've seen Asian and Jewish sections, but I'm being real, never seen a Hispanic section. Not making fun of anyone.
I mean, I think we're in agreement around Carter. But I think the argument of the left losing so much between 1968 and 1992 is a fair one in that leftist ideas and victories were actively and successfully being poisoned. It wasn't about a single President loss. It was seeing the accomplishments of the most consequential Presidents in 20th Century being gleefully pissed on and any resistance to this looking entirely impotent.

I think we're in agreement that Democrats were not just victims or even bystanders in this.

joepinetree posted:

But the argument, as presented in this thread, is that Carter, Mondale and Dukakis were from the left of the party and they all lost, so Clinton had to move right to win.
Which is objectively not true. As discussed, Carter was already a departure to the right.Mondale and Dukakis both defeated Jesse Jackson for the nomination and were also from the center right of the party. Both ran, for example, on cutting the deficit.

Leftist ideas "lost" because democrats decided to kill them. Not because they lost elections trying to run on them.

Wicked Them Beats posted:

Seen a Hispanic section in literally every grocery store I've ever been in. Not sure where you'd have to live to not encounter one, because even chuds like tacos.

Timeless Appeal posted:

No, I get what you're arguing, but I think you're making a jump there that I can't follow which is what I was getting at. I think it's naive to think Bill Clinton was like, "Well, I WAS going to run on a progressive utopia, but I guess it has to be the third way." But I think the notion that Leftist ideas lost because democrats decided to kill them is also not true. Like I said, the Reagan administration led an incredibly successful campaign against the progressive victories of the century. And the guy leading this wasn't marginally winning, he was winning by staggering amounts.

The domestically Progressive Democrats on a big national level died with Humphrey and were complicit with a rightward swing. But the Republicans successfully demonized the very notion of welfare.
I mean I grew up in New York, but I've been to other grocery stores, and live in Durham now. Like my muscle memory is that stuff is just is logically grouped by what type of food it is outside of boxed tortillas being grouped near salsas. I really can't like manifest a memory of a sign that says Hispanic Foods. But that's on me.

plogo posted:

Ironically, Bill Clinton actually tacked to the left for a lot of the 1992 primary, despite developing his whole career around being a new democrat, because Pete Tsongas sucked up the centrist air in that primary.

quote:

He talked about the environment and civil rights and about change.

quote:

Boggs voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968,[2][3] as well as the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,[4] the Voting Rights Act of 1965,[5] and the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Supreme Court

quote:

Cale Boggs' generation dreamed of conquering polio. Joe Biden's generation dreams of conquering heroin,

quote:

To Cale Boggs an unfair tax was the 1948 poll tax. To Joe Biden an unfair tax is the 1972 income tax

Somfin posted:

The other thing I see a lot of is implication that Biden is "moderate." Is this meant to be because he's on the right of what folks assume is the left part of the political spectrum? Is he allegedly moderate because, as a hard-right democrat, that supposedly puts him in the genuine political centre, rather than way out on the actual right wing and deep into what they would probably call Republican politics? Do folks not know that, while party affiliation is no longer big tents, party politics absolutely are?

GreyjoyBastard posted:

I'm actually pretty sold on the argument that Biden's rather good at tacking to the center of the Democratic Party (and by extension, a bit short on actual ideology or Ideology). I'm not particularly interested in wading into the debate about what we should use as the barometer for left right etc, but historically he tends not to stay on the right wing of the party for particularly long. He may have conservative tendencies, or it may be mostly joepinetree's pitch that the Democratic Party moved substantially to the right during a lot of Biden's pre-Obama political years, but he's clearly willing to throw those out if the party moves back left or center or whatever you want to call it.

I wouldn't call him a hard-right Democrat because he... was consistently left of a lot of (trash) Democrats throughout his career?

KidDynamite posted:

https://twitter.com/Slasher/status/1291552038455775233

trump made video games illegal


edit: wrong thread. but probably a bad election strategy.

joepinetree posted:

Can you point to any issue prior to the Obama vice presidency where he wasn't to the right of democrats?

Because clearly on integration, financial regulation, crime, the iraq war and bankruptcy he was easily on the right most third of the democrats.