|
Badger of Basra posted:Part of the reason I don't like this explanation is because Latinos across the country voted for Trump more than they did in 2016. If oil workers explains the ones who did in Texas does that mean, somehow, there are unique situations for every possible type of Latino voter in the country and they all just happened to happen this year? the industry, jobs, and wealth is fairly new. maybe they didn't own homes/f250's yet in 2016, or didn't have kids. even with the oil crash, west texas has had 3.5 fairly good years and that kind of prosperity in the region could be rewarded politically fwiw a ton of the border patrol / ICE people i interact with at the checkpoint when i visit my dad in the valley are hispanic
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
A lot of the discrepancy that people like to see in Ky results is the product of people just not remotely understanding how insanely red that state actually is. Yes, booker is cool and pretty left---and he represents a single district of 45,000 people that's a couple mile long strip along the northern border of the state. Like yeah it's red politically, but it's also culturally deep red on a level that's remarkable even by the standards of blood red southern states. On a similar note: ky (88% white) is almost as white as vermont and nearly 10% whiter than other notable white-af-state, Oregon. There isn't a large minority population that traditionally votes dem there (or that can be activated and brought into the dem-voting fold) which has been one of the key strategies dems have used to undermine republican majorities. So ky statewide elections live and die by what white voters decide to do. So yeah, spending a fuckton of money and still losing by a lot isn't really surprising in kentucky at all. A lot of ky voters weren't switching parties no matter how much money her campaign spent. It being a banner year for white turnout would also likely do some weird things to the margins of the less-white dem districts, too. Anyways mitch is a shady gently caress and a piece of poo poo and I'd be surprised if he had any moral objection to cheating, but the risk:reward for cheating in a race that was probably one of the least competitive in the entire country is pretty ludicrous, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:A lot of the discrepancy that people like to see in Ky results is the product of people just not remotely understanding how insanely red that state actually is. Yes, booker is cool and pretty left---and he represents a single district of 45,000 people that's a couple mile long strip along the northern border of the state. Like yeah it's red politically, but it's also culturally deep red on a level that's remarkable even by the standards of blood red southern states. On a similar note: ky (88% white) is almost as white as vermont and nearly 10% whiter than other notable white-af-state, Oregon. There isn't a large minority population that traditionally votes dem there (or that can be activated and brought into the dem-voting fold) which has been one of the key strategies dems have used to undermine republican majorities. So ky statewide elections live and die by what white voters decide to do. Its worth noting that the day after the election Mitch very smugly pointed out that former democratic strongholds of the state are now die hard Republican voting bastions, and thats one of the reasons why the state sent him back to Washington and voted for Trump. He didn't even have to lie about the reason why: the "war on coal." Kentucky is another West Virginia: its not just that the Democratic Party has shifted away from their comfort zone, its that they actively refuse to change to the point of self-destruction. This is that "culturally deep red," that you're talking about in the starkest possible terms. Death is preferable to either the advent of the new OR the obsolescence of the old.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:He didn't even have to lie about the reason why: the "war on coal." That is a R talking point/propaganda. Or in other words: a lie. Sanguinia posted:Kentucky is another West Virginia: its not just that the Democratic Party has shifted away from their comfort zone, its that they actively refuse to change to the point of self-destruction. So what are the D's supposed to do? Lie to those people and tell them coal is coming back any day now? What policy are they supposed to support that gets those people voting for D's again? Offering job retraining programs and incentives to move out elsewhere in areas that had employment primarily in coal has gone nowhere from what I remember. Those people see coal jobs as their birthright at this point. There basically is no rationality on their part about the subject. And the R's are knowingly exploiting that. But then that is part of their whole schtick at this point isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:There is no war on coal. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak about the coal ecosystem but its a simple fact that in the last how many ever decades the Democrats have transitioned from a labor party to a party of coastel elites and the PMC class. The failure of the Democrats in Kentucky is synonymous with their failure in the midwest and rustbelt. The parry fails voters not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 05:41
|
|
|
The vast majority of Democratic voters are still working-class and the "coastal elites" thing is Republican messaging; one of the most reliable indicators that you are a Republican is that you are wealthy, no matter where you live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Yes, but this election cycle drastically accelerated it, as the record-breaking vote total showed. This acceleration was matched and counter-balanced by the giant unexpected Trump Voter surge which cost Democrats an outright victory in the Senate and shrunk their House majority, making 2022 an exponentially more dangerous race for any hope of a Democratic Trifecta which will be required for necessary systemic reforms, and also saw failures to capture critical state houses for redistricting, making it likely that the GOP is going to stack the deck even more obscenely than they did in 2010 next year, potentially putting Democratic gains in those states out of business for another decade. For sure it would be bad for Democrats if Republicans kept their gains in rural areas and Democrats went back to 2012 numbers in suburbs, but there's something missing. The 2016 to 2020 shift wasn't that big all things considered (percentage wise, the shifts in vote number were big because 2016 was low turnout and 2020 was high), the larger shifts from 2012 to 2016 didn't revert, and both the rural white Republican gains and suburban Democratic gains were already happening before Trump. Why would the Democratic gains in suburbs specifically revert while everything else stays the same? I'm not saying Democrats will win 100% of the time in the future, but it reminds me of just after the 2012 election, thinking that the GOP was done for because there was no way the next Democrat would do any worse than Obama with rural white voters. Sanguinia posted:Do we have any GOOD takes on this yet? As far as I've seen the only article that actually went and asked the Latinos in question came back with the answer "I need to vote Republican because if my boss's taxes go up or his business gets regulated he could fire me, and that would ruin my family." It doesn't actually answer but here's a reasonable sounding argument that COVID hurt Trump in majority white places and Biden in majority nonwhite places. https://twitter.com/SolomonMg/status/1329170992631975936
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
This is in regards to Kentucky one of the poorest states in the country that still has 100,000 more registered democratic voters than republicans and Biden lost by about 600k votes and McGrath by about 400k. I'm sure we can get a more nuanced take other than rural whites failed the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 05:54
|
|
|
Well first of all, don't conflate "working class" with "white working-class".
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:03
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:This is in regards to Kentucky one of the poorest states in the country that still has 100,000 more registered democratic voters than republicans and Biden lost by about 600k votes and McGrath by about 400k. I'm sure we can get a more nuanced take other than rural whites failed the Democrats. Kentucky being a poor state and voting Republican doesn't mean that poor voters vote Republican. For whatever an exit survey in Kentucky is worth, the AP has Trump doing slightly better with higher income Kentucky voters (but they all voted for Trump by landslides because Kentucky is a very red state). Nationwide,  There are probably more registered Democrats because people don't bother to change their registration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:07
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:The parry fails voters not the other way around. I even mentioned how the D's tried to help people in coal mining areas where those jobs were disappearing: job retraining and pay for relocation. Which was by and large thoroughly rejected by those people. So how the party is perceived by R's in general, which is in large part due to propaganda and lies, has no bearing on what I was talking about. I was talking about practical policy that D's could do to win back those voters and NOT party perception or propaganda from either D's or R's. So actually address what I was talking about or do not reply to me or gaslight my reply as something it wasn't or whatever the gently caress you're doing here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:10
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:This is in regards to Kentucky one of the poorest states in the country that still has 100,000 more registered democratic voters than republicans and Biden lost by about 600k votes and McGrath by about 400k. How they vote and how they're registered are 2 different things. Many of these people never changed party registration from where it was decades ago but have been voting straight R for a while. McGrath bombed by default because she was a pro Trump D.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:13
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:How they vote and how they're registered are 2 different things. Many of these people never changed party registration from where it was decades ago but have been voting straight R for a while. Yeah, I'm not at all sure the other Dem primary candidate would've done much better, but I really doubt they would've done worse. McGrath ran as the worst of both worlds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:16
|
|
|
Yeah, it's important to note that despite the shifting coalitions of the parties, the Republican base is still people making six-figure salaries or greater.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:20
|
|
|
SoggyBobcat posted:Yeah, it's important to note that despite the shifting coalitions of the parties, the Republican base is still people making six-figure salaries or greater. I actually find the stratum Trump's very successful with very telling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:There is no war on coal. For the record, I put "war on coal," in scare quotes because I know its a lie. But the fact that it was the REASON those regions are so red now is not a lie, even if the thing itself is. That's why my next point was to compare Kentucky to West Virginia. You also answer your own question there. Of course the D's aren't supposed to pretend Coal is coming back and prop up one of the worst offenders of climate change just to win those votes, and their alternative of "we will train you so you can move somewhere else and get a different job," isn't working precisely because of your next point, that the attachment of generational coal workers to coal is entirely irrational and can't be argued around. That's why Mitch was so smug when he declared that the "war on coal," is why he won and why Kentucky is Republican territory forever: he knows he's exploiting these people for power through a lie and that they not only will lick his boot for telling that lie, but will actually enjoy the taste of that boot. Anything to be told what they want to hear. ThisIsFineDog.png. Terminal autist posted:I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak about the coal ecosystem but its a simple fact that in the last how many ever decades the Democrats have transitioned from a labor party to a party of coastel elites and the PMC class. The failure of the Democrats in Kentucky is synonymous with their failure in the midwest and rustbelt. The parry fails voters not the other way around. If this is the case why are Illinois and Minnesota Democratic strongholds and why are Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania strongly Dem-leaning Swing States where Trump only won by razor-thin margins in a historically low-turnout election? Saying that these people have turned on the Democrats because the Democrats failed them is disingenuous because there are plenty of places where Democrats haven't failed the working class, at least not enough that they've turned on them to the point of making entire states death territory. The difference is that Democratic policy generally serves the URBAN poor (to the extent that it serves any poor of course) and not the RURAL poor. This is accurate and fair criticism. Its why their solution to the destruction of rural resource extraction industries was "Move to the city and get a different job." Its why the collapse of the Steel Industry has turned MINERS against Dems but the actual STEEL WORKERS in the CITIES still bleed blue. So this leads us to the actual argument: can the rural poor vote be won back? If there is a policy that could do that and the Democrats CHOOSE not to adopt it because its untenable to their donors or because they prefer different voters in their electorate they think those policies will lose them, then yes the Democrats are at fault. If there is NO policy the Democrats could adopt that would win those voters over, then the Democrats are correct to chase other votes. I honestly don't know the answer. Maybe if the Dems just passed M4A and materially helped hundreds of thousands of rural Americans their votes would come flooding back. But frankly I'm skeptical. I think that a lot of these voters have been so poisoned by the propaganda of the Right Wing Machine that they will continue to enjoy the taste of Republican boot no matter what the Democrats put on the table for them. Donald Trump's policies hurt rural Americans to the tune of tens of millions of very real dollars and they still love him because of performative red meat bullshit and telling them what they want to hear. But I accept that I might be wrong. Republicans couldn't repeal Obamacare because their own voters grew to love it so much despite almost ten years of making it as bad for them as they possibly could. Democratic gains in 2018 were on the back of promises to protect and improve Obamacare vs Republicans that were still promising to trash it without offering an alternative. But most of those gains were in suburban areas, not rural Mine Country. All those places still voted Republican, and a lot of them went on record saying they did it on the honest belief that the very person they voted for would never do THE THING THEY PROMISED THEY WOULD DO and take away their healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:32
|
|
|
/\ One of the unpleasant implications with Manchin imo is that, by all accounts, he may be the template for a dem that does well in conservative areas.PC LOAD LETTER posted:How they vote and how they're registered are 2 different things. Many of these people never changed party registration from where it was decades ago but have been voting straight R for a while. This is supported somewhat by new voter registrations in kentucky being ~ 4:1 in the GOP's favor Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Dec 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:There are gigantic problems with the D's as a party but this is a dishonest bullshit of a reply in context to what I was talking about. The Democrats did the political equivalent of right wing trolls on twitter telling journalists to learn to code. Republicans aren't wizards they're not out here hexing people with slurs and dog whistles to vote R. The Democrats spent over 100 million dollars to run a platform of McConnell didn't vote with Trump enough to lose by 20 points, that should be a criminal act of malfeasance. It seems to me the Democrats should try running on improving material conditions and explaining in simple language how they have and can do that. If people are really that gullible and susceptible to propaganda why can't the Democrats do it too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:41
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:The Democrats did the political equivalent of right wing trolls on twitter telling journalists to learn to code. Republicans aren't wizards they're not out here hexing people with slurs and dog whistles to vote R. The Democrats spent over 100 million dollars to run a platform of McConnell didn't vote with Trump enough to lose by 20 points, that should be a criminal act of malfeasance. It seems to me the Democrats should try running on improving material conditions and explaining in simple language how they have and can do that. If people are really that gullible and susceptible to propaganda why can't the Democrats do it too? Propaganda doesn't work on an intellectual level, that's why its propaganda. You can explain in simple language how Democratic policy is improving your material conditions and how their future policies are going to do even more for you until you're blue in the face, if you really believe that the reason your life sucks is The Immigrants and somebody comes along and tells you you're right, its an uphill battle to fight that with, you know, facts. This is why every part of Obamacare polled overwhelmingly positively but "Obamacare," did not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 06:47
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Propaganda doesn't work on an intellectual level, that's why its propaganda. You can explain in simple language how Democratic policy is improving your material conditions and how their future policies are going to do even more for you until you're blue in the face, if you really believe that the reason your life sucks is The Immigrants and somebody comes along and tells you you're right, its an uphill battle to fight that with, you know, facts. I believe most Republicans are spite motivated but not in a 1:1 where its racism a large part part but not a majority, thats how trump expands his support with all groups but white males. The more rural you get and the less politically engaged the person Democrats are a toxic brand, its why everyone will tell you how much they hate politicians but Bernie and Trump at least pre 2016 polled well. To expand on my other point I really don't think the Democrats actually have a vested interest in improving material conditions or even putting less electorally significant states into play. Going to preface this with I don't think booker would have won but the McGrath campaign should be studied. It's such a disaster of a campaign on every level from messaging to results, it was either a total grift and fraud or just a stunning level of indescribable incompetence. I doubt any of the consultants or people helming it will face any consequences and if anything will get more prestigious positions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 07:09
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This is why every part of Obamacare polled overwhelmingly positively but "Obamacare," did not. I'm not sure the Individual Mandate polled overwhelmingly positively. I think M4A is a better example, considering many leftists will say they disapprove of "Obamacare" in polls but the polls don't bother to ask why. With M4A you can clearly see how different questions asking the same thing poll differently, with support dropping the more socialist or nationalized you say it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:For the record, I put "war on coal," in scare quotes because I know its a lie. Sanguinia posted:That's why my next point was to compare Kentucky to West Virginia. etc etc etc etc Going by your reply to Terminal Autist it sounds like you don't know what they should do either and largely seem at a loss as to solutions policywise? Which is perfectly reasonable BTW. Personally I don't think there is actually a policy solution possible at this point. Its going to take generational die off of boomers + maybe some sort of localized economic crisis that cannot be pinned on D's to shake things up and cause those people to move away and live in or closer to cities. We're easily 4+ years, and perhaps 8+yr away with respect to these coal-centric regions specifically, away from the former but maaaybe the latter will come sooner. Terminal autist posted:The Democrats did the political equivalent of right wing trolls on twitter telling journalists to learn to code. ...... If people are really that gullible and susceptible to propaganda why can't the Democrats do it too? Just don't reply to me further. Put me on ignore if you have to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 08:51
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:OK wasn't sure if you doing scare quotes or quoting him or someone else. Just read weird for you to say "he didn't lie" and then give his lies. Could be my fault for misreading or something though. Yeah, my overall point was basically that I am at a loss for what to do policy wise to win back rural former-democrat voting blocks like unionized coal miners in states like WV and Kentucky. My instinct is that it is not possible. People on this board occasionally propose policies which could theoretically work, usually fairly radical leftist policies like UBI on a scale where nobody in those rural coal towns would ever need to work again if they don't want to and thus wouldn't need to leave the communities they refuse to give up on, sometimes policies which are more realistic like large-scale investment in education, communication and mass transportation infrastructure which would allow for these places to contribute in the existing economy on their own terms rather than needing to uproot themselves and thereby potentially grow again rather than wither. But I don't believe those people would vote for those policies thanks to the incredible success of the Right Wing Media Machine's tainting of wealth redistribution and the equally incredible success of Right Wind Politicians in getting them to believe the lie that the imaginary 1950s White Guy Life in their head can be theirs because a vote for me is a vote to destroy the enemies that are the REAL reason you didn't get it. If we got policies like those passed would they embrace them? Absolutely, just like they did with Obamacare. But if they're not going to help us pass it, how do we pass it without them? Generally speaking with the electorate we have left to work with, we can't, which is why guys like Bernie Sanders bet so heavily on activating inactive voters who WOULD support such policies, and that didn't really pan out. Joe Biden's Milquetoast Return-To-Form Liberalism with a few Labour Friendly bells and whistles and/or Anti-Trumpist Sentiment turned out enough votes in the primary they he broke multiple records and in the general that Biden voters outnumbered "Did not vote," for the first time since LBJ, and Donald Trump activated new voters but they are decidedly not the "Vote for socialism," types. My point is not to like, kill hope for leftist change or a leftist candidate ever winning a Democratic primary or anything, but to just make plain that even if powerful leftist policy which would materially improve the lives of these people was on the table, I don't think they'd support it until it was already in their hands, and I don't think its possible to put it in their hands without their support, which makes winning them back untenable, which means the only logical strategy is to look for votes elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 09:46
|
|
|
Pick posted:I actually find the stratum Trump's very successful with very telling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 10:12
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I'm a bit surprised that the over $200k cohort is split down the middle Educational background starts becoming more of a differentiating factor, I imagine. Maybe increased amounts of domestic and world travel due to work and study? More likely to have a nuanced view of macroeconomics as opposed to loving nothing but trickle down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 10:16
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:What policy are they supposed to support that gets those people voting for D's again? Offering job retraining programs and incentives to move out elsewhere in areas that had employment primarily in coal has gone nowhere from what I remember. The Republican stance seems to be lying about coal coming back, the Democratic strategy seems to be telling 50 year old coal miners they can retrain to do work online which has some success but only for a fraction of the population. My solution would be to just dump several billion into creating state-run factories to create wind turbines or solar panels or whatever to actually guarantee well paid working class jobs in these communities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 11:51
|
|
|
transition programs are as old as the waves of mine closures, but support from organized labour can be tepid - until the demise is really self-evident, the politicians and labour leaders who succeed are not those who promise transition - the ones who succeed are those who promise, however incorrectly, some form of salvation of the mines. Arthur Scargill dreamt that ever-purer British anthracite would avoid pollution whilst reviving revenues. In Australia too the cry of clean coal is still recent and well within memory. And once the demise is undeniable, things are already pretty far gone. (you can tune in any time to watch it in action in Poland today, where the mines still survive on subsidies) the employment profile is too different - the ideal industry would be something like construction, which shares a similar age and gender and education distribution... industrial manufacturing is highly automated and does not. The bulk of the "green" jobs-count is in the installation, which could be argued to match the profile but - like construction - is intensely mobile for obvious reasons, rather than sited at a mining town for generations. The destruction of the community as a community would be unavoidable. The idea of a drop-in transition is sexy but always strikes me as more than a little fantastic. and once they do move out - well, then they're not in coal country as voters any more either, are they? They're in the growing second-tier cities which are incidentally safely liberal seats anyway
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Why would you vote for someone telling you that the only way you'll get a job is if you pack up and move to what might as well be another country, away from where you've grown up and lived amongst family and friends your whole life? Even if the R guy is crooked, at least he's promising you a job here, not in a massively overpriced (and according to the only news station you watch, dangerous and strange) coastal city. The people who are willing and able to leave rural areas generally do so already, they don't need Tom Perez telling them to learn to code for that lightbulb to go off. The people that stay need improvement of their material conditions, where they already live, before they shift their votes, and the Democratic Party has yet to adopt any sort of messaging to that effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
Kulkasha posted:Why would you vote for someone telling you that the only way you'll get a job is if you pack up and move to what might as well be another country, away from where you've grown up and lived amongst family and friends your whole life? Even if the R guy is crooked, at least he's promising you a job here, not in a massively overpriced (and according to the only news station you watch, dangerous and strange) coastal city. Of course, the Republican hasn't gotten them any jobs where they live, so maybe stop voting for the person who is demonstrably lying?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
Terminal autist posted:This is in regards to Kentucky one of the poorest states in the country that still has 100,000 more registered democratic voters than republicans and Biden lost by about 600k votes and McGrath by about 400k. I'm sure we can get a more nuanced take other than rural whites failed the Democrats. Votes are not an entitlement for a (D). Some people from KY are used to the republican style of transactional representation, of which the democratic party offered nothing. There are people with motivations behind the raw data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Good new for Warnock and Ossoff in a recent poll https://twitter.com/11AliveNews/status/1341332422345027584 Ither fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
The GOP platform is to save coal, which Trump made much issue of and did what little he could to do so (and failed). Kentucky voter dissatisfaction with Generic Republican is probably very high but not as high as it is for Generic Democrat. No one really wants to hear "The president cannot save you, coal is doomed!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
This is from a different country, but the situation is very comparable. It's from an article talking about a centre-left government in Alberta, Canada's oil province.quote:Fossil fuel workers in transition In a comparable jurisdiction, when faced with coal workers losing their jobs, the government offered them income subsidies and retraining and retirement bridges and relocation allowances, and still lost votes in those areas in the next election, because what workers actually wanted was for the government to intervene in the labour market and find them new jobs. That's something the centre-left Albertan government was unwilling to do because they continued to see the labour market and job-hunting as the responsibility of individual workers. A Green New Deal with a jobs guarantee might be the kind of policy that could win back some (definitely not all) coal miner votes, because "we'll help you learn to code and move to Silicon Valley" is a much less appealing offer than "we'll guarantee you a new job that you can do with your current skills and is close to your current community".
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
Ither posted:Good new for Warnock and Ossoff in a recent poll Worth noting that the tweet neglects to mention the poll was conducted by SurveyUSA, who as far as I can tell were fairly accurate all around in the election. Their final poll of GA, from mid-October, was a Biden +2 result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
A federal jobs guarantee, according to data for progress, is quite popular. To be honest, I kind of agree on that particularly, not because of the "dignity of work "per se, but because finding a job is a loving nightmare even if you're really qualified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:I'm not sure the Individual Mandate polled overwhelmingly positively. I think M4A is a better example, considering many leftists will say they disapprove of "Obamacare" in polls but the polls don't bother to ask why. With M4A you can clearly see how different questions asking the same thing poll differently, with support dropping the more socialist or nationalized you say it is. The individual mandate didn't. In 2016, Kaiser had disapproval of the individual mandate at 63%. YouGov in 2017 had disapproval at 66%. Back in 2012, 56% disapproval, while 72% of Americans thought the mandate was unconstitutional. So, as you note, the claim that every individual part of Obamacare was popular is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Pick posted:A federal jobs guarantee, according to data for progress, is quite popular. To be honest, I kind of agree on that particularly, not because of the "dignity of work "per se, but because finding a job is a loving nightmare even if you're really qualified. Feels like we're talking at this point about programs that were started during the Depression and all dismantled by the end of World War II.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
The posts on the last page are very revealing in their framing: one side says that the Dems are failing the rural poor and offer them nothing, while the other says that the poor may be unreachable through policy. Neither has touched the third rail: *these voters are already getting exactly what they want from the GOP*. What they want, in not so coded terms, is lots of racism and free money for me but not for thee. We've seen this over and over in state elections where things like Medicare expansion and minimum wage increases pass by 20 point margins in blood red areas, in governor's races where moderate dems can still win in LA/KY just by (being white in an off year and) promising said free money, and in the complete lack of self-introspection whenever any of the Trump voters in those states get interviewed. Every Cletus safari, without exception, has shown at least one Cletus who's dirt poor, would be much better off under a Democratic government on every level, and votes Republican anyway because the leopard he's voting for is sure to eat other (brown) people's faces. It's practically a safari staple, just after the paragraph about the diner but before the token local Democratic county manager who talks about how out of touch the state reps in the big city of 50,000 people are. Sure, sometimes even the Cletuses do vote for blue governors, but the important point the thread keeps missing is that they are all Manchin types who are completely anathema to anyone ITT, nor would a progressive have a hope in hell of winning any of the races people like JBE sometimes pull out. With few exceptions, these are not just unreachable voters, they're functionally irredeemable on the national level. Sure, you can spend six months deprogramming one individual Q or Leopard Party voter to mixed results, but why would any reasonable campaign try to do that when 45+ states have much larger buckets of voters to go after in every other demographic? This does not mean the party should give up on some races even in LA - after all, John Bel Edwards is going to be better *for those people* than any Republican - but there is no way to convert Louisiana or Kentucky back to blue states in any of our lifetimes. Another thing this thread is sometimes willfully blind about is the type of blue they used to be; all of those coal miners who voted straight Dem did so because those were segregationist Dems who fought to the death against having black mine workers. Sure, they'll still vote for JBE, but they're also going to vote against any hint of a socially progressive policy forever. They know exactly what side of the culture war they're on, and getting them into a coalition with the current incarnation of the Dems is not just incredibly pointless; it's also hostile to the existing members of that coalition. Meanwhile, the Dems have won the suburbs, a massive voting block that is -already- persuaded on many social issues and within reach on the rest. They've won women, especially suburban women. They've won the youth vote. Some are closer to permanent wins than the others, but all three can easily coexist with each other and with the existing solid 80% of the black vote and 65% of the Latino vote in the coalition. This is a coalition that will always win Presidential elections and probably favored in the midterms if it can be kept together. Naturally, because it clashes with some people's existing world views, the win this coalition delivered is already being ignored in favor of chasing the West Virginia coal mining dragon. Stop it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
I made the comment fatuously, but in reality people were talking about how Vilsack might promote corporate agriculture and completely leave the small family farm behind. But from a bloodthirsty rationale, which I don't think is what is driving this and I wouldn't recommend because I think being bloodthirsty is bad, probably one of the most successful things Democrats could do is completely destroy rural areas (that they've already lost) so bad that those peoples kids end up moving to cities. This is already sort of happening, but you could probably accelerate it. If I recall, they were only about 2 million remaining farmers in the traditional sense, and yet there are disproportionate cudgel against the Democratic Party. From a purely strategic perspective that I don't condone, you could probably put a really serious squeeze on them and potentially make them essentially extinct, like handmade golf ball makers and other professions that have been largely automated away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Pick posted:I made the comment fatuously, but in reality people were talking about how Vilsack might promote corporate agriculture and completely leave the small family farm behind. But from a bloodthirsty rationale, which I don't think is what is driving this and I wouldn't recommend because I think being bloodthirsty is bad, probably one of the most successful things Democrats could do is completely destroy rural areas (that they've already lost) so bad that those peoples kids end up moving to cities. This is already sort of happening, but you could probably accelerate it. If I recall, they were only about 2 million remaining farmers in the traditional sense, and yet there are disproportionate cudgel against the Democratic Party. From a purely strategic perspective that I don't condone, you could probably put a really serious squeeze on them and potentially make them essentially extinct, like handmade golf ball makers and other professions that have been largely automated away. I'm sorry we don't do pogroms here, only policies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2020 17:39
|
|