USCE 2024: There are so many wonderful porn stars out there - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: There are so many wonderful porn stars out there

Mustang: Jun 18, 2006; “We don’t really know where this goes — and I’m not sure we really care.”

What do people think about how Democrats should engage with rural Americans? I ask because of this article in Politico: What Liberals Get Wrong About �White Rural Rage� � Almost Everything.

It's a response to a book that came out recently titled White Rural Rage (which I haven't read). Basically, the Politico article argues that it's resentment and not rage that rural white Americans are feeling and why they turn to Republicans who play to those fears. He even acknowledges that Democrats often enact policies that benefit rural Americans far more often than Republicans do but get little credit for doing so from rural people.

The article doesn't really give any real recommendations on how Democrats should change the way they engage with rural America other than essentially to "do better".

Half of my family are Trump voting rural white Americans. As the article mentions, something like 20-30% of rural Americans do in fact vote for Democrats. But the 2/3 that vote GOP? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic. Whatever types of bigot are out there, you can find one among them. And that 20-30% that vote Democrat are politically impotent.

What really irks me about this article is that it wants Democrats to coddle rural white Americans and treat them with kid gloves. The GOP is gleefully attacking and stripping away the rights of minorities in the states they control, and we're supposed to turn the other cheek and treat these people with compassion?

I just don't have it in me to kiss the asses of people that would eagerly inflict harm upon my friends.

edit: the sad thing is, unless rural white Americans can stop being lovely people, this group is in my opinion a lost cause for Democrats to pursue.

Mustang fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 6, 2024

# ? Apr 6, 2024 18:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 12:51

DeathChicken: Jul 9, 2012; Nonsense. I have not yet begun to defile myself.

I mean that is the one thing Trump has consistently been selling, "Hey do you remember when you could be utter poo poo and no one would make you feel bad about it? Ride with me cowboy, I've been doing that for 70 years and you can too"

# ? Apr 6, 2024 18:59

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

The Dems aren�t really offering those people anything. At least Trump says to them �hey, you can blame your problems on minorities�. He�s still not doing anything to fix those problems but Dems refuse to engage on an economic level with those voters.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:10

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Mustang posted:

What do people think about how Democrats should engage with rural Americans? I ask because of this article in Politico: What Liberals Get Wrong About �White Rural Rage� � Almost Everything.

It's a response to a book that came out recently titled White Rural Rage (which I haven't read). Basically, the Politico article argues that it's resentment and not rage that rural white Americans are feeling and why they turn to Republicans who play to those fears. He even acknowledges that Democrats often enact policies that benefit rural Americans far more often than Republicans do but get little credit for doing so from rural people.

The article doesn't really give any real recommendations on how Democrats should change the way they engage with rural America other than essentially to "do better".

Half of my family are Trump voting rural white Americans. As the article mentions, something like 20-30% of rural Americans do in fact vote for Democrats. But the 2/3 that vote GOP? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic. Whatever types of bigot are out there, you can find one among them. And that 20-30% that vote Democrat are politically impotent.

What really irks me about this article is that it wants Democrats to coddle rural white Americans and treat them with kid gloves. The GOP is gleefully attacking and stripping away the rights of minorities in the states they control, and we're supposed to turn the other cheek and treat these people with compassion?

I just don't have it in me to kiss the asses of people that would eagerly inflict harm upon my friends.

edit: the sad thing is, unless rural white Americans can stop being lovely people, this group is in my opinion a lost cause for Democrats to pursue.

This is all true but at the end of the day the US isn't at the point where you can completely ignore the rural vote. Sure Urban areas can carry state wide elections in a lot of states and these states in theory are almost at the point where Dems will be "locked in" to winning nation-wide offices like the Presidency; but it isn't quite there yet, demographics legitimately trend towards a certain destiny but not completely and not yet.

Its heavily dependent on turnout, in a year where turnout is less, even by a lower amount, then that rural vote can make the state flip the other way. PA for example, I think if 100% of the rural vote voted Trump IIRC Trump would've still won the state (this is a bit of a silly hypothetical of course because if 100% of the urban vote voted Biden then Biden still probably wins the state? But that's besides the point).

To win elections you need a majority of the vote, and that vote is going to be spread over several demographics.

But also most importantly, in a democracy, or well, any kind of society, the rural vote, every significant socio-economic class of people or interest group has legitimate needs that should be addressed. Not to the exclusion of every other group, the purpose of government is to balance the needs and interests of each group, and even consider needs and interests that the groups themselves might not be aware of due to having more information. Which means that rural america, even if racist and lovely, shouldn't just be left out there, and need to have some aspect of their material needs addressed by politicians and the government.

They're not going to get less racist by further isolating or leaving them to further rot and erode their socio-economic position.

FlamingLiberal posted:

The Dems aren�t really offering those people anything. At least Trump says to them �hey, you can blame your problems on minorities�. He�s still not doing anything to fix those problems but Dems refuse to engage on an economic level with those voters.

IIRC this is just completely false? Dems offer the rural vote lots of things.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:13

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

Raenir Salazar posted:

IIRC this is just completely false? Dems offer the rural vote lots of things.

Of course they do, they offer far more actual answers than the Republicans. It's not close to enough sure but people pretending like its nothing is just bait to get you to type out what they have done for the 100th time so they can ignore it.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:32

Mustang: Jun 18, 2006; “We don’t really know where this goes — and I’m not sure we really care.”

I don't know how you could possibly engage rural people on things like the economy. Things like facts, data, research, and experts are all considered the realm of overeducated big city liberals and thus can't be trusted. Or it's liberal elites "talking down" to the noble hillbilly.

I'm one of those weirdos that tries to have these discussions with people, and I may as well be talking to a brick wall when it comes to rural white folks. They are completely and utterly impervious to any kind of facts or reason.

I think about this a lot because I agree that it would be massively beneficial to the country if rural white people didn't vote in huge numbers across the country for fascists, but I'll be damned if I know how you can possibly win these people over without catering to their repulsive social beliefs.

The Democratic party giving more support to the few rural liberals that are out there? Seems to me like they would easily be painted as carpetbaggers for having the support of the party that is largely urban and educated.

The backwards social and cultural beliefs of rural Americans seem like an impossible hurdle to overcome.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:39

Ratoslov: Feb 15, 2012; Now prepare yourselves! You're the guests of honor at the Greatest Kung Fu Cannibal BBQ Ever!

Also it's not like rural states don't have racial or religious minorities, LGBTQ people, the disabled, or women who need abortions. Those aren't just urban issues they're everywhere issues. That isn't nothing.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:42

Kith: Sep 17, 2009; You never learn anything
by doing it right.

Mustang posted:

I don't know how you could possibly engage rural people on things like the economy. Things like facts, data, research, and experts are all considered the realm of overeducated big city liberals and thus can't be trusted. Or it's liberal elites "talking down" to the noble hillbilly.

I'm one of those weirdos that tries to have these discussions with people, and I may as well be talking to a brick wall when it comes to rural white folks. They are completely and utterly impervious to any kind of facts or reason.

I think about this a lot because I agree that it would be massively beneficial to the country if rural white people didn't vote in huge numbers across the country for fascists, but I'll be damned if I know how you can possibly win these people over without catering to their repulsive social beliefs.

The Democratic party giving more support to the few rural liberals that are out there? Seems to me like they would easily be painted as carpetbaggers for having the support of the party that is largely urban and educated.

The backwards social and cultural beliefs of rural Americans seem like an impossible hurdle to overcome.

It's really not that hard, most of these folks just want to be left alone and allowed to maintain their "traditions". Frame Dem policy as doing less to gently caress things up than GOP policy and letting people live their own lives without interference and you'll get votes. As insane as it sounds, it's mostly just a culture thing - many of them don't care for policy talk at all and just vote based on vibes.

Kith fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Apr 6, 2024

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:46

Nucleic Acids: Apr 10, 2007

selec posted:

https://twitter.com/HassanElTayyab/status/1776379119082565793

This feels like a major shift. Pelosi is on board with this. Feels like Biden was way out on a limb on his own, and everybody else was waiting for him to wise up, and are now done waiting?

It's too little/too late for me, but amazing to see the shift that seven dead westerners makes when we're over 30,000 dead Palestinians. Disgusting, but unsurprising.

I saw a glib take on Twitter that said the only reason we're seeing movement is every gerontocrat in DC is terrified of being 86'd from the only Michelin-starred restaurant in town.

Until the weapons shipments stop this is ultimately meaningless.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:47

D-Pad: Jun 28, 2006

Mustang posted:

I don't know how you could possibly engage rural people on things like the economy. Things like facts, data, research, and experts are all considered the realm of overeducated big city liberals and thus can't be trusted. Or it's liberal elites "talking down" to the noble hillbilly.

I'm one of those weirdos that tries to have these discussions with people, and I may as well be talking to a brick wall when it comes to rural white folks. They are completely and utterly impervious to any kind of facts or reason.

I think about this a lot because I agree that it would be massively beneficial to the country if rural white people didn't vote in huge numbers across the country for fascists, but I'll be damned if I know how you can possibly win these people over without catering to their repulsive social beliefs.

The Democratic party giving more support to the few rural liberals that are out there? Seems to me like they would easily be painted as carpetbaggers for having the support of the party that is largely urban and educated.

The backwards social and cultural beliefs of rural Americans seem like an impossible hurdle to overcome.

This. I am originally from a small Texas town and it's really easy to underestimate just how captured they are by their specific media sources and how insular and tribal the rural bubble they live in is. Even if a rural person starts to realize the truth there is incredible social pressure to toe the line. The way community and socialization works in these areas is drastically different from living in a city because you know everybody and everybody knows you and you see them constantly at places like the only supermarket in town. Everyone's children are dating and marrying each other etc. Around 30% of the county votes democratic and out of the hundreds of people I know there I can only name 2-3 people that are open about it.

Realistically the only thing dems can do is continue trying to pass the policies that actually help people while the right continues to be poo poo and eventually they might start noticing. Alternatively, we have to wait for the boomers to die off. The millennials from my town are largely the same as their boomer parents in their politics except for social issues and Gen Z is even more socially liberal. Once the boomers are gone I think we will see rural voters still leaning heavily conservative but being much more socially moderate and force the party to change those planks of its platform.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:53

Professor Beetus: Apr 12, 2007; They can fight us
But they'll never Beetus

Time and time again people will trot out the "economic anxiety" poo poo when it's been repeatedly debunked and shown to be complete nonsense with regard to the MAGA/Republican base. Their economic concerns are routinely addressed by Dems at the federal level while the Republicans they keep electing in their state pull poo poo like attaching work requirements to Medicaid and intentionally trashing unemployment and food stamps.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:54

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Nucleic Acids posted:

Until the weapons shipments stop this is ultimately meaningless.

I immediately thought of this exchange the other day. Does anyone know how "offensive weapons" will be designated in contrast to defensive ones?
Department Press Briefing � April 1, 2024 - United States Department of State

www.state.gov - Mon, 01 Apr 2024 posted:

MR MILLER: So I do not agree with that at all. We have been very clear that we want to see Israel do everything it can to minimize civilian casualties. We have made clear that they need to do every � that they need to operate at all times in full compliance with international humanitarian law. At the same time, we are committed to Israel�s right to self-defense, and this is a long-term commitment the United States has made, that it made before October 7th and that continues � it continues since October 7th.

So obviously the fight in Gaza is connected to Israel�s long-term security in very substantial ways. I got into some of that with response to Matt�s question. But Israel still faces � in addition to the security challenge posed with � in Gaza, it still faces an Iran that is hostile to Israel. It still faces Hizballah on its northern border that is hostile to Israel and says it is committed to the destruction of Israel. And so we are going to continue to support Israel�s ability to defend itself against those sworn enemies that want to see it end as a modern state, or a state at all.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Just to follow up, a 2,000-pound bomb is self-defensive, in your opinion?

MR MILLER: It is a � so they need to have the ability to defend themself against a very well-armed adversary � like I said, Iran; Hizballah, which has thousands and thousands of fighters and quite sophisticated materiel and quite sophisticated weaponry, as we�ve seen them deploy � excuse me � against Israel in the last few days. So yes, they do need the modern military equipment to defend themselves against those adversaries.

QUESTION: Yeah, but that was in Gaza, or beginning in Gaza.

MR MILLER: And we have made clear to them that when � that whatever weapon they use in Gaza, be it a bomb, be it a tank round, be it anything, that we expect them to use those weapons in full compliance with international humanitarian law, and we have said it � we have had very frank conversations with them about the fact that far too many civilians have died through their operations and that they need to do better in taking into account the need to minimize civilian harm. And we�ll continue to do that.
�
QUESTION: Okay. Let me ask you something. You talked about the 2,000-pound bombs and so on. You think that it is really wise to send it at this time when this far, in this battle or this war, it has only been used in Gaza? I mean, I know you say that Israel is surrounded by people that wish it (inaudible) and so on. But in fact, it�s surrounded by Egypt, with very good relations with Israel; it�s surrounded by Jordan, with good relations with Israel; it�s surrounded by Syria, that is obviously embroiled in its own civil war and can�t even defend itself against attacks, as we have seen today. So quite the contrary, it�s � Israel is surrounding Hamas, and it�s using these weapons to do that. And in fact, I mean, the F-35, to the best of my knowledge � I could be wrong � has only been used in combat against the people of Gaza.

So how could you justify sending all these weapons when you have the most hapless people probably on Earth, destroyed moving from one place to another and so on, and you send these weapons to sort of just finish the job or continue the job? I don�t know.

MR MILLER: So �

QUESTION: What logic is there in sending in sending those weapons?

MR MILLER: So the logic is exactly what I outlined a moment ago. Despite the fact that Israel has a � has diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan, it does not change the fact that Hizballah is parked on its northern border and is sworn to the destruction of Israel. It does not change the fact that Iran � no, not exactly, not right on its border, but well within striking distance � is committed to the destruction of Israel and continues to fund proxies committed to the destruction of Israel.

So yes, Israel faces incredibly serious threats not just from Hamas � although Hamas is clearly one, as we saw on October 7th � but from other adversaries that it needs our assistance to continue to defend itself against.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 19:54

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Nucleic Acids posted:

Until the weapons shipments stop this is ultimately meaningless.

I don't think that's how politics works? Politics as a process is about advocating for things, even if it doesn't work to try to shift the discussion?

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:04

Nucleic Acids: Apr 10, 2007

mawarannahr posted:

I immediately thought of this exchange the other day. Does anyone know how "offensive weapons" will be designated in contrast to defensive ones?
Department Press Briefing � April 1, 2024 - United States Department of State

Israel will save the offensive ones for the war with Iran they want.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:06

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Professor Beetus posted:

Time and time again people will trot out the "economic anxiety" poo poo when it's been repeatedly debunked and shown to be complete nonsense with regard to the MAGA/Republican base. Their economic concerns are routinely addressed by Dems at the federal level while the Republicans they keep electing in their state pull poo poo like attaching work requirements to Medicaid and intentionally trashing unemployment and food stamps.

Yeah these types of articles usually boil down to "why don't you become a monstrous bigot like your opponent?"

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:06

Byzantine: Sep 1, 2007

Deep down, the root cause is economic anxiety. Unfortunately it is so buried under layers of bigotry and racism that directly addressing economic matters, while it would eventually fix the problem, will not immediately fix the problem and will not be hailed as a liberator by the fascist rurals.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:13

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

Mustang posted:

Half of my family are Trump voting rural white Americans. As the article mentions, something like 20-30% of rural Americans do in fact vote for Democrats. But the 2/3 that vote GOP? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic. Whatever types of bigot are out there, you can find one among them. And that 20-30% that vote Democrat are politically impotent.

What really irks me about this article is that it wants Democrats to coddle rural white Americans and treat them with kid gloves. The GOP is gleefully attacking and stripping away the rights of minorities in the states they control, and we're supposed to turn the other cheek and treat these people with compassion?

I just don't have it in me to kiss the asses of people that would eagerly inflict harm upon my friends.

The author's book is a deconstruction of the idea that the rural voter can be reduced to this. They may not find the bigotry of the GOP to be a dealbreaker, but it's not the defining principle motivating their vote -- their vote is driven by a collective identity defined by geography. The issue is not straightforwardly solvable because the problem, as he points out, is more of politics than of policy.

[edit:] good lord, the article doesn't make the "economic anxiety" point, it refutes it. I'm almost impressed that nobody else bothered to click through and read it before replying.

BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Apr 6, 2024

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:14

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

Expansion of Medicaid under the ACA benefitted tons of rural Americans, and potentially could still benefit tons more in the GOP states that have held out.

How much increased support has this yielded Democrats from rural America?

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:17

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

The author's book is a deconstruction of the idea that the rural voter can be reduced to this. They may not find the bigotry of the GOP to be a dealbreaker, but it's not the defining principle motivating their vote -- their vote is driven by a collective identity defined by geography. The issue is not straightforwardly solvable because the problem, as he points out, is more of politics than of policy.

Ben Wilson�s Metropolis spends a lot of time on the tension and mutual resentment between rural and urban populations. It�s not a new phenomenon nor is it strictly one of class.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:19

Uglycat: Dec 4, 2000; MORE INDISPUTABLE PROOF I AM BAD AT POSTING
---------------->

FlamingLiberal posted:

The Dems aren’t really offering those people anything. At least Trump says to them ‘hey, you can blame your problems on minorities’. He’s still not doing anything to fix those problems but Dems refuse to engage on an economic level with those voters.

Yeah, Republicans, ideologically, as a party, are willing to engage in fascist techniques to gain control of the federal apparatus.

Yes, Dems seem unwilling to do so.

How this relates to the way we vote must be discussed on a different thread.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:24

CPColin: Sep 9, 2003; Big ol' smile.

Nucleic Acids posted:

Until the weapons shipments stop this is ultimately meaningless.

You can't just mush "ultimately" together with "until" and expect the resulting sentence to make any sort of sense, you know.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:36

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

Rural voters correctly realize their living conditions are decaying, but then decide to blame the gays and birth control culture war bullshit for these problems instead of the business ghouls backing the Republicans they vote for, or

Guavanaut posted:

Yeah I could almost understand some kind of mid 60s hard-hat Labour revival of bad social values but also good jobs, or at the other end some kind of libertarian playboy party of free markets, free love, free lube, but flocking towards socially regressive free marketeers sounds like they are just mad at other people's freedoms taking their birthrights and know deep inside that if all the brakes were taken off (and placed on other people) they'd end up in their natural place at the top.

D-Pad posted:

Realistically the only thing dems can do is continue trying to pass the policies that actually help people while the right continues to be poo poo and eventually they might start noticing. Alternatively, we have to wait for the boomers to die off. The millennials from my town are largely the same as their boomer parents in their politics except for social issues and Gen Z is even more socially liberal. Once the boomers are gone I think we will see rural voters still leaning heavily conservative but being much more socially moderate and force the party to change those planks of its platform.

people have been saying wait for the boomers to die for a decade+ now and thats been ineffective

Nissin Cup Nudist fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Apr 6, 2024

# ? Apr 6, 2024 20:53

Byzantine: Sep 1, 2007

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

people have been saying wait for the boomers to die for a decade+ now and thats been ineffective

Iirc, the tipping point where Millennials/GenZ outnumbered Boomers finally happened in 2022. So it might be part of how the on-the-ground election victories are still happening even though the olds are answering all the polls with piglike squeals.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 21:07

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Vroom vroom, BEEP BEEP!; Nap Ghost

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-face-challenges-ohio-general-ballot/story?id=108912620

quote:

There could be potential general election ballot access concerns for President Joe Biden in Ohio, the state's Secretary of State's office said in a letter to Ohio Democratic Chair Liz Walters on Friday.

In the letter, obtained by ABC News, legal counsel for Secretary of State Frank LaRose sought clarification for "an apparent conflict in Ohio law" between the Democratic National Committee's nominating process and the deadline by which the party's presidential nominee must be certified to the Secretary of State's office.

The Democratic National Convention is scheduled to convene on Aug. 19, which will take place more than a week after the Aug. 7 deadline to certify a presidential candidate in Ohio, the office flagged according to state code, which would create a problem for Biden's eligibility.

"I am left to conclude that the Democratic National Committee must either move up its nominating convention or the Ohio General Assembly must act by May 9, 2024 (90 days prior to a new law's effective date) to create an exception to this statutory requirement," legal counsel Paul Disantis wrote in the letter, requesting a quick response on a solution to become compliant with state law.

Copied on the letter were top Ohio Democrats: Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo and Ohio Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio.

Ohio, a former battleground state, has shifted right in recent years. They elected former President Donald Trump by eight points in both 2016 and 2020.

"We�re monitoring the situation in Ohio and we�re confident that Joe Biden will be on the ballot in all 50 states," a Biden campaign spokesperson confirmed to ABC News.

I don't expect this to be an actual issue but lol

# ? Apr 6, 2024 21:23

Nissin Cup Nudist: Sep 3, 2011; Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land

DarkHorse posted:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-face-challenges-ohio-general-ballot/story?id=108912620

I don't expect this to be an actual issue but lol

Is the DNC later than usual this year because why hasn't this come up before

# ? Apr 6, 2024 21:31

Zore: Sep 21, 2010; willfully illiterate, aggressively miserable sourpuss whose sole raison d�etre is to put other people down for liking the wrong things

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Is the DNC later than usual this year because why hasn't this come up before

Not really? In 2020 it started August 17th and in 2012 it started September 2nd. 2016 was in late July though.

Not sure how this hadn't come up previously if 3/4 of the DNC dates in the last 12 years have been after that deadline.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 21:41

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

So is the RNC is basically not a thing anymore?

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1776432584290902429

# ? Apr 6, 2024 21:58

Dopilsya: Apr 3, 2010

Kith posted:

It's really not that hard, most of these folks just want to be left alone and allowed to maintain their "traditions". Frame Dem policy as doing less to gently caress things up than GOP policy and letting people live their own lives without interference and you'll get votes. As insane as it sounds, it's mostly just a culture thing - many of them don't care for policy talk at all and just vote based on vibes.

I think this is really the answer. Since I've lived in America I've lived in the rural midwest and now live in a wealthy coastal city. It's anecdotal, but the vast majority of people don't think about politics the way posters here do. Breaking things down into policy analyses doesn't get at the actual issue, which really is vibes and culture based. People in rural areas would say their values are something like working hard, relying on yourself, playing by the rules, etc. But the actual policy on the ground isn't something most people see or understand. Politicians who speak that language get votes and then things feel better or worse over time. That's why you see the "they're not hurting the people they're supposed to" narrative. Someone who wants their political leadership to protect them from drug cartels votes for a 'law and order' politician and then the guy that runs the local restaurant gets deported. The policy they want is a lot more nuanced, than either party gives them credit for, but like most people, they don't have the expertise or emotional bandwidth to engage in complex policy discussions.

Mustang posted:

What do people think about how Democrats should engage with rural Americans? I ask because of this article in Politico: What Liberals Get Wrong About �White Rural Rage� � Almost Everything.

It's a response to a book that came out recently titled White Rural Rage (which I haven't read). Basically, the Politico article argues that it's resentment and not rage that rural white Americans are feeling and why they turn to Republicans who play to those fears. He even acknowledges that Democrats often enact policies that benefit rural Americans far more often than Republicans do but get little credit for doing so from rural people.

The article doesn't really give any real recommendations on how Democrats should change the way they engage with rural America other than essentially to "do better".

Half of my family are Trump voting rural white Americans. As the article mentions, something like 20-30% of rural Americans do in fact vote for Democrats. But the 2/3 that vote GOP? They're racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic. Whatever types of bigot are out there, you can find one among them. And that 20-30% that vote Democrat are politically impotent.

What really irks me about this article is that it wants Democrats to coddle rural white Americans and treat them with kid gloves. The GOP is gleefully attacking and stripping away the rights of minorities in the states they control, and we're supposed to turn the other cheek and treat these people with compassion?

I just don't have it in me to kiss the asses of people that would eagerly inflict harm upon my friends.

edit: the sad thing is, unless rural white Americans can stop being lovely people, this group is in my opinion a lost cause for Democrats to pursue.

1. He doesn't just say 'do better' he specifically says Democrats need to engage in that specific cultural narrative. It's true he say he doesn't know how to make inroads on that, but considering the money and advanced degrees Democratic operative can muster up, I'm sure somebody there can figure out something.

2. Think about the language you're using now-- addressing the needs of a particular demographic shouldn't be 'coddling.' It's the job political parties exist to do. And getting Democrats involved should be an easy sell when that need is primarily the vibe of not being valued by Washington. Hell, the Democrats should be all over that poo poo, plenty of them love doing performative bullshit instead of delivering actual policy especially when it doesn't cost any money.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 22:02

D-Pad: Jun 28, 2006

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

people have been saying wait for the boomers to die for a decade+ now and thats been ineffective

Sure because the past decade was too soon to expect it to happen in enough numbers to make a difference. For example, my dad was born in 1948 and just died earlier this week, but my mom was born in 1952 and based on her older relatives lifespans and her current health she'll probably make it another 10-20 years. The majority of their friends are still alive but the deaths are happening at an increased rate every year. As another poster pointed out we hit a population tipping point in 2022 but if you look at actual turnout among those demographics I would bet boomers still win. In 10 years though we will be looking at a much different situation demographics wise, but there will be several election cycles before the effects can really be seen.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 22:25

GlyphGryph: Jun 23, 2013; Down came the glitches and burned us in ditches and we slept after eating our dead.

The Democrats have forgotten how to sell a "rural Culture where it makes sense to vote Democrat" in vast swathes of the country. I love in one of the few areas where that culture still exists and is, relatively, strong, but it gets no media support, no political support, and lots and lots of open disdain and dismissal from supposedly Democratic allies to an extent that it has become unappealing in lots of ways.

This wasn't always the case and doesn't need to be the case but I havent seen anyone, anywhere, doing even the smallest amount of effort that would be required to fix it - and with right wing media having been working exactly that angle for the last thirty years, a hell of a lot of work is required

But really, can you imagine someone saying "I am a proud rural democratic voter, who likes [things that are both distinctly democratic and distinctly rural]"? I mean, I can and I know people who do say that, but they are all very old and can remember when that was a thing. I dont know a single younger person who could fit something into that phrase and believe it, and for most people politics is about identity.

If there's no alternative, a lot of those folks are gonna end up turning to the right just because being a shithead is better than being an outsider, even if they'd prefer to be neither.

(this is actually a big problem for dems even addressing other groups, and is one of the things conservatives have actually excelled at, probably because they are all grifters and grifters are good at that kind of poo poo specifically)

# ? Apr 6, 2024 22:28

Killer robot: Sep 6, 2010; I was having the most wonderful dream. I think you were in it!; Pillbug

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

people have been saying wait for the boomers to die for a decade+ now and thats been ineffective

No, people have been saying for much longer than a decade that boomers will be a declining influence on elections starting around 2024 or so., Ten years ago is more the timeframe when it became popular for contrarians to that to say "They keep saying the boomers are dying but Texas is still red" like a climate change denier on a cold day.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 22:30

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Is the DNC later than usual this year because why hasn't this come up before

Apparently Ohio passed some new law in 2019 that just so happen to say that that they need to have the convention before August 7th, which is before DNC convention usually is.

Since the RNC was set after August 7th, they amended it to to Sept 7th. But now that the RNC is not after August 7th, they're enforcing the August 7th deadline.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 22:35

Cimber: Feb 3, 2014

Zore posted:

Not really? In 2020 it started August 17th and in 2012 it started September 2nd. 2016 was in late July though.

Not sure how this hadn't come up previously if 3/4 of the DNC dates in the last 12 years have been after that deadline.

The party that has the presidency gets to go second. That's been convention as long as I can remember. For example, in 2004 Kerry had his convention in Boston in July, while Bush had his convention in NYC in August.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 22:37

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

GlyphGryph posted:

The Democrats have forgotten how to sell a "rural Culture where it makes sense to vote Democrat" in vast swathes of the country. I love in one of the few areas where that culture still exists and is, relatively, strong, but it gets no media support, no political support, and lots and lots of open disdain and dismissal from supposedly Democratic allies to an extent that it has become unappealing in lots of ways.

This wasn't always the case and doesn't need to be the case but I havent seen anyone, anywhere, doing even the smallest amount of effort that would be required to fix it - and with right wing media having been working exactly that angle for the last thirty years, a hell of a lot of work is required

But really, can you imagine someone saying "I am a proud rural democratic voter, who likes [things that are both distinctly democratic and distinctly rural]"? I mean, I can and I know people who do say that, but they are all very old and can remember when that was a thing. I dont know a single younger person who could fit something into that phrase and believe it, and for most people politics is about identity.

If there's no alternative, a lot of those folks are gonna end up turning to the right just because being a shithead is better than being an outsider, even if they'd prefer to be neither.

(this is actually a big problem for dems even addressing other groups, and is one of the things conservatives have actually excelled at, probably because they are all grifters and grifters are good at that kind of poo poo specifically)

This whole discussion is dancing around the fundamental problem that fox news exists and has hijacked an entire cultural identity as "republican". Expecting people to vote rationally, when billions of dollars are being spent to distract them, isn't rational.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 22:38

Blue Footed Booby: Oct 4, 2006; got those happy feet

GlyphGryph posted:

The Democrats have forgotten how to sell a "rural Culture where it makes sense to vote Democrat" in vast swathes of the country. I love in one of the few areas where that culture still exists and is, relatively, strong, but it gets no media support, no political support, and lots and lots of open disdain and dismissal from supposedly Democratic allies to an extent that it has become unappealing in lots of ways.

This wasn't always the case and doesn't need to be the case but I havent seen anyone, anywhere, doing even the smallest amount of effort that would be required to fix it - and with right wing media having been working exactly that angle for the last thirty years, a hell of a lot of work is required

But really, can you imagine someone saying "I am a proud rural democratic voter, who likes [things that are both distinctly democratic and distinctly rural]"? I mean, I can and I know people who do say that, but they are all very old and can remember when that was a thing. I dont know a single younger person who could fit something into that phrase and believe it, and for most people politics is about identity.

If there's no alternative, a lot of those folks are gonna end up turning to the right just because being a shithead is better than being an outsider, even if they'd prefer to be neither.

(this is actually a big problem for dems even addressing other groups, and is one of the things conservatives have actually excelled at, probably because they are all grifters and grifters are good at that kind of poo poo specifically)

Care to give some examples?

# ? Apr 6, 2024 23:08

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Blue Footed Booby posted:

Care to give some examples?

I'm not the OP, but Football (not soccer), Tractors, Beer, Deep Fried Butter, Guns, Bar-B-Q?

# ? Apr 6, 2024 23:17

GoutPatrol: Oct 17, 2009; *Stupid Babby*

D-Pad posted:

Sure because the past decade was too soon to expect it to happen in enough numbers to make a difference. For example, my dad was born in 1948 and just died earlier this week, but my mom was born in 1952 and based on her older relatives lifespans and her current health she'll probably make it another 10-20 years. The majority of their friends are still alive but the deaths are happening at an increased rate every year. As another poster pointed out we hit a population tipping point in 2022 but if you look at actual turnout among those demographics I would bet boomers still win. In 10 years though we will be looking at a much different situation demographics wise, but there will be several election cycles before the effects can really be seen.

rip your dad

I remember voting data is not as cut and dry as by American generations, there were specific ebbs and flows in each generation (like boomers born in the 40s tended to vote more democratic than ones born in the 50s, and gen xers in the 60s voted more democratic than gen xers in the 70s.) That pattern did not apply (yet) to millennials, probably due to lack of data.

I wish there was an updated chart for this over the past two elections.

GoutPatrol fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Apr 6, 2024

# ? Apr 6, 2024 23:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

Dopilsya posted:

2. Think about the language you're using now-- addressing the needs of a particular demographic shouldn't be 'coddling.' It's the job political parties exist to do. And getting Democrats involved should be an easy sell when that need is primarily the vibe of not being valued by Washington. Hell, the Democrats should be all over that poo poo, plenty of them love doing performative bullshit instead of delivering actual policy especially when it doesn't cost any money.

No. The "sell" is not the same as addressing needs. It has already been demonstrated that the Democrats do in fact address needs for this demographic. Do not conflate the performance of fear and hate with actual policy.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 23:31

C. Everett Koop: Aug 18, 2008

Byzantine posted:

Iirc, the tipping point where Millennials/GenZ outnumbered Boomers finally happened in 2022. So it might be part of how the on-the-ground election victories are still happening even though the olds are answering all the polls with piglike squeals.

The issue is that even as Boomers are aging out, young white males are increasingly voting right https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-really-need-to-win-back-young-white-male-voters-from-the-gop

That's not to mention that POC, particuarly men, are also increasingly voting Republican https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/03/people-of-color-voting-republican-2024/

What it boils down to is that those who have had econonmic, social, and political power don't like the idea that they could be forced to share any of it. Tell a young white male that they're not better than a LGBTQ POC, or if anything they're not as good, and they're going to vote with the party that says they've always been better. We can't begin to discuss equality because the second the scales start to tip the majority panics and tried to pound the minority into submission. If/when Trump wins he might as well grant amnesty to Andrew Tate and make Tate part of his cabinet; Tate will have done as much to earn Trump the Presidency as anyone else.

# ? Apr 6, 2024 23:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 6, 2024 12:51

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

C. Everett Koop posted:

If/when Trump wins he might as well grant amnesty to Andrew Tate and make Tate part of his cabinet; Tate will have done as much to earn Trump the Presidency as anyone else.

His charges are not US charges

# ? Apr 6, 2024 23:42

1
2
3
4
5

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USCE 2024: There are so many wonderful porn stars out there

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.06)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS