Author Topic: Why Progressives Elected Trump  (Read 10427 times)

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Location: MA
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #100 on: July 25, 2018, 07:28:58 PM »
Quote
Perhaps I am unlearned, but I seriously can not recall an example where, in a democratic setting, a minority actually achieved meaningful and lasting changes for the better, without acknowledging the concerns of the majority group and getting them onboard.

In the civil rights era, many white people were not on board with it.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/

Reading this article, 60% of people had an unfavorable view of the march on Washington in the 1960s.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/

As of 2016, 43% of people support Black Lives matter and 30% of people were not sure or hadn’t heard of it in 2016.  Only 22% were opposed. 

By your standards, we should not have passed the civil rights act without getting more whites on board, but by the 1990’s, the vast majority of whites approved of the civil rights act.

If we had used your approach, an entire generation might have grown up with separate schools, separate water fountains. 


golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Location: MA
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #101 on: July 25, 2018, 07:39:12 PM »
Also, what ideas do you consider “politically correct”? Are you actually trying to defend having only white men in working groups? 

Anecdote:  I am a female engineer, and in my last position, I was the only female in a male dominated technical group.  It was awful, basically just guys shouting at each other and being aggressive, trying to be dominant.  I now work in a company with 50% female representation and none of the aggression.  It’s a fantastic and productive environment.  My husband, who got his MBA and worked in a lot of different group projects noticed that the groups with more females tended to be more productive overall.

At this point, quoting studies and statistics is counterproductive.  Anisotropy is just going to devalue anything that doesn’t fit his world view while defending sources that have clear bias.


anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #102 on: July 25, 2018, 09:22:36 PM »
You don't think the dramatic shift in public opinion between 1963 to 1964 (40% favorable to 60% favorable) had something to do with MLK's speech that explicitly included whites?

His speech was in 1963, bill passed in 1964, less than a year later. the general consensus is the kennedy admin and congress (after he died) helped a lot, because they were onboard.

Studies and stats help people to see the merits of the tested ideas and hypothesis. They should be well supported by all sorts of studies. Only people who spew lies should be afraid of a through and systematic examination of studies.

If you have issues with the conclusions from studies, you are more than welcome to attack the data, methodology, and the analysis like I had done here. Well designed studies are meant to withstand these examinations, its only the poor to mediocre ones that fail. You are an engineer, I trust you know how.

But if you have to resort to refuting studies because you think they (or I )  have an "ideology tilt", and your response is to tell people to stop reading altogether, instead of encourage them to think critically, it's really pointless to go any further. How's that behavior any different from Trump's core base?


As of 2016, 43% of people support Black Lives matter and 30% of people were not sure or hadn’t heard of it in 2016.  Only 22% were opposed. 


by the way, 43+30+22 does not equal 100. Where does the other 5 stand? Did you misquote the numbers? Or did you quote it correctly but failed to comprehend they didn't add up to 100 as you typed it? Judging by how you confused mode with average earlier, you don't seem to be well versed with statistics.

Also, what ideas do you consider “politically correct”? Are you actually trying to defend having only white men in working groups? 

The authors linked PC to self-censorship, so thats what I will go with. Also, no where in the Cornell paper did it say Control group same-sex group = only white men. "the same-sex condition consisted of three men or three women." their ethnic background was never explicitly mentioned. you didn't even read the paper, and somehow you automatically thought same-sex control group = white men.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 10:07:01 PM by anisotropy »

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #103 on: July 25, 2018, 11:16:46 PM »
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3053
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #104 on: July 25, 2018, 11:28:06 PM »
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...

Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1521
  • Location: MA
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #105 on: July 26, 2018, 04:06:43 AM »
Quote
Judging by how you confused mode with average earlier, you don't seem to be well versed with statistics.

You are so adorable.  Did you ever stop to think that you might convince more people of your opinions if you weren’t so condescending.

Seeing as I have two engineering degrees, I am well aware of the difference between mode and median.  I heard that statistic on a podcast, and they did not specify mode, they said “average”.  My bad for not digging into that statistic further, but by nitpicking at it, you have completely missed the point.  Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem? (See how belittling that sounds?)

The demographics of this country are changing, rapidly and dramatically.

I reject your argument that the MLK speech was some sort of turning of the corner for white opinions.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/back-the-day-what-critics-said-about-king

https://www.thenation.com/article/misremembering-i-have-dream/

It took his assassination for opinions of him to change. 



MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #106 on: July 26, 2018, 05:33:36 AM »
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...

Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.

Apparently they aren't processing it well. Well some at least. "WTF, you mean I have to play nice and share? Well I like the way things have always been, I don't want to share!!" Somehow this is the fault of progressives and somehow progressives are supposed to develop an action plan to attack a problem that only exist in some people's minds.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11819
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #107 on: July 26, 2018, 07:59:29 AM »
To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.

In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.

It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.

It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.

The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism.  While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.

Agreed, white people have long felt that they were subjected to "reverse racism" that doesn't exist.  Also agreed, that many people place perception above reality.  I suspect that might actually be why we're having this discussion.

It's not surprising that the group of people who once were able to rely on racism as a tactic to get ahead in life feel that equality is negatively impacting them.  It is.  To a certain degree, yes, there is a zero-sum aspect to many situations.  White people can no longer rely on racism as their edge to win, now they have to work harder.  Almost as hard as a black guy in their situation would.  That is going to be tough for a group of people accustomed to the benefits of privilege.  It's not indicative of a problem though, but is a reason why white people accustomed to privilege afforded by racist actions and policy would feel hard done by.  I don't know how to solve their problem.

So, the above was never answered but is still an important point I think.

Given that white people are giving up a clear advantage that racism brings them, why do you think that including them in a few speeches is going to turn around their whole viewpoint on the issue.  The whites who most benefited from racist policy are going to be most opposed to policy that prevents racism . . . because they do not personally benefit in any way from them.

I don't know how to solve the problem of racist whites who don't like equality . . . but am pretty sure that changing the name of 'Black Lives Matter' to 'All Lives Matter' isn't going to do much on that front.  Why do you think it will?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #108 on: July 26, 2018, 09:19:14 AM »
To be fair, whites had long felt they had been subjected to "reverse racism" since the 70s as a direct response of affirmative and race based policies. I say felt, because most data still show whites are still dominating various competitions for grants, scholarships, and admissions (although an argument could be made regarding white men vs white women). If anything, Asians, are the biggest "net loser" of affirmative and race based policies in recent decades. But as we've come to realize, when identity politics get involved, people place perception above reality.

In a multi-decade study published in 2011 (N=209), shows that several legal and social controversies regarding ‘‘reverse racism’’ highlight Whites’ increasing concern about anti-White bias. These changes in Whites’ conceptions of racism are extreme enough that Whites have now come to view anti-White bias as a bigger societal problem than anti-Black bias.

It is unfortunate that the study was published in 2011 and predates the latest wave of social justice movements (BML, gender issues, refugees, white privilege debates, etc), and we are unable to judge if these events altered whites perception of anti-white bias in any way. However, a 2016 Public Religion Research Institute poll indicates that half of all Americans, 57 percent of all white people, and 66 percent of the white working-class believe that discrimination against white people is as big a problem in America as discrimination against black people.

It is reasonable then, that given the markedly increased percentage of whites who view them as being discriminated against in recent years, if we were to remake the same chart (fig 1) today, the "whites rating anti-white bias" would be higher than before, perhaps between 6-7.

The 2011 study attributes white's anti-white perception to the their belief on the zero-sum nature of racism.  While I do not personally subscribe to that view regarding racism and supports the view of Justice Powell, the practical nature of various affirmative and race based policies are indeed zero-sum (in the immediate result) in nature, given limited resources. This study situates specific claims of persecution (exclusion)by White Americans in a broader belief in a new, generalized anti-White bias.

Agreed, white people have long felt that they were subjected to "reverse racism" that doesn't exist.  Also agreed, that many people place perception above reality.  I suspect that might actually be why we're having this discussion.

It's not surprising that the group of people who once were able to rely on racism as a tactic to get ahead in life feel that equality is negatively impacting them.  It is.  To a certain degree, yes, there is a zero-sum aspect to many situations.  White people can no longer rely on racism as their edge to win, now they have to work harder.  Almost as hard as a black guy in their situation would.  That is going to be tough for a group of people accustomed to the benefits of privilege.  It's not indicative of a problem though, but is a reason why white people accustomed to privilege afforded by racist actions and policy would feel hard done by.  I don't know how to solve their problem.

So, the above was never answered but is still an important point I think.

Given that white people are giving up a clear advantage that racism brings them, why do you think that including them in a few speeches is going to turn around their whole viewpoint on the issue.  The whites who most benefited from racist policy are going to be most opposed to policy that prevents racism . . . because they do not personally benefit in any way from them.

I don't know how to solve the problem of racist whites who don't like equality . . . but am pretty sure that changing the name of 'Black Lives Matter' to 'All Lives Matter' isn't going to do much on that front.  Why do you think it will?

I feel like there are a lot of similarities between: a) the people who say they aren't racist but also object to "Black Lives Matter" and are in favor of "All Lives Matter"; and: b) the people who say they aren't racist by saying things like, "I don't care if you're black, white, green or purple... you treat me well, and I'll treat you well."

The first erases the specific problem that black lives manifestly don't matter as much in our society as white lives do. And saying "All Lives Matter" is an attempt to ignore that. The second also erases and belittles the problem of structural racism in our society by putting in nonsense colors like green and purple. In that sentence "I don't care if you're black or purple..." I think the operative phrase is "I don't care." In other words, I don't care to hear about any of the ways that systemic racism have and continue to affect your life. I prefer to ignore it.

It reminds me a little of a phrase I used to hear a hell of a lot by people who thought they were "tolerant" of homosexuals: "I don't care what they do, as long as they don't shove my face in it." In other words, as long as gay people erase their gayness in front of me, they're okay.

Erasure. That's what fragile white people demand of anyone who demands to exist as what they actually are.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 09:20:48 AM by Kris »

wbranch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Some Mountain Ridge
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #109 on: July 26, 2018, 10:07:58 AM »

Average ages of US citizens by demographic groups:

African American:  29
Asian:  27
Hispanic:  11 (!)

White:  57

The demographics don’t support your approach in the long run.

This got me curious and according to Wikipedia the following is also true:

Quote
according to the Census Bureau’s estimation for 2012, 50.4% of American children under the age of 1 belonged to racial and ethnic minority groups

And that was 6 years ago. The times they are a changin’.

The small midwest town/county my wife grew up in now has 50%+ hispanic in grade school classes at the public school. However, there are some big religious private schools there which are probably 98% white.  They are also in one of the most religious and republican counties in the midwest. Most of the comments I hear from my inlaws about the hispanics are positive or neutral. Overall they feel the immigrants (even illegal ones) are good for the local economy which did well even through the recession. But they still just don't like those changes. It is exhausting listening to them talk about their perceptions of what is wrong with the US.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #110 on: July 26, 2018, 12:31:12 PM »
This post will address the concern that the methodology of the Cato study is biased. And an explanation to the irregularities in Murphy's data (provided by Guitar), and how to view the similarities and differences in all three surveys regarding free speech (Cato, Murphy using GSS, Economist).

Guitar said Cato study is "bought and paid for by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers is obviously going to have some bias issues" and that "There are easy to see flaws designed into the study. I already addressed the Koch brothers issue many times here, each study should be judged on its own merit, not by who paid for it or did it. You are more than welcome to attack the data, methodology, and the analysis. But if you have to resort to refuting studies using because it has an "ideology tilt". It's really pointless to go any further. To be fair, you raised a methodology problem, lets take a look.

The "flaws designed into the study", such as questions targeting liberals, was indeed designed in such a way to illustrate "82% Say It’s Hard to Ban Hate Speech Because People Can’t Agree On What Speech Is Hateful or Offensive". In fact a set of questions targeting conservatives can be found in Appendix B, including "A person who says that all white people are racist", and "A person who says the police are racist" just to drive the point home.  And looking at the survey results in Appendix B, the answers match the party line division. This is a feature of the study to showcase it's hard for people to agree on what is hateful or offensive, not a bug or inherent bias as you said. The claim you made regarding bias is therefore erroneous.

A side musing when I first looked at Murphy's analysis: I was almost immediately drawn to the similar shapes of "extremely liberal" and "extremely conservative", which reminded me of the Political Horseshoe.

The Murphy analysis is problematic, not only to me, but also to Kurt, Guitar's source whom commented on the Murphy analysis.

"Well, I can understand the conservatives, because many of them are racists, but the extreme liberals?"
"Again, I’m a bit confused. The people who are the most censorious of racist speech are those who are slightly liberal, yet those are people who, compared to other liberals, are also most censorious of militarist speech (those at about 2.5 on the scale)."
"One note: deplatforming of college speakers, as judging by the FIRE “disinvitation database”, is being done far more these days by the Left than the Right. That doesn’t comport with Murphy’s finding that the left is the least censorious wing of politics."

It is fortunate then, that Murphy himself provided us with the tools to examine his work: his own robustness check. Namely, we can sample the 2014 data points from Fig.2 and map it on the same X-scale from fig.3. If Murphy's analysis is robust and what he had observed truly present, both the trend and shape of both lines should be at least comparable. I have attached a basic xlsx file, and you can all see that the two lines are nothing alike, especially for the "racist speakers". Worse, when we actually go on to GSS Explorer and plot the graph ourselves, separated by political affiliation (under break down), we see the Dems are decidedly less open to let a racist speaker speak, which is not necessarily always a bad thing. But it directly contradicts Murphy's finding and analysis. Why? Murphy himself gave us an answer.

"One might object that my finding about the “Slight Leftist Speech Suppressor,” which surprisingly exonerates the radical leftists from the speech suppression tendency, might be a false artificat of the ambiguous meaning of the term “liberal.” Perhaps one could say that survey questions measuring “liberalism” are not accurate measures of leftism because they may be tapping Classical Liberalism (more libertarian than leftist). I used the “liberalism” measure of ideology because it had the most data over time, but we can check our findings against survey questions asking about “leftism,” although they have much less data. "

Murphy used survey questions measuring "liberalism" to make his own analysis, but as we just saw, it indeed suffered from a false artifact of the ambiguous meaning of the "liberal", which resulted in it failing the robustness test and showing the opposite of what the raw data shows.

Despite all this, Murphy acknowledges that there is "a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists, who happen to have gained media attention, wish to suppress free speech", this coincides with the Cato finding that "Strong liberals (52%), racial minorities (54%), stand out with slim majorities who believe it’s more important for colleges to prohibit offensive and biased speech on campus".

The difference being Murphy did not know whom these leftists were, and described them simply as a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists. Knowing Murphy's analysis suffered from a false artificat of the ambiguous meaning of the term “liberal", we need to look elsewhere to solve this mystery, after all, if a phenomenon is real, it's bound to be observed again and again no matter who does the survey, as long as the data is factual and analysis artefact free.

Enter the Knight Foundation survey which the Economist piece alluded to.

"More students now (61%) than in 2016 (54%) agree that the climate on their campus prevents some students from expressing their views. Although a majority of college students, 69%, believe political conservatives on campus are able to freely and openly express their views, many more believe political liberals (92%) and other campus groups are able to share their opinions freely. (pg 16)"

Seeing how Rep leaning students accounts for less than 1/4 of all students surveyed (weighted 27%), this means a sizeable number (if not all) of Rep leaning students feel the pressure to at least self-censor.

Compared with the 2016 survey, students now perceive the five freedoms as significantly less secure. This includes a 21-percentage-point decline in perceptions that freedom of the press is secure and nine-point declines for free speech. Shockingly, the biggest drop came from the Dems, while the Reps numbers stayed flat (pg 4). Why did Reps' numbers stay flat? The study says "Democrats were more likely to participate in all types (diversity and free speech) of protests than Republicans were." They simply refuse to engage and keep to themselves.

Recall what Kurt said "One note: deplatforming of college speakers, as judging by the FIRE “disinvitation database”, is being done far more these days by the Left than the Right." The drop in Dems' "security"  numbers reinforces the notion that the "deplatformers" efforts are negatively impacting moderates and liberals.

The study concludes "Further, college students acknowledge that campus norms can act to deter speech — a larger majority than a year ago perceive that their campus climate prevents some people from expressing their ideas for fear of offending others. Also, students perceive that some groups on campus have a lesser ability to voice their opinions than other groups do."

Look. At this point, I can show you a thousand studies and it will likely do nothing. I have responded to the two studies you quoted. The Cornell study is of very limited use, if any, in the context of what we are discussing, and the Murphy analysis likely suffers from a false artefact of the ambiguous meaning of the term “liberal".

All the studies examined point to a group of leftists (perhaps extreme) actively seek to push their agenda to "supress free speech" as Murphy put it. I will leave it at that, you can decide for yourself if this is a problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few words being I finish. My original lengthy post was the result of being invited by the OP, who had since gone silent. I was very reluctant to share my view at first because I knew it would be unpopular and I would be denounced by multiple posters.

At first I was attacked because I didn't show any data and most of it were "anecdotes". I then supported my points with studies but were accused of "bias" and worse. I showed in many follow-up posts that the studies I used are not biased, and the counter studies presented actually either reinforces my points, of limited use in the context of this discussion, or suffers from serious analytical artefact.

To the people who say studies/data are biased, do you even know what are the steps of designing a study/experiment? 1. Investigators have a hypothesis 2. Investigators design an experiment/study that might best capture and observe the hypothesized effect. And somehow that becomes a bias? IT IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG.

True experimental bias comes in the form of non-factual data, or introducing artefacts into the analysis.  It has nothing to do with whom paid or worked on it.

Do you, like, not remember anything you learned from high school science classes?

So far, I have been the only person (other than perhaps Guitar and occasionally golden1) that supported my view with studies and examined counter studies based on their own merits and robustness (instead of screaming bias with no proof whatsoever). Plenty of people have accused whites simply being resentful because "white people are giving up a clear advantage that racism brings them" yet have so far show no widespread data that supports such assertion.

This attitude that whites don't like this because they are racist (so far no one has provided any data that supports this. It is amazing to see such serious accusations levelled, casually, without adducing a shred of supporting evidence), is very different from my points that whites don't like this because they feel excluded (which I have supported with studies).

I will end here because I see there is no point to engage further. It's been fun, I hope you all enjoyed the show.

ps. golden1, the clear contrast in terms of public opinion in 1963 and 1964 (40% favorable to 60% favorable) is clearly correlated with MLK's speech delivered in mid 1963.  Kennedy's death prob also helped. It's not like you have personally come up with a reason that might explain the drastic change in public opinion between 1963 and 64. I am open to learning more and I will read the links you provided in my spare time.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 12:46:27 PM by anisotropy »

OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 913
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #111 on: July 26, 2018, 02:04:58 PM »
Isn't there a difference between "racism" and "prejudice?"  My understanding has always been that "racism" is an intentional state of mind.  People who are explicitly "racist" affirmatively and actively believe in their own superiority and the inferiority of the other racial/ethnic group, and they have an open hostility to them.

"Prejudice" is not really intentional.  It seems to be more of a latent condition that people develop through their upbringing, their social conditioning, and their experiences or experiences of others viewed from a narrow point of view.  They literally "pre-judge" a person of color as more likely to be a "thug," or "on welfare," or lazy, or unqualified, or whatever.  In my experience (I live in the South), there are still plenty of racists hanging around, but they do not represent the majority of whites in the South.  As to prejudice, I feel pretty comfortable stating that a majority of white Southerners still have some substantial level of prejudice.  Now, can prejudice be overcome?  Absolutely.  Most of these folks are the same people who say "I have black friends," or "I have black neighbors," and they are "just fine" because they have jobs and homes and they obey the laws and they live their lives just like "everyone else."  In other words they are okay with a person of color who they "know" and who they are familiar with and who they feel "safe" with.  They may not be actively aware that their attitudes in general continue to be "prejudiced," nor are they actively aware of the damage caused by "prejudice."  They are also not consciously aware that they themselves never had to overcome prejudice individually to get where they are in life.  That, the fact that white people are not themselves subject to racial prejudice, is the very definition of the much-misunderstood "white privilege."

So, the moral of the story I think is that calling everything "racist" is counter-productive.  If everything is racist, nothing is racist.  There is "racism," and there is "prejudice."  There is probably even another level of "insensitivity."  I agree that if you just yell at white America and tell them they should all feel guilty because they are all racists, that is going to just turn them off.  It would be healthier and more productive to deal with negative attitudes as they are, and work towards tolerance and understanding person by person.   

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #112 on: July 26, 2018, 02:23:41 PM »
I think a lot of handwringing can be avoided by making a certain distinction between prejudiced vs. racist. 

"Racism" and "racist" are based on thoroughly thought out science proving that the white race is superior.  That is if you define "science" by very precise and well documented, highly selective, empirical observation conforming to subjective white race expectations. (Please re-read that if you think that's positive - it's not)  By that meter it was quite good "science."  If you read books from the Civil War to the Nazi era - racism is very well thought out.  Which is why so many otherwise good and rational people bought into it.  Yes, when combined with fascism its vanguard is a collection of misfits and criminals.  But pseudo-intellectuals, technocrats, bureaucrats, and more sophisticated demagogues who ultimately replace them provide the motivation.  "Racism" is a favorable term to use by a lot of civil rights groups.  It brings up visions of jackbooted Nazis, the Holocaust, and sheet wearing hicks lynching black people.  The word's negative connotations are justified - but also useful in certain PR realms.

"Prejudice" and "prejudiced" are words that've fallen by the wayside as people over use "racism" and "racist."  Prejudice is just a supposition, a feeling, that another group is somehow inherently different in some way that circumvents their humanity.  It's insidious in that even positive feelings can be prejudicial - such as celebrating black athletic skills or fortitude enduring societal rejection.  Prejudice is definitely non-scientific by any standard.  Also, it's inescapable.  Everyone, including me and you, are prejudiced in some way.  So were all the people of the past. 

This distinction - or lack thereof - has interesting effects.  First of which if a person has, say, a racial prejudice, and shows it, a certain type of person will accuse them of being a racist - a Nazi or Klansman.  This has the same effect as asking someone when they stopped molesting their children.  It may make the accuser feel better but it results in the accused often doubling down on their prejudice.  If you were to ask a prejudiced person gently where they came up with that attitude they'll cite something like their parents, TV, or a single run in with a racial group.  Continued inquiry and some cited facts might remedy the prejudice.  (A real racist will cite, if not some discredited 1930's eugenics book, at least some crazy website.) 

The second is the real danger of prejudice.  Don't think because it has a milder feel than "racism" that it's good.  Prejudice can be the gateway drug to racism.  Wearing the mask of instinct or intuition, people don't always give it serious credence.  But introduce a prejudiced person to a well spoken racist with all their perfectly lined up "scientific" arguments and a convert can be made.  Even this isn't the worst.  Well spoken evangelical racists are rare - though the internet helps.  The real danger is when government or corporate policies negatively effect minorities.  Or racists form powerful groups.  Prejudiced people have the attitude "I don't have a dog in that fight."  That is to say they ignore them.  This allows and preserves policies - many actually racist - that do more damage in aggregate than costumed thugs dare dream of.  In the end the racists commit the crimes; the prejudiced look the other way.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 02:37:22 PM by EricL »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #113 on: July 28, 2018, 09:37:14 AM »
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...

Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.

Apparently they aren't processing it well. Well some at least. "WTF, you mean I have to play nice and share? Well I like the way things have always been, I don't want to share!!" Somehow this is the fault of progressives and somehow progressives are supposed to develop an action plan to attack a problem that only exist in some people's minds.

We live in a democracy. If millions of our fellow citizens have a false idea in their head, which is causing them to vote against both their own best interest and our best interest as a nation, heck yes that is a problem, and a problem we need an action plan to address. I think a lot of people in this thread aren't distinguishing between the average trump voter (who probably is never going to be convinced to vote for progressive or liberal candidates), and the average obama/trump voter (plus all of the obama/I'm-not-gonna-bother-to-vote voters). In the latter two cases these are clearly people who do have a history of voting for progressive/liberal candidates and policies in the past, and presumably may again in the future.

To paraphrase a republican from a more innocent era when we had very different standards for what constituted a disastrous presidency: "You go into [an election] with [the electorate] you have, not [the electorate] you want."*

There are lots of voters who agree with the democrats 40, 60, 80% of the time. And at least some of them are picking up on the videos and quotes from people like the Evergreen protesters** and seeing that as the message of the democratic party: that it has become a party devoted not to equality, but simply to inverting the racial hierarchy.*** Now I'm fortunate enough to know enough progressives and liberals personally to realize just how wrong that interpretation is, and that the videos and quotes that get amplified and repeated online represent fringe views, not the views or goals of the party as a whole. But why intentionally make winning elections harder for ourselves by being unwilling to accept that misinformation and misunderstandings in the minds of potentially winnable voters -- and our fellow citizens -- represents a problem?

TL;DR version: The thing about democracy is that problems that start "only in some people's minds" can end in serious real-world consequences.

* Now of course the alternative is to decide that those Obama/Trump and Obama/Nobody voters are never coming back, and abandon PA, OH, MI, and WI (64 electoral votes), and only try to win the election through victories AZ, GA, and ultimately TX (65 electoral votes) by increasing minority turn out. Both plans have merit, but I'm not comfortable wagering another four years with our current president on that strategy absolutely having to work the first time out of the gate in 2020, rather than pushing forward with both paths simultaneously.

** To take one of the mildest examples: We've taken one of the few (almost) universally accepted political views in this country at the start of the 21st century: "racism is bad" and undermined it by letting some people try to redefine the word "racism" to exclude racism against white people. Now do we have a significant problem with racism against white people in the USA? Absolutely not. But try explaining to a random voter in Ohio or Wisconsin in 30 seconds or less the statement "that's not racist because they're only discriminating against white people" while still leaving them with the impression you're advocating for a future where everyone will be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin.

*** The post modernist facts-and-reason-don't-matter-because-logic-is-part-of-the-power-structure parts of Evergreen and other students protests are also quite alienating to some folks I know in the sciences, but for better or worse I don't think scientists are a particularly important swing demographic in elections.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #114 on: July 28, 2018, 09:52:47 AM »
All of this mumbo jumbo makes me very glad I’m not one of these fragile “whites” who needs reassurance from minorities that I really can give them a piece of the pie. WTF did I just read...

Please, speak quietly and with respect. The whites need some time to process all this change.

Apparently they aren't processing it well. Well some at least. "WTF, you mean I have to play nice and share? Well I like the way things have always been, I don't want to share!!" Somehow this is the fault of progressives and somehow progressives are supposed to develop an action plan to attack a problem that only exist in some people's minds.

We live in a democracy. If millions of our fellow citizens have a false idea in their head, which is causing them to vote against both their own best interest and our best interest as a nation, heck yes that is a problem, and a problem we need an action plan to address. I think a lot of people in this thread aren't distinguishing between the average trump voter (who probably is never going to be convinced to vote for progressive or liberal candidates), and the average obama/trump voter (plus all of the obama/I'm-not-gonna-bother-to-vote voters). In the latter two cases these are clearly people who do have a history of voting for progressive/liberal candidates and policies in the past, and presumably may again in the future.

To paraphrase a republican from a more innocent era when we had very different standards for what constituted a disastrous presidency: "You go into [an election] with [the electorate] you have, not [the electorate] you want."*

There are lots of voters who agree with the democrats 40, 60, 80% of the time. And at least some of them are picking up on the videos and quotes from people like the Evergreen protesters** and seeing that as the message of the democratic party: that it has become a party devoted not to equality, but simply to inverting the racial hierarchy.*** Now I'm fortunate enough to know enough progressives and liberals personally to realize just how wrong that interpretation is, and that the videos and quotes that get amplified and repeated online represent fringe views, not the views or goals of the party as a whole. But why intentionally make winning elections harder for ourselves by being unwilling to accept that misinformation and misunderstandings in the minds of potentially winnable voters -- and our fellow citizens -- represents a problem?

TL;DR version: The thing about democracy is that problems that start "only in some people's minds" can end in serious real-world consequences.

* Now of course the alternative is to decide that those Obama/Trump and Obama/Nobody voters are never coming back, and abandon PA, OH, MI, and WI (64 electoral votes), and only try to win the election through victories AZ, GA, and ultimately TX (65 electoral votes) by increasing minority turn out. Both plans have merit, but I'm not comfortable wagering another four years with our current president on that strategy absolutely having to work the first time out of the gate in 2020, rather than pushing forward with both paths simultaneously.

** To take one of the mildest examples: We've taken one of the few (almost) universally accepted political views in this country at the start of the 21st century: "racism is bad" and undermined it by letting some people try to redefine the word "racism" to exclude racism against white people. Now do we have a significant problem with racism against white people in the USA? Absolutely not. But try explaining to a random voter in Ohio or Wisconsin in 30 seconds or less the statement "that's not racist because they're only discriminating against white people" while still leaving them with the impression you're advocating for a future where everyone will be treated equally regardless of the color of their skin.

*** The post modernist facts-and-reason-don't-matter-because-logic-is-part-of-the-power-structure parts of Evergreen and other students protests are also quite alienating to some folks I know in the sciences, but for better or worse I don't think scientists are a particularly important swing demographic in elections.


I don't know I tend to disagree. Those that vote against their own self interest are doing so based on party loyalty. Is this an issue? Sure, but not one you can really address. These are the voters whose minds you will not change. Why devote time, effort and resources to these voters? Seems pointless.

To be fair as well Hillary did offer a plan to help increase manufacturing jobs as a way to appeal to many of these folks. The plan itself is actually one the manufacturers have implemented themselves to spur job growth (training). And Obama passed the ACA which helped many of these folks obtain health insurance. I saw an interview with some rural folks pre-election in which they claimed they would be voting Trump despite getting healthcare for the first time under the ACA, knowing they would probably lose it if Trump became President. More recently saw several interviews from Trump supporters at a nail factory, who could lose their jobs thanks to the tariffs, but still say they support Trump.   

This isn't anything new. It's party loyalty above all else and you cannot appeal to these people. Dems do find ways to help them and offer help, but they don't care.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 10:02:12 AM by MasterStache »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #115 on: July 28, 2018, 10:32:51 AM »
It sounds like you are still confounding "anyone who voted for Trump" with "people who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump or stayed home." Sure you can find plenty of interviews of people who are clearly are never going to vote for a democratic candidate, but those folks also voted for Romney and McCain, yet we still elected a progressive and democratic president in both of those elections.

Given that these are specifically people who voted for Obama and then Trump (or stayed home), dismissing their decision as driven solely by party loyalty doesn't make any sense. Either their decision wasn't driven party loyalty to begin with (after all many of them weren't republicans), or there were other factors present in 2012 which overcame the issue of party loyalty.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #116 on: July 28, 2018, 10:42:06 AM »
maizeman the fine prints really hurt my eyes lol.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #117 on: July 28, 2018, 11:09:34 AM »
Yeah, sorry about that. Was trying to keep it from looking like a giant wall of text, and that was the best option I could come up with to indicate "here's the main idea, here's stuff you can skip if you want." Maybe I should use the spoiler tag instead?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #118 on: July 28, 2018, 01:08:51 PM »
It sounds like you are still confounding "anyone who voted for Trump" with "people who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump or stayed home." Sure you can find plenty of interviews of people who are clearly are never going to vote for a democratic candidate, but those folks also voted for Romney and McCain, yet we still elected a progressive and democratic president in both of those elections.

Given that these are specifically people who voted for Obama and then Trump (or stayed home), dismissing their decision as driven solely by party loyalty doesn't make any sense. Either their decision wasn't driven party loyalty to begin with (after all many of them weren't republicans), or there were other factors present in 2012 which overcame the issue of party loyalty.

I still don't think that is representative of the bigger picture. The statistics I have seen show a larger contingent of Bush - Obama voters (17%) than Obama-Trump voters (13%) if we only focus on those types of people I actually don't really see an issue. Bush's approval rating was abysmal for good reason. People that generally identify as Republican but voted Obama because the economy was in shambles are just an aberration. People that stayed at home, well it sure would be nice if they were motivated enough to go vote. If they did there would be no discussion about trying to win over traditionally Republican voters, because that isn't necessary. 
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 01:13:37 PM by MasterStache »

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #119 on: July 28, 2018, 01:12:22 PM »
It's interesting you mentioned relying on minority turnout to take TX. At first I thought you were bats*** crazy, but judging by the demographics, the primaries results, and general election day turnout it now seems at least possible to me, still not likely, but possible. Good point.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #120 on: July 28, 2018, 01:39:58 PM »
I still don't think that is representative of the bigger picture. The statistics I have seen show a larger contingent of Bush - Obama voters (17%) than Obama-Trump voters (13%) if we only focus on those types of people I actually don't really see an issue. Bush's approval rating was abysmal for good reason. People that generally identify as Republican but voted Obama because the economy was in shambles are just an aberration. People that stayed at home, well it sure would be nice if they were motivated enough to go vote. If they did there would be no discussion about trying to win over traditionally Republican voters, because that isn't necessary.

I don't think anyone is discussing the bolded bit. Perhaps that's why we are talking so much at cross purposes? People are discussing why a block of traditionally democratic voters (a subset of non-college educated white people, often from union households, in the industrial midwest) who voted for Obama in 2012 and 2008, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, and Clinton in 1996 and 1992,* but either didn't turn out in 2016 or turned out and voted for Trump.

If Obama-Trump voters were 13% of the people who turned out to both, that'd be close to 17 million voters. Seems like a big enough group to try to worry about to me. Keep in mind that if Clinton had won one percentage point more of non-college educated white voters, WI, MI, PA, and OH all switch from the R column to the D column. You really don't see merit in understanding what drove those voters out of the party in 2016? And if it's something that's just in their heads rather than something that would require an actual change in policy, that's even better! Then we just need (to borrow your phrase) an action plan to reach out to those voters and make sure they understand that the party doesn't now, and actually never did, stand for the things they now think it stands for.

*Well a lot of the folks who were voting for Obama in '12 may not have been old enough to vote in '92 and a lot of voters for Clinton in '92 probably weren't alive to vote in '12, but the key point here is that states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have been reliably blue electoral votes for a LONG time.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #121 on: July 28, 2018, 01:54:30 PM »
It's interesting you mentioned relying on minority turnout to take TX. At first I thought you were bats*** crazy, but judging by the demographics, the primaries results, and general election day turnout it now seems at least possible to me, still not likely, but possible. Good point.

Absolutely no offense taken. Texas is already a majority-minority state, but only about 40% hispanic voters turn out to vote, vs ~60% of both black and white voters, so you wouldn't know it from its voting record. I've heard democrats talk for years about the potential for demographics to turn Texas blue, but so far hispanic voter turn out remains stubbornly low regardless of what approaches are thrown into increasing it each year.

I do think once a single democratic candidate wins statewide, we'll see a big uptick in future turnout that could move Texas from solidly red to consistently blue-tinged purple (sort of like Colorado or Nevada) because the people who currently don't vote will suddenly have tangible evidence that their votes have the potential to make a difference.

But until that first state-wide victory, I'm not strategically comfortable with the approach of some on this thread of simply writing off vast swaths of the country and the electorate with a history of backing liberal and progressive candidates and issues as a lost cause. (And even if Texas, Arizona, and Georgia came over to the blue column to address my strategic concerns, I'd still have ethical problems with the racially prejudiced caricatures of white midwesterners apparently held as truth by some of those same people.)

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #122 on: July 28, 2018, 03:24:49 PM »
Ya I definitely agree with your TX analysis and ethical concerns.

Many of the people I used to work with (oil geos/engg) are quite blue, it just never occurred to me that it's actually possible to flip TX based on minority turn-out. But after looking at "recent" trends and victory margins, I now think it's definitely possible. Thanks for the *mindblasting* idea!

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #123 on: July 28, 2018, 04:46:29 PM »
People are discussing why a block of traditionally democratic voters (a subset of non-college educated white people, often from union households, in the industrial midwest) who voted for Obama in 2012 and 2008, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, and Clinton in 1996 and 1992,* but either didn't turn out in 2016 or turned out and voted for Trump.

Sure and the answer seems to be some sort of perceived white oppression. But I will re-iterate there is no need to appeal to these voters. Especially to something that doesn't exist. It's been beaten into the ground the slimmest of margins Trump won by even provided the above. I would be more inclined to appeal to the non-voters and third party voters. Also that shift began before Trump.
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493763493/charts-see-how-quickly-white-non-college-voters-have-fled-the-democratic-party

Quote
If Obama-Trump voters were 13% of the people who turned out to both, that'd be close to 17 million voters.
Yep, except those who went Bush-Obama was much higher meaning very likely many of those folks were Republican to begin with.

The only argument that I disagree with is finding some way to win back this subset of voters who started swinging Republican years ago if it's the result of some self perceived white oppression. 

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #124 on: July 28, 2018, 05:15:44 PM »
Quote
If Obama-Trump voters were 13% of the people who turned out to both, that'd be close to 17 million voters.
Yep, except those who went Bush-Obama was much higher meaning very likely many of those folks were Republican to begin with.

I don't follow. Your argument is that is a person voted for obama twice, bush once, and trump once they are necessarily a republican?

If we assume everyone who has voted for two republican presidential candidates over a lifetime is an unreachable voter committed to vote for the republican party out of party loyalty, I don't see how the democratic party ever wins another presidential election.

Fortunately, I don't think the above is a correct description of the american electorate.

Quote
Sure and the answer seems to be some sort of perceived white oppression. But I will re-iterate there is no need to appeal to these voters. Especially to something that doesn't exist. It's been beaten into the ground the slimmest of margins Trump won by even provided the above. I would be more inclined to appeal to the non-voters and third party voters. Also that shift began before Trump.
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/13/493763493/charts-see-how-quickly-white-non-college-voters-have-fled-the-democratic-party

So to review, you'd rather change the ACTUAL principles of the democratic party to appeal to voters who chose to vote for another party (presumably libertarian and green?) rather than try to educate voters who already agree with the actual principles of the democratic party, but have bad information about what the modern party stands for?

Because you realize oppressing white people isn't actually a core liberal or progressive value, right? So not doing that, and making sure people understand we don't want to do that doesn't require compromising our principles (or at least my principles) in any way.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #125 on: July 28, 2018, 05:55:49 PM »
I don't follow. Your argument is that is a person voted for obama twice, bush once, and trump once they are necessarily a republican?

Nope. My argument is that not every Obama-Trump voter is someone the Dems can/should reach because they are Republican to begin with.

Quote
If we assume everyone who has voted for two republican presidential candidates over a lifetime is an unreachable voter committed to vote for the republican party out of party loyalty, I don't see how the democratic party ever wins another presidential election.

Sure, but I didn't make the assumption.

Quote
So to review, you'd rather change the ACTUAL principles of the democratic party to appeal to voters who chose to vote for another party (presumably libertarian and green?) rather than try to educate voters who already agree with the actual principles of the democratic party, but have bad information about what the modern party stands for?

Hmm, my Dem neighbor voted third party because he thought Hillary was a very bad Dem candidate (fed into a lot of the "corruption" BS). He regrets it because he despises Trump so much. Where does he fit into your above analysis. I said nothing of changing principles. You seem to really be reading into things that aren't there. 

Quote
Because you realize oppressing white people isn't actually a core liberal or progressive value, right? So not doing that, and making sure people understand we don't want to do that doesn't require compromising our principles (or at least my principles) in any way.

Couldn't agree more. Which brings is full circle back to the million dollar question. How do you appeal to the white folks who think they are being discriminated against? Lie and agree with them? Make false promises? See the issue?

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #126 on: July 28, 2018, 06:19:08 PM »
I don't follow. Your argument is that is a person voted for obama twice, bush once, and trump once they are necessarily a republican?

Nope. My argument is that not every Obama-Trump voter is someone the Dems can/should reach because they are Republican to begin with.


If there are 17 million of them, we clearly don't need to reach all of them. A million would do the trick.

Quote
Quote
If we assume everyone who has voted for two republican presidential candidates over a lifetime is an unreachable voter committed to vote for the republican party out of party loyalty, I don't see how the democratic party ever wins another presidential election.

Sure, but I didn't make the assumption.

Okay, so what's your problem with trying to reach out to these voters then? Because you keep trying to write this group off over and over.

Quote
Quote
So to review, you'd rather change the ACTUAL principles of the democratic party to appeal to voters who chose to vote for another party (presumably libertarian and green?) rather than try to educate voters who already agree with the actual principles of the democratic party, but have bad information about what the modern party stands for?

Hmm, my Dem neighbor voted third party because he thought Hillary was a very bad Dem candidate (fed into a lot of the "corruption" BS). He regrets it because he despises Trump so much. Where does he fit into your above analysis. I said nothing of changing principles. You seem to really be reading into things that aren't there. 

I'm trying to understand why you're so opposed to reaching out to a particular group of voters that I see as particularly reachable and our best shot at avoiding eight years with our current president.

I'm trying to understand your thinking because I see a lot of people expressing views like yours both here and on other message boards (much less in person), and I really don't understand your motivation in is.

Quote
Quote
Because you realize oppressing white people isn't actually a core liberal or progressive value, right? So not doing that, and making sure people understand we don't want to do that doesn't require compromising our principles (or at least my principles) in any way.

Couldn't agree more. Which brings is full circle back to the million dollar question. How do you appeal to the white folks who think they are being discriminated against? Lie and agree with them? Make false promises? See the issue?

Oh that one is simple. When those rare fringy people like the Evergreen protestors and their views make the news, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug, you loudly and clearly say "this person or this group of people doesn't speak for the democratic party, our party does not believe in judging people by the color of their skin" and then you go back to pushing for good policy and electing honest candidates.

Not hard at all.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #127 on: July 29, 2018, 01:03:42 AM »
Sometimes I think our resisten en to reaching voters is personal experience with them. I have a friend who voted Trump. I was pretty shocked because she wasn’t someone I thought would have supported him (very educated, female, open to gay people, etc). I spent some serious time trying to understand her views and reasons. She honest didn’t seem to have any empathy for either poor people (they are all gaming the system and defrauding it) or those who looked differently from her. I am part Hispanic through my grandparents, but white otherwise, so I really tried to explain how it feels to be an immigrant and some of the challenges faced by them. After she told me “maybe some people should just die” I couldn’t take it anymore. We stopped talking about anything but the most superficial things.

So if I can’t reach someone I know very well (or thought I did) by having respectful, genuine conversations with her, how is the Democratic Party going to have any luck saying exptremist college students aren’t us? My friend doesn’t care about people who don’t look like her or have the same socioeconomic background. She’s also convinced this isn’t a problem.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #128 on: July 29, 2018, 06:14:11 AM »
I'm trying to understand why you're so opposed to reaching out to a particular group of voters that I see as particularly reachable and our best shot at avoiding eight years with our current president.

I'm not. Good grief! We'll leave it at that because you just aren't getting it.

Quote
Quote
Couldn't agree more. Which brings is full circle back to the million dollar question. How do you appeal to the white folks who think they are being discriminated against? Lie and agree with them? Make false promises? See the issue?

Oh that one is simple. When those rare fringy people like the Evergreen protestors and their views make the news, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug, you loudly and clearly say "this person or this group of people doesn't speak for the democratic party, our party does not believe in judging people by the color of their skin" and then you go back to pushing for good policy and electing honest candidates.

Not hard at all.

Sounds like a great response! And if these folks still lean right because of some "white oppression" then they are unreachable. Let's focus on people that are reachable (like my neighbor).

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #129 on: July 29, 2018, 06:54:50 AM »
Sometimes I think our resisten en to reaching voters is personal experience with them. I have a friend who voted Trump. I was pretty shocked because she wasn’t someone I thought would have supported him (very educated, female, open to gay people, etc). I spent some serious time trying to understand her views and reasons. She honest didn’t seem to have any empathy for either poor people (they are all gaming the system and defrauding it) or those who looked differently from her. I am part Hispanic through my grandparents, but white otherwise, so I really tried to explain how it feels to be an immigrant and some of the challenges faced by them. After she told me “maybe some people should just die” I couldn’t take it anymore. We stopped talking about anything but the most superficial things.

So if I can’t reach someone I know very well (or thought I did) by having respectful, genuine conversations with her, how is the Democratic Party going to have any luck saying exptremist college students aren’t us? My friend doesn’t care about people who don’t look like her or have the same socioeconomic background. She’s also convinced this isn’t a problem.

That sounds like a very upsetting experience, particularly the "maybe some people should just die" line, and I probably would have the same reaction in your shoes of just deciding to disengage entirely with that particular person.

The only point I will make here is that this is one particular person, and to win elections it is not necessary that we change the minds of any one voter but it is necessary that we change the minds of some voters. So please don't let the realization that your friend is not someone who is open to changing her position convince you that there is no point in continuing to engage with other people as you have the opportunities.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #130 on: July 29, 2018, 07:01:59 AM »
Sounds like a great response! And if these folks still lean right because of some "white oppression" then they are unreachable. Let's focus on people that are reachable (like my neighbor).

Alright, sounds like we are in agreement.

I'll just make one final request: Please don't make or encourage jokes (or what you feel are genuine statements of fact) about how terrible, insecure, and/or racist white people are. Because even on internet forums, statements and jokes like that makes the job of reaching persuadable voters harder, and whether a rational response or or not it moves more voters into the unreachable category.

At the same time please do continue to call out, mock, and ridicule white racists. Because they have no place in a democracy founded on the belief that all people are created equal.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #131 on: July 29, 2018, 11:23:43 AM »
My personal take is not that the Dems need to spend more time refuting people like Antifa and Evergreen college extremists. They really need to spend more time on policy and why it helps.

Going back to my friend, one thing she also seems convinced of is that government could never run healthcare (despite my assertion that my government healthcare is fantastic and her boyfriend has better healthcare than her - his government, her’s from a contractor) and healthcare for the whole country would not be beneficial at all to her or anyone in general.

In other words, we aren’t better as a nation when people have access to healthcare. I’d suspect there are others who believe this and that is why they blindly hate the ACA. She does think many of the poeple who are sick are just not taking care of themselves (ie, missing necessary appointments, etc - this was a little crazy to me because she just went through some major rehab on her shoulder after a bike accident. She’d been agonizing about taking time off work for it not because she couldn’t afford it, but because she felt guilty taking time off. She was like a deer in headlights when I explained there are many people who can’t afford either the time off or the doctor visits and quit even when they want the care).

Anyway, all that to say I’m tired of Dems focusing on being anti-Trump, and not talking about the issues enough. We all know we hate Trump. Give us reason to want you. I think it was where Hilary went wrong, too.

Yes, “racist” is overused and needs to be saved for the real racists. That would be beneficial. Most of that comes from people other than Democrat candidates, though. Hard to stop it. Plus I don’t think people like my friend can be convinced with nicer words that people who aren’t like her haven’t brought their misfortune upon themselves. I think they can win with a better, clearer message. A solid plan that actually has some research behind it.
 
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people. I’m actually an Independent who used to lean right. I voted for Bush (disaster, sorry!), then for a Republican other than Romney, but didn’t vote in the last election because NY state never got me an absentee ballot. I lean left after seeing the disaster that is Republican policy, but still register Independent because I despise being locked into one ideology. I feel like there are a whole lot more of me out there that Dems can easily reach with a good message.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #132 on: July 29, 2018, 11:52:03 AM »
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.

I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*

Raymond Reddington

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
  • Age: 2014
  • Location: NYC
  • "The Concierge of Cash"
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #133 on: July 29, 2018, 12:55:13 PM »
The middle voters are the key. Almost 40% of American voters that responded to a recent poll described themselves as "independent" regardless of party affiliation.

-In general, many people are sick and tired of party loyalty above all else.
-In general, people distrust politicians on both sides.

They are tired of Democrats getting in and legislating every little aspect of their daily lives. This "plastic straw" controversy is a wonderful example of why the Democrats can't win an election these days. Barack Obama was the exception - he had mainstream appeal because he spoke optimistically and well, discussed specific areas he wanted to improve, and rode the wave of populism to a landslide victory. And you know what happened? His own party did him in because it wanted to "negotiate" with the Republicans or dial back the more "extreme" views he had...which is why the ACA was a 2,000 page clusterfuck that actually resembled a Republican plan (RomneyCare) in the end - because of the concessions that had to be made within his own party to appease Republicans who could have been shut out of the process entirely. To an entire generation of voters, this made the Democrats appear weak and stupid. Yet, the same Democratic party will come out and condemn something stupid later on, and demand that it be banned.

So the country will turn their back on Democrats and elect Republicans. Because except where a woman's uterus is concerned for whatever reason, the Republicans don't seem to want to meddle with every aspect of your daily lives. Instead, they just give up the farm to big business and the rich after crying about deficit spending. But at least they don't tell you what kind of straws to use or what to think (unless you're a woman).

And this is how we got in the Trump mess.

In reality, the savior might be a third party. I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in America believe in conservative values, but believe in liberal policy. We want to help the poor and the down and out, but only those that we feel are actively working towards their own better future - not the freeloaders. We do not want government in our daily lives, telling us we will be arrested for littering, and banning the use of gender specific pronouns in public speeches. We do NOT want the rich to get anymore tax breaks (we want them to pay more to reduce deficits), and we are split 50/50 on corporations because a high tax rate on rich individuals coupled with low rates on corporations could conceivably discourage businesses from paying executives disproportionately. We are divided on the role of religion in politics (unfortunately), but the majority agrees that gay people should be able to marry although many who agree gays can marry disagree about how prominently homosexuality should be featured on television, in movies, and in other controversial areas.

This leads to a situation where neither party directly represents the country's interests. Coupled with a post citizens united world where lobbyists can basically legally bribe politicians to do their bidding, where the 1% controls the message so that major elections are decided on fringe questions like gay marriage or abortion when in reality, what determines the ultimate level of happiness for citizens in this country is the quality of life in their area, the quality of the economy, and the access to opportunity - 3 things that consistently get lost in the shuffle.

The failures of liberal government are shown in crime ridden major cities where anything goes - where violations go unticketed because someone cries "racism" at being issued a ticket for hopping a subway turnstile or blasting loud music in public.

The failures of Republican government are shown in the poverty in most rural areas and the complete inability of these governments to attract people or businesses to these areas, as the talent for a skilled workforce is just not there because they have decimated the education system.

Neither party is going to have a stranglehold on the majority of voters that self identify as independent until they understand this. Regulate the rich and big biz to enforce fairness in the marketplace, get the big money out of politics, and let us live our lives the way we'd like, within the boundaries of established laws that get enforced, with minimal additional government interference. Otherwise, every 4 years, it's just going to be a question who gets more of the self identified Democrat extremists or Republican extremists to turn out in a lackluster showing. People are tired of the status quo. We are tired of being governed by a bunch of god fearing, bible thumping sinners from the south, and we are tired of being governed by a bunch of spoiled professional protestors from California who think banning something makes the problem go away.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #134 on: July 29, 2018, 01:35:26 PM »
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.

I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*

Ahem, I am a middle voter actually. Might not seem that way but I have indeed voted both Republican and Dem (was a registered Republican and voted Republican only at one time). I am a registered independent now. Hillary wasn't my first choice but voted for her because I was so against Trump and what he stood for. 
 

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #135 on: July 29, 2018, 01:38:45 PM »
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people. I’m actually an Independent who used to lean right. I voted for Bush (disaster, sorry!), then for a Republican other than Romney, but didn’t vote in the last election because NY state never got me an absentee ballot. I lean left after seeing the disaster that is Republican policy, but still register Independent because I despise being locked into one ideology. I feel like there are a whole lot more of me out there that Dems can easily reach with a good message.

You and I have eerily similar paths.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #136 on: July 29, 2018, 01:42:34 PM »
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.

I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*

Ahem, I am a middle voter actually. Might not seem that way but I have indeed voted both Republican and Dem (was a registered Republican and voted Republican only at one time). I am a registered independent now. Hillary wasn't my first choice but voted for her because I was so against Trump and what he stood for.

Did I say you weren't a middle voter?

I'm merely pointing out that you're in a big rush to write off a large group of folks that I believe are actually swing voters.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #137 on: July 29, 2018, 04:00:02 PM »
I’m with Masterstache that the middle voters are the key, not the ones voting because they feel put upon as white people.

I think we are in complete agreement that it is important to focus on the middle voters rather than the extremists who are probably going to vote for the same party no matter way. It would appear the core disagreement we have are who the middle voters are. *shrug*

Ahem, I am a middle voter actually. Might not seem that way but I have indeed voted both Republican and Dem (was a registered Republican and voted Republican only at one time). I am a registered independent now. Hillary wasn't my first choice but voted for her because I was so against Trump and what he stood for.

Did I say you weren't a middle voter?

I'm merely pointing out that you're in a big rush to write off a large group of folks that I believe are actually swing voters.

Wow dude, you really take what I write to heart. You gotta ease up a bit. I didn't write that with any ill intent or insinuation.

And no I didn't write off a "large group of folks" as you keep claiming. Seems others understand what I was writing, but clearly you didn't. You need a coke and a smile ( :
« Last Edit: July 29, 2018, 04:07:30 PM by MasterStache »

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #138 on: July 29, 2018, 04:44:05 PM »
And no I didn't write off a "large group of folks" as you keep claiming. Seems others understand what I was writing, but clearly you didn't.

Obviously you are going to be the ultimate judge of the meaning you tended to convey, all I can tell you is the meaning that actually comes across on the screen.

Since you put quotes around "a large group of folks" but not write off, is your argument that the group you want to write off is small or that you don't arguing to write anyone off?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #139 on: July 30, 2018, 06:22:20 AM »
And no I didn't write off a "large group of folks" as you keep claiming. Seems others understand what I was writing, but clearly you didn't.

Obviously you are going to be the ultimate judge of the meaning you tended to convey, all I can tell you is the meaning that actually comes across on the screen.

Since you put quotes around "a large group of folks" but not write off, is your argument that the group you want to write off is small or that you don't arguing to write anyone off?

My meaning was pretty clear. Again others got it. You were the black sheep. The quotes were because I direct quoted you. If I left out a couple words it wasn't intentional. Please don't read too much into that as well. Small vs big is subjective. I am not going down that path. 

Relax man! We are on the same page.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2816
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #140 on: July 30, 2018, 12:15:42 PM »
It was interesting to see that the debate on this thread is being replicated in the democratic party at large.

Some folks want to abandon the traditionally democratic midwest to go after Georgia, Arizona, and eventually Texas. Some people, particularly in Wisconsin, think the reason Hillary Clinton lost those states was pulling resources from the midwest to go after Arizona and argue it's a failed strategy.

Some people favor an "all of the above" approach.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/electoral-college-2020-trump-747648

MasterStache, by my count there are three people participating in this particular part of discussion at the moment, you, me and TrudgingAlong. Presumably you're considered TA as the person who understands the meaning you intend to convey, while saying that I clearly do not understand your intended meaning.*

Now I'd argue a 1:1 ratio in terms of two different interpretations of your comments based on two data points is not enough data to separate black sheep and who the white sheep are.

But my main point here is simply that making either jokes or (believed) statements of fact that single out a group of potential democratic voters as bad or insecure or not worth wasting time on based on the color of their skin is not helpful and in fact actively counterproductive. If you agree with that, then yes, you're right I'm just completely misunderstanding your posts. If you disagree with it, then I think we are indeed communicating accurately, we just fundamentally disagree on this particular point.   

*Which I base on your repeated insistence that white voters are voting for Trump out of pure party loyalty and are clearly republicans if they voted for Bush, Obama, and then Trump.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #141 on: July 30, 2018, 03:52:33 PM »
But my main point here is simply that making either jokes or (believed) statements of fact that single out a group of potential democratic voters as bad or insecure or not worth wasting time on based on the color of their skin is not helpful and in fact actively counterproductive.
Sure it's counter-productive.  Feel free to direct quote if I made any such racist comments toward democratic voters.

Quote
*Which I base on your repeated insistence that white voters are voting for Trump out of pure party loyalty and are clearly republicans if they voted for Bush, Obama, and then Trump.
Yep, except those who went Bush-Obama was much higher meaning very likely many of those folks were Republican to begin with.
many /= all. Not sure why you keep struggling with this. Perhaps this will help you:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/may-not-be-as-many-trump-democrats-as-previously-imagined.html

BTW, this also lines up with PEW research polls which clearly show the flip happening right after Obama was elected. (referring to white voters with HS or less education.) Check out the huge increase between 2008-2012. 
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2-party-affiliation-among-voters-1992-2016/

Now for future reference feel free to direct quote the statement of fact you believe I made. I don't like direct quoting myself to point our your mistakes.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 06:15:58 AM by MasterStache »

ministashy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #142 on: July 31, 2018, 09:17:00 AM »

In reality, the savior might be a third party.

(Cutting all the rest of the Fox news propaganda for length--crime-ridden cities?  Puhleeze.)

Oh look, another person who believes that a mythical third party can ride in and save the day!  I am so tired of this BS.  We currently have no less than 29 candidates running for Senate for Washington's primary.  At least half of those are third-party candidates, and if you read their platforms, they are pretty much universally wacko.  I also never see these parties (Green, libertarian, etc)  fielding serious candidates for any mayoral, city council, county, or even most state legislature races. 

You know what that tells me?  That tells me these people are only in it to stroke their own egos.  They're not there to build a coalition or do the hard work of governing. 

Politics is a team sport.  You want change, you need a whole lot of people (and money) on your side.  Running every 4-8 years for President or the occasional Senate/Representative seat won't do jack squat.  Even if you win, you STILL won't have any allies to support the changes you want.  Which means like it or not, the Democrats and the Republicans are the only game in town. 

Raymond Reddington

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
  • Age: 2014
  • Location: NYC
  • "The Concierge of Cash"
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #143 on: August 01, 2018, 12:49:33 AM »

In reality, the savior might be a third party.

(Cutting all the rest of the Fox news propaganda for length--crime-ridden cities?  Puhleeze.)

Oh look, another person who believes that a mythical third party can ride in and save the day!  I am so tired of this BS.  We currently have no less than 29 candidates running for Senate for Washington's primary.  At least half of those are third-party candidates, and if you read their platforms, they are pretty much universally wacko.  I also never see these parties (Green, libertarian, etc)  fielding serious candidates for any mayoral, city council, county, or even most state legislature races. 

You know what that tells me?  That tells me these people are only in it to stroke their own egos.  They're not there to build a coalition or do the hard work of governing. 

Politics is a team sport.  You want change, you need a whole lot of people (and money) on your side.  Running every 4-8 years for President or the occasional Senate/Representative seat won't do jack squat.  Even if you win, you STILL won't have any allies to support the changes you want.  Which means like it or not, the Democrats and the Republicans are the only game in town.

And this is why so many Americans are disenfranchised with the current system. People are sick of holding their noses and voting for someone who's going to screw them anyway.

Believe me, I am VERY far from a Republican, so I'm not sure what the Fox News comment has to do with me, if anything. Green and Libertarian parties are nuts, we know that. What about Working Families? What about a new third party founded around conservative social values, but liberal economic ones? Don't craft a straw man around a "third party" that wasn't named.

But know this: partisan die hards are becoming the minority. You can rail against the majority of Americans for not turning out, or you can adapt your platform to the needs and wishes of the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans don't really care if gays are allowed to marry - the majority actually support it. The majority of Americans resent being told what to eat, drink, or think, and having the threat of censorship hanging over their heads. The majority of Americans want to address income inequality, raise taxes on the rich without raising them on the not-rich, reduce the deficit, and secure funding for Social Security well into the future without cutting benefits too significantly. The majority of Americans want to address the triple edged sword of rising healthcare, education, and housing costs.

Run on that, and any candidate can win. Posting on here blaming "everyone else" for not voting for your candidate is just sour grapes from bitter losers. Trump is a horrible president, we all know that. But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections. They can't keep playing neoconservative on economics and radical left on social issues and expect to win. Most Americans believe in family values still, and if the Democrats are seen as against that and offer an economic status quo, they are going to lose.

Voters are tired of talk and false promises. They want to see action. There's a reason Obama won 2 elections. He did what he could, but the biggest reason he didn't do more was his own party in his first term. As far as I'm concerned, one of the best things he ever did was allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which meant the top tax rate climbed back to 39.6%. Could Obama have run against Trump, we'd be looking at a third term president. The only "good" thing about Trump at this point is Republicans are learning what it means to be lied to. But elections and politics are a lot more than just these presidential elections every 4 years, and Democrats have neglected those, and failed to identify themselves as a party for the common people. So if the Democrats stick with the same strategy they've been sticking with, and fail to get the independents to the polls, we'll be looking at 4 more years of the Toupee in Chief, regardless of what anyone tells them to do on a discussion board. Hell, they are winning some local and state elections now as a direct response, and the Democratic establishment is distancing itself from these young, motivated candidates who want to change the status quo who are WINNING. How is this a recipe for governing into the future as a party?

Democrats can sit there and tell people what they "should" do, or they can get out there, listen to them, and develop a platform that addresses their needs and wants.

Otherwise, when someone rich enough to fund a third party has had enough, we'll see that too no matter how unlikely. Or the pitchforks will come out, for real. Why? Because history says so.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 12:54:07 AM by Raymond Reddington »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #144 on: August 01, 2018, 06:24:46 AM »
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.

Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #145 on: August 01, 2018, 07:34:20 AM »
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.

Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.

Not sure what more they could have done, but it's hard to argue that the parties are appealing when almost half of eligible voters don't vote.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #146 on: August 01, 2018, 10:00:26 AM »
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.

Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.

Not sure what more they could have done, but it's hard to argue that the parties are appealing when almost half of eligible voters don't vote.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/

The two candidates picked were by the most unfavorable candidates put forth in a long time. Likely explains why a lot of folks didn't vote.

katsiki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
  • Age: 38
  • Location: La.
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #147 on: August 01, 2018, 10:04:22 AM »
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.

Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.

I'm not a D but I think putting up Hillary turned off a lot of folks.  Just like the R's recycling McCain and Romney.  Both parties need some new blood.

NorthernBlitz

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 297
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #148 on: August 01, 2018, 12:44:05 PM »
But if Democrats don't wake up and appeal to voters who are disenfranchised with economic unfairness, they are going to have to get used to losing a lot of elections.

Just curious how they did not appeal? Or what more they could have done? Compare and contrast that to what the GOP promised and if those promises are actually being fulfilled.

Not sure what more they could have done, but it's hard to argue that the parties are appealing when almost half of eligible voters don't vote.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a8265143/almost-half-eligible-voters-did-not-vote-election-2016/

The two candidates picked were by the most unfavorable candidates put forth in a long time. Likely explains why a lot of folks didn't vote.

100% agree.

Picking a human that is likable would be a good start if you're looking for ways to improve the appeal of both political parties in the US.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
Re: Why Progressives Elected Trump
« Reply #149 on: August 01, 2018, 12:52:14 PM »
I did some reading and gave it some thought. As far as (winning) the midterm is concerned, the two strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Namely, endorse candidates that are suited for the right demographics (district).

Given the widespread support for D relative to R at the moment (loads of tailwind for the D), the blues can totally go back to the working-class roots in the mid-west, while doubling down on the female/minority identity politics in other areas. This double barrel strategy will likely yield the biggest gain for D in Nov.

The problem is.... this could very well backfire come 2020. As FB made an announcement about how some left-wing (anti-right) pages could also be linked to the Russians, it remains to be seen how the left will react to this new revelation.

https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/07/removing-bad-actors-on-facebook/