Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 06-22-2017, 04:43 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes, the Republicans may have won the White House in 2016, and may have managed to win each and every contested special election, and may control 33 governor's mansions, 68 state legislative chambers, the U.S. House, and the US Senate.

But by God, they're on the ropes, desperate and ineffectual. In the suburbs.
You're funny Bricker . Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Advertisements  
  #302  
Old 06-22-2017, 04:44 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In my view, the Republican party is in better shape right now than the Democrats.
"right now" is a very significant qualifier.

There's a lot of discussion about how long term demographic trends don't bode well for the Republicans. I don't think it's quite as bad as some people make it (in particular as some current minorities may turn "white" over time), but it's definitely an issue.
  #303  
Old 06-22-2017, 05:49 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Fair enough. If the future of the Republican party is Trumpian, will you remain a Republican?
I suppose it depends on what the parties morph into, but while I can't being myself to vote Trump, I can certainly stomach voting for other current Republicans. Now, if new Republican candidates emerge that are Trumpesque, I might begin to call myself independent.
  #304  
Old 06-22-2017, 06:33 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 56,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
...(in particular as some current minorities may turn "white" over time)....
"White privilege" for everybody? Can we create an economy that will add another 30% of the population to the upper middle class? All gonna be stockbrokers with MBAs? Amway distributors? Pay baristas and bicycle messengers $80K/yr?

Better stick to the tried and true, pick one. Tell the Latinos that they would be in great shape if it weren't for all the African-American welfare queens and moochers. Might as well throw in Sharia law, what the heck.....

Wait! Better still, an infrastructure program dedicated to building and expanding more gated communities! You can always hire half the poor to protect you from the other half!

Last edited by elucidator; 06-22-2017 at 06:36 PM. Reason: Heaven is the Pearly Gated community.
  #305  
Old 06-23-2017, 12:41 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I suppose it depends on what the parties morph into, but while I can't being myself to vote Trump, I can certainly stomach voting for other current Republicans. Now, if new Republican candidates emerge that are Trumpesque, I might begin to call myself independent.
Problem is, Paul Ryan isn't getting it done as the other leader of the Republican Party. The health care bill is pure nonsense, he still hasn't fleshed out his budget plan that he's been selling for 7 years now, and he still hasn't figured out how to work with Democrats.

All the Democrats have to do to win my vote at this point is be authentic and smart. They've already got the latter down pat, now they just have to stop viewing voters as idiots to be bamboozled while they do what's good for them and they might have something.
  #306  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:50 AM
dba Fred dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
<clipped>
He lived most of his life in the district, afaik, and is currently living one district over til his wife finishes school. <clipped>
Does Ossoff’s wife know about his fiancée, Alisha, who’s also in school?
  #307  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:21 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Yes, the Republicans may have won the White House in 2016, and may have managed to win each and every contested special election, and may control 33 governor's mansions, 68 state legislative chambers, the U.S. House, and the US Senate.
They did and do. And here's why:

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The Republicans are intellectually bankrupt. They're a party that's held hostage to special corporate and religious interests that the vast majority of the country doesn't relate to very well. They're winning in terms of tactics and organization, but they're not really winning on ideas, and increasingly, they're running out of people who believe in their bullshit.

On the flip side, this is also what makes them dangerous. Knowing, as we do, that they're really incapable of winning using straightforward, conventional democratic means, they're resorting to less and less democratic means of keeping themselves in power, everything from race-based gerrymandering and voter intimidation to going after journalists and trying to invent their own version of reality. It's critical that progressives, whatever their differences on everything else, stand in unison against these tactics.
The advantage of moral bankruptcy is that it makes campaigning a lot easier. John Mace said above that the Democrats needed to present simpler and easier messages to the public like the Republicans do. You know what's simple and easy? Lies. Take the issue of coal jobs. Clinton had policies, she gave speeches setting out the economic realities, and no one remembered. Trump turned up and said "I'm going to get all your jobs back" and won the miners over. Never mind that he can't get their jobs back nor that it's patently obvious that he isn't going to do anything beyond allowing mine owners to pollute their water supply and drastically reduce safety levels in the minds - it was a simple, easy lie people wanted to believe and so they voted Trump.

The right-wing also have a more effective propaganda machine than the left, with decades of experience of corralling their audience into ever smaller bubbles by convincing them that every other information source is lying to them, and by continuously misrepresenting the views, actions and statements of the other side (e.g. "What difference does it make?" or "You didn't build that."). More lies. Lies repeated over and over until people stop questioning them.

The Republican efforts to reduce Democratic voter turnout have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere, and a number of the board conservatives have indicated that they're perfectly happy with them as long as they're technically legal. Amidst all the advice to the Democrats about how they can appeal to more right-ish voters, the question about why the Republicans need to resort to suppressing Democratic voters instead of developing policies that appeal to more left-ish voters rarely seems to get asked.

The Democrats are certainly not squeaky-clean in this regard by any means (particularly not historically), but let's not pretend that the current Republican dominance is all down to a good honest all-American support for their policies - particularly right now while they're busy rushing a hastily- and largely secretly-drafted healthcare bill through the Senate which will have catastrophic - and in some cases lethal - consequences for millions of Americans. It's down principally to tribalism - and to lies. Maybe those are what the Democrats need more of in order to level the playing field.
  #308  
Old 06-23-2017, 07:58 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
The right-wing also have a more effective propaganda machine than the left, with decades of experience of corralling their audience into ever smaller bubbles by convincing them that every other information source is lying to them, and by continuously misrepresenting the views, actions and statements of the other side (e.g. "What difference does it make?" or "You didn't build that."). More lies. Lies repeated over and over until people stop questioning them.
You know who else has a more effective propaganda machine than the left? Putin.

Even if you already suspect most of this, this article is chilling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaPo
The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.
  #309  
Old 06-23-2017, 08:02 AM
Doctor Jackson Doctor Jackson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Jawja
Posts: 8,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
None of that really rings true. It's not like the Dems parachuted him in from New York. He lived most of his life in the district, afaik, and is currently living one district over til his wife finishes school. I guess the out of state money could have been meaningful to some. However there is the fact that Dems haven't won that seat in decades. Why do we need to look at these little details to figure out why this Dem lost?
I have no idea why you think none of that rings true. I live here, "one district over", and talk to GA-6 residents every freaking day at work. The caveat of moving back only if elected struck a chord in many voters, as did the outside money. If not for the three "little details" I mentioned, I think a Dem could have won that seat. GA-6 demographics have changed and continue to change radically, toward the Dem's wheelhouse. It will go blue sooner rather than later.

The reason you should look at the "little details" is because Dems spent $30MM to win this seat and didn't. They wouldn't have spent that money if they didn't think they had a good chance at winning. That certainly deserves more of a post mortem than "Oh, well, we didn't really expect that seat anyway".
  #310  
Old 06-23-2017, 08:39 AM
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 13,786
Maybe it doesn't deserve it though. I would contend it was only close because of Trump. I'll certainly defer to a resident's impression of the campaigns but I have trouble believing even a great candidate would have pulled over that last 4% for the win.
  #311  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:23 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
The advantage of moral bankruptcy is that it makes campaigning a lot easier. John Mace said above that the Democrats needed to present simpler and easier messages to the public like the Republicans do. You know what's simple and easy? Lies.
Just to be clear, I did not say "like the Republicans do" and I was not suggesting that the Democrats lie*. Keep in mind that I was offering one suggestion as a counter to what seemed to me like such an esoteric idea that it was completely out of touch with reality. There could very well be other, good strategies, too. The Democrats, on the whole, have a better plan for this country and I'd like to see them win more races. It just seems like they can't stop themselves from being the party that must solve every social injustice that anyone can possibly dream up instead of focusing most of their energy on the things that matter most to the bulk of the American people.

*You probably don't think I was suggesting Democrats lie, either, but someone could easily read that and think I did.

Last edited by John Mace; 06-23-2017 at 10:25 AM.
  #312  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:29 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I suppose it depends on what the parties morph into, but while I can't being myself to vote Trump, I can certainly stomach voting for other current Republicans. Now, if new Republican candidates emerge that are Trumpesque, I might begin to call myself independent.
You can always join the libertarians. We have pie.
  #313  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:33 AM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You can always join the libertarians. We have pie.
*


* - Our pie is very large, but the size of your slice will be based on an algorithm involving your parents' household income, genetics, a 20-sided die, and how far you can run flat-out at this altitude before your hands start to shake.
  #314  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:35 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You can always join the libertarians. We have pie.
Err...I'm sorry, but it doesn't appear your bakery was licensed. Ima hafta take that pie.
  #315  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:44 AM
Bone Bone is online now
Newbie
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 7,581
Ok, that's funny
  #316  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:50 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,851
IMO the Democrats have an inherent advantage, in that the plus aspect of their major platform is upfront and immediate and the downside is more complex and long-term. So it's more appealing to the simple-minded, which is the vast majority of the electorate.

Essentially, saying "the government" will give everyone "free stuff", while pretending that either no one will pay for it or a few zillionaire hedge fund managers will, is always going to be very appealing to a lot of people. Having to argue things about the long term impact on the economy or moral hazards (murky subjects, at best) is a much tougher sell. That's why the Republicans have to fall back on their own simplistic and somewhat distorted slogans as well, with uneven results.

[ETA: that's not to say anyone who agrees with the Democratic economic platform has to be simple-minded. Far from it. But just that it has a lot of appeal to the simple-minded, whatever its merits.]

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 06-23-2017 at 10:52 AM.
  #317  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:54 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
IMO the Democrats have an inherent advantage, in that the plus aspects of their major platform is upfront and immediate and the downside is more complex and long-term. So it's more appealing to the simple-minded, which is the vast majority of the electorate.

Essentially, saying "the government" will give everyone "free stuff", while pretending that either no one will pay for it or a few zillionaire hedge fund managers will, is always going to be very appealing to a lot of people. Having to argue things about the long term impact on the economy or moral hazards (murky subjects, at best) is a much tougher sell. That's why the Republicans have to fall back on their own simplistic and somewhat distorted slogans as well, with uneven results.

[ETA: that's not to say anyone who agrees with the Democratic economic platform has to be simple-minded. Far from it. But just that it has a lot of appeal to the simple-minded, whatever its merits.]
Except even the "simple-minded" are naturally wary of someone offering them free stuff. TANSTAAFL principle is fairly well ingrained in human psyche. Not enough to prevent Nigerian princes from making a profit, maybe, but enough to curb the Democrats' appeal.
  #318  
Old 06-23-2017, 11:01 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,851
People are used to the idea of "the government" having a lot of money and distributing benefits to the citizens.
  #319  
Old 06-23-2017, 03:29 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,922
It needs to be articulated that some of the "free stuff" is paid for through increased revenue. You pay for daycare subsidies from the taxes collected from working mothers. You pay for tuition subsidies from the taxes collected from college graduates who are making more money with degrees than they would without, etc, etc.

Yeah, it doesn't always work that way in practice, but the theory doesn't even get put out there enough.
  #320  
Old 06-23-2017, 03:59 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,890
One near-unbeatable political strategy is to 1) Promise a chunk of the electorate something that they want, and 2) Promise that a group of people that they dislike will be paying for it.


With Evergreen State College types, offer them free college education, and tell them that Wall Street fat cats will pay for it. Kryptonite.
  #321  
Old 06-23-2017, 04:11 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 71,697
And with Trump voters, promise them that Mexico will pay for the wall.
  #322  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:13 PM
Silver lining Silver lining is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
I've said for a while that the Dems need a little internal triangulation. To find a message that both unifies and transcends Clintonite corporatism and Sandersian semi-socialism, while not coming across as pandering. When the minorities, the intelligentsia and the white working class vote Dem, they're unstoppable.

Trump won the working white class, and 53 % of the white female vote.

The Dems are 0-4 in these special elections, but the real story that under Obama's Presidency, the Dem's lost over 1,000 seats at the federal, and state levels. The trend continues, even with an unpopular president, according to the polls. More on these " polls " later.

The press, with their poor jouralism that has no proof and nonstop assault, is actually helping Trump, by firing up his base. Don't believe the polling, they are out of touch with how people are voting and I suspect their sampling is not longer good within the margin o error.

Americans have a soft spot for those who are unfairly picked on and people get angry when they are treated unfairly. Trump's base is already fired up for 2018, a midterm election where Dems historically have low turnouts.

If I had to guess 2018 will be a red sea rising in the Senate and beyond.

This, however, can change, but for that to happen the Dem's need new leaders, and the press needs to start acting fairly.
  #323  
Old 06-23-2017, 05:24 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 9,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
And with Trump voters, promise them that Mexico will pay for the wall.
Exactly.
  #324  
Old 06-23-2017, 06:22 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,922
Silver lining wrote: " Don't believe the polling, they are out of touch with how people are voting and I suspect their sampling is not longer good within the margin o error."

I think people are lying to the pollsters just to fuck with them. (And so they can later derive great satisfaction by complaining that the polls are wrong.)
  #325  
Old 06-25-2017, 10:02 AM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,922
boyaren wrote: "My personal prediction for 2018 is that by that time, Trump (if he's not impeached by then, of course, which might happen any day now) will be so unpopular (according to the polls and the media) that in addition to the current 32 state legislatures that Republicans control, they'll add a few more states, thus, being able to call a Constitutional convention, and start passing Constitutional amendments. "

God help us.
  #326  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:03 AM
Fuzzy_wuzzy Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
IMO the Democrats have an inherent advantage, in that the plus aspect of their major platform is upfront and immediate and the downside is more complex and long-term. So it's more appealing to the simple-minded, which is the vast majority of the electorate.

Essentially, saying "the government" will give everyone "free stuff", while pretending that either no one will pay for it or a few zillionaire hedge fund managers will, is always going to be very appealing to a lot of people. Having to argue things about the long term impact on the economy or moral hazards (murky subjects, at best) is a much tougher sell. That's why the Republicans have to fall back on their own simplistic and somewhat distorted slogans as well, with uneven results.

[ETA: that's not to say anyone who agrees with the Democratic economic platform has to be simple-minded. Far from it. But just that it has a lot of appeal to the simple-minded, whatever its merits.]
This advantage is about to end and end fairly soon at that. I predict one, possibly two more Presidential races where this card can be played. By then the Western world will be deep into baby boomer retirement territory. No major political Party comes out of that mess unscathed, or in anything like the shape they are in now.
  #327  
Old 06-26-2017, 04:06 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Just to be clear, I did not say "like the Republicans do" and I was not suggesting that the Democrats lie*. Keep in mind that I was offering one suggestion as a counter to what seemed to me like such an esoteric idea that it was completely out of touch with reality. There could very well be other, good strategies, too. The Democrats, on the whole, have a better plan for this country and I'd like to see them win more races. It just seems like they can't stop themselves from being the party that must solve every social injustice that anyone can possibly dream up instead of focusing most of their energy on the things that matter most to the bulk of the American people.

*You probably don't think I was suggesting Democrats lie, either, but someone could easily read that and think I did.
But they do focus on things that matter most to the bulk of the American people. It's just that the Republicans put a lot of effort into the idea that the Democrats don't, just like they put a lot of effort into pretending that the entire Democratic approach is "giving lazy people free stuff".

The Democrats don't need to lie per se, but they need to regain control of their own narrative and tell a better story. Because all this "The Democrats would win if only they would have policies that benefited more Americans " is nonsense when one considers that 1) they do, and 2) the Republicans are busy passing policies that are screwing vast numbers of Americans.
  #328  
Old 06-26-2017, 06:52 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
IMO the Democrats have an inherent advantage, in that the plus aspect of their major platform is upfront and immediate and the downside is more complex and long-term. So it's more appealing to the simple-minded, which is the vast majority of the electorate.

Essentially, saying "the government" will give everyone "free stuff", while pretending that either no one will pay for it or a few zillionaire hedge fund managers will, is always going to be very appealing to a lot of people. Having to argue things about the long term impact on the economy or moral hazards (murky subjects, at best) is a much tougher sell. That's why the Republicans have to fall back on their own simplistic and somewhat distorted slogans as well, with uneven results.

[ETA: that's not to say anyone who agrees with the Democratic economic platform has to be simple-minded. Far from it. But just that it has a lot of appeal to the simple-minded, whatever its merits.]
It used to be that way, but we won that argument way back in 1980 and it's very difficult for Democrats to implement new programs. Just doing ACA cost them everything and in the end they might not even be able to keep that.

Of course, we won it with a simplistic argument of our own: "Government is the problem.", but I guess simplistic arguments are what it takes to beat other simplistic arguments.
  #329  
Old 06-26-2017, 07:18 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
It needs to be articulated that some of the "free stuff" is paid for through increased revenue. You pay for daycare subsidies from the taxes collected from working mothers. You pay for tuition subsidies from the taxes collected from college graduates who are making more money with degrees than they would without, etc, etc.

Yeah, it doesn't always work that way in practice, but the theory doesn't even get put out there enough.
It never works that way ever. It's not like there's a special tax on working mothers which pays for child care. Or a special tax on "college graduates who are making more money with degrees than they would without" to pay for tuition subsidies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It used to be that way, but we won that argument way back in 1980 and it's very difficult for Democrats to implement new programs. Just doing ACA cost them everything and in the end they might not even be able to keep that.
I disagree. The argument has never been won, and "free stuff" continues to be a big selling point.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 06-26-2017 at 07:19 AM.
  #330  
Old 06-26-2017, 07:22 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
The argument has never been won, and "free stuff" continues to be a big selling point.
I live in a state that desperately competes for businesses by offering them massive tax breaks that work as subsidies: "Open your business with us," they implicitly say, "And we'll provide all the government services your business needs, and your employees need--water service, police protection, roads, schools for employee children, you name it--and not make you pay for it. Free stuff!"

Chances are, you live in a state that does the same thing, or else you don't live in the US.

So yeah, the "free stuff" argument is a cornerstone of Republican governance.
  #331  
Old 06-26-2017, 07:26 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,851
I agree that those offers are foolish. I disagree that they have anything to do with Republican governance. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of that type of thing.

Republicans tend to favor low-tax business friendly policies as general principles. But offering negotiated breaks to lure specific big businesses to a state or local area is a bipartisan endeavor.
  #332  
Old 06-26-2017, 08:33 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 36,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I agree that those offers are foolish. I disagree that they have anything to do with Republican governance. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally guilty of that type of thing.
Pretty much agreed--although Dems seem likelier to put in caveats like "be sure you pay your workers enough money that they're not on food stamps." My point was to rebut your implication that it's only Democrats who offer "free stuff".
  #333  
Old 06-26-2017, 09:11 AM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,922
Fotheringay-Phipps wrote: "It never works that way ever. It's not like there's a special tax on working mothers which pays for child care. Or a special tax on "college graduates who are making more money with degrees than they would without" to pay for tuition subsidies."

No, it's not like there's a "special tax" on working mothers, to use only the first example, unless you wish to consider all the taxes they pay working as opposed to not due lack of child care to be "special".
  #334  
Old 06-26-2017, 09:53 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Pretty much agreed--although Dems seem likelier to put in caveats like "be sure you pay your workers enough money that they're not on food stamps." My point was to rebut your implication that it's only Democrats who offer "free stuff".
The context of this discussion is whether the Democrats have an advantage in that their message is heavily based on "free stuff". To the extent that there's another type of "free stuff" being bandied by politicians of all stripes, with no correlation to either Republican or Democratic ideology, then it's not relevant in this context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Fotheringay-Phipps wrote: "It never works that way ever. It's not like there's a special tax on working mothers which pays for child care. Or a special tax on "college graduates who are making more money with degrees than they would without" to pay for tuition subsidies."

No, it's not like there's a "special tax" on working mothers, to use only the first example, unless you wish to consider all the taxes they pay working as opposed to not due lack of child care to be "special".
Makes no difference. Bottom line is that when a politician is promising child care, it's not going to be "paid for through increased revenue" as you suggested in post #319.
  #335  
Old 06-26-2017, 06:57 PM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,891
Free stuff can still be a popular idea, except that few believe it's free anymore. That's a good thing. And it's not. Even when Democrats do something by "taxing the rich", that's only an introductory price. As the programs grow, they can only be supported by the broad middle class.
  #336  
Old 06-26-2017, 09:30 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,922
Then it's in the party's interest to promote a broad middle class through programs like, I don't know, daycare and tuition subsidies.
  #337  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:13 PM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 79,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
But they do focus on things that matter most to the bulk of the American people. It's just that the Republicans put a lot of effort into the idea that the Democrats don't, just like they put a lot of effort into pretending that the entire Democratic approach is "giving lazy people free stuff".

The Democrats don't need to lie per se, but they need to regain control of their own narrative and tell a better story. Because all this "The Democrats would win if only they would have policies that benefited more Americans " is nonsense when one considers that 1) they do, and 2) the Republicans are busy passing policies that are screwing vast numbers of Americans.
I'm honestly at a loss why you think your post is contrary to anything I said in the post of mine that you quoted.
  #338  
Old 06-27-2017, 04:57 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I'm honestly at a loss why you think your post is contrary to anything I said in the post of mine that you quoted.
It was following on from your last non-asterisked sentence. I realize we are largely in agreement, some nuance aside. And some of that was also elaborating on other themes in this thread.
  #339  
Old 06-27-2017, 08:06 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Then it's in the party's interest to promote a broad middle class through programs like, I don't know, daycare and tuition subsidies.
That would be true if the same people benefitting didn't have to pay for it. There are no middle class subsidies possible without middle class taxation. There's a reason SS and Medicare are paid for through payroll taxes, and most state and local infrastructure through sales and property taxes. Taxes on the rich are fine for limited government functions, but the welfare state can only be paid for by the middle class.
  #340  
Old 06-27-2017, 08:22 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Free stuff can still be a popular idea, except that few believe it's free anymore.
I disagree. I think many or most people think it's free. Of course, many of these same people also think the Democrats are a bunch of tax raisers. But a lot of people don't put these things together.

I tend to take a dim view of the voting public. But then, the voting public just elected Donald Trump ...
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017