Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-20-2019, 09:26 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Step one is to take rural America seriously. As much as rural America ≠ whites per se, it is also several different things in other ways. And not every rural citizen is a farmer!
Quote:
three very different types of rural community across the United States: chronically poor, transitioning, and amenity-rich.

Chronically poor rural areas
These are the rural areas we hear most about. .... Clustered in Appalachia and the rural South, these areas struggle with population and job loss, unemployment, low levels of educational attainment, high levels of poverty, and inter-generational economic hardship.

Taken as a whole, this group of places lost nearly 14 percent of its population between 1990 and 2015, which is far worse than the 27-percent population gain of the nation as a whole. They lost young people at more than double that rate ... Politically, these are the places that most closely conform to what we think of as Trump-voting rural areas. Sixty percent of the people living in chronically poor counties voted Republican in 2008, and 70 percent did so in 2016 (in rural communities overall, the numbers are 53 and 62 percent). ...

... Transitioning rural areas
The second type of rural community encompasses places in the midst of demographic and economic transitions. These communities stretch across parts of the Northwest, the Northeast, the Alaskan Panhandle, the Midwest, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan ... In these transitioning areas, voters flipped from Obama Democrats to Trump Republicans between 2008 and 2016, with the share of Republican voters increasing from 43 percent in 2008 to 51 percent in 2016. ....

... The third kind of rural community is amenity-rich. These places are bestowed with natural amenities like mountains, lakes, and coastlines. As other research has confirmed, such natural advantages have allowed some rural communities to attract more affluent and educated residents and build more stable economies. .... When it comes to politics, voters in amenity-rich areas shifted from Democrat to Republican in the last election cycle. In 2008, 53 percent of people in amenity-rich places voted for Obama and 44 percent for McCain. In 2016, however, these numbers changed to 43 percent for Clinton and 50 percent for Trump. ...
The latter two are not so far lost. They just have to not feel forgotten about or worse that they do not matter. A little respect can go a long way.

The first is Trump country. And you need to at least offer them an alternate vision and path than resentment of those who are doing better than they are. You do not need to pander to them and that would backfire.
  #52  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:25 AM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Like what? How do you reverse the impact of global labor? People don’t want to acknowledge the obvious reality.
Actually in full agreement with you. That's why the guy promising to bring back all the coal mine jobs or whatever is always going to beat the guy trying to acknowledge reality. The only way to win rural voters from dying communities is to lie to them. Anyone promising to turn back the clock to the 60s, in both social and economic ways, will have their vote completely locked up.
  #53  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:36 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 40,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by DigitalC View Post
Actually in full agreement with you. That's why the guy promising to bring back all the coal mine jobs or whatever is always going to beat the guy trying to acknowledge reality. The only way to win rural voters from dying communities is to lie to them. Anyone promising to turn back the clock to the 60s, in both social and economic ways, will have their vote completely locked up.
They aren't as dumb as you think (not all of them anyway). They know the family farm is not coming back, they know coal is not coming back, they are voting for the candidate that sounds like he/she care about them.

The tough love needed here is with the Democrats who have to stop thinking these people will ever come back to the Democratic party based on it's current platform. Since they're not going to turn around on abortion, probably can't manage to get themselves straight on gun control, then they need to add a positive message for the voters they've been losing.
  #54  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:43 AM
DigitalC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
They aren't as dumb as you think (not all of them anyway). They know the family farm is not coming back, they know coal is not coming back, they are voting for the candidate that sounds like he/she care about them.
I'm not sure what you could possibly base that on. So far that is exactly what happens every time. And that is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are not just voting for racism.
  #55  
Old 03-20-2019, 11:35 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,798
Soybean farmers will likely lead the rush of enthusiasm for Trump! Farmers are typically cutting edge entrepreneurs, who thrive in the fast paced environment of international trade. They love those exciting swings in the futures market, as they ponder whether they will have a profitable harvest or bring in fields to plow under as compost! How is the trade situation with China being tweeted about?

OK, how about now?
  #56  
Old 03-20-2019, 12:18 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
They aren't as dumb as you think (not all of them anyway). They know the family farm is not coming back, they know coal is not coming back, they are voting for the candidate that sounds like he/she care about them.
Not all of them are that dumb, but enough of them are. Coal is not coming back- ever. It doesn't matter who is in power. Automation is making many manufacturing jobs obsolete. Anyone who believes that a president can make coal and factories come back to 1950s levels is stupid, gullible, or more likely, both.

I don't think it's so much that rural voters support the candidate that sounds like he cares about them, it's that they vote for the candidate who hates the same people they do. There is a lot of racism and fear that drives the rural vote. They don't see many minorities, so they fear them as the unknown "other". They want the clock turned back to a time where the "other" could legally be barred from working in their shops, living in their neighborhoods, or dating their daughters. They represent the death throes of a time that has overstayed its welcome. Every year that passes, the nation becomes less rural and less white. Sooner or later, the white rural vote will become irrelevant.

There is nothing that a Democrat can do to win over the anti-abortion voter or the gun lover. Trying to appease them will only alienate those who hold Democratic values dear. If Kamala Harris twirled a pair of six shooters in her hands while speaking at her rallies, it wouldn't gain her a single vote.

I don't think Democrats fail to understand the rural voter, it's that the rural voter cannot be converted.
  #57  
Old 03-20-2019, 12:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
... There is nothing that a Democrat can do to win over the anti-abortion voter or the gun lover. Trying to appease them will only alienate those who hold Democratic values dear. If Kamala Harris twirled a pair of six shooters in her hands while speaking at her rallies, it wouldn't gain her a single vote. ...
Sure there is, but it requires more than just a John-Kerry-goes-hunting photo op or a gimmicky twirling of six shooters. Kamala Harris couldn't do it because people are aware of her history and would quickly see through any feigned concern over rural interests. Someone like Joe Manchin can pull it off though because it's more than just an election-year stunt for him.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 03-20-2019 at 12:25 PM.
  #58  
Old 03-20-2019, 01:10 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I think its more about white privledge than anything. When black people were losing their jobs it was 'pull up your bootstraps'. But now that rural whites are losing their jobs (in manufacturing, mining, transportation, etc) its a national emergency that requires compassion.

Same with drug epidemics. When blacks in the inner city suffer the answer is curtail the bill of rights and send in militarized police officers. When rural whites have a drug epidemic the solution is narcan, diversion courts and politicians trying to solve the problem, rather than just contain it to the bad neighborhoods so it doesn't affect the larger society.

It just verifies that we are a multi class society and some people's problems are more important than other people's.

More jobs were lost in the service sector than have been lost in mining, but nobody cares because service sector jobs are held by women and non-whites, while mining jobs are stereotypically jobs held by rural white men.
I doubt that; if nothing else, it's a numbers game. If something affects the working segment of a group that's 15% of the population, nobody cares, be they white, black, green, etc...

But when it's something that affects the working segment of 65% of the population, then people care. A lot.

That's a mistake we make in the US- assuming the black population is larger than it really is, and attributing all sorts of issues to racism that are more likely classist and numerical issues.


Another thing is that the rural population isn't composed of farmers for the most part. Something like 20% of the population lives in rural areas for about 65 million, but only about 2.3 million work on farms. Even if each of them has 4 other family members, that still only gives us 11.5 million farmers and their family members.

So concentrating on farmers is maybe a mistake. I suspect a lot of the rural people work in small towns, or do various farm- supporting jobs like work at a fertilizer depot or something.

But beyond that, if 80% of the population is NOT rural, that means that if you assume that ALL rural people voted for Trump, that still means that we had something like 37.5% of that remaining 80% that voted for Trump (~30% of the total population)

That's non trivial- we can't say that Trump was primarily supported by benighted hicks from the boonies. He was supported by everyday urban people.
  #59  
Old 03-20-2019, 01:28 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Can we have cite for the claim that "tax increase for the middle class" are "the Republican position"? As I recall, the last big tax bill was passed late in 2017 by the Republicans, with no votes from the Democrats, and it gave the middle class a substantial rate cut.
A pittance compared to what the wealthy got. And the tax cut for the middle class is temporary, the cut for the wealthy, permanent.

Not hard to see where priorities are.
Quote:
Let me ask you this: do you actually know what regulations are currently in place that affect farmers? Or truck drivers? Or small business owners? Or people working in countless other industries? Have you studied every regulation and worked to understand arguments both for and against it?
Do you know every regulation? No, then how can you say, "Regulations Bad!"?. Point out a specific regulation, and make a case for how it causes more harm than good, and we can have conversation about it. Just condemning regulations in general because you are sure that there is one or two out there that could be improved or updated gives cover to those who want regulations lifted so that they can profit more at the expense of the public.
Quote:
The answer is no, because there are hundreds of thousands of federal regulations, plus more at the state level, and nobody could possible know all of them, much less study the arguments for and against all of them. So if you wave your hand and declare that all regulations Republicans view as useless are things that benefit the working and middle class, what do you have to back that up other than blind faith?
Looking at the regulations that they are lifting that protect consumers and the environment for the benefit of wealthy corporations.
Quote:
Let's put it this way. There are some working class people who know that they have lost their job, or their small business has closed, or they have had to cut back hours or make expensive changes, because of government regulation. Is telling them that the regulation is question is really good for them likely to be a convincing argument?
People lose their jobs for many, many, many reasons. It sucks. But to then turn around and blame it on a regulation is pretty much the definition of victim mentality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
So you're saying, "Farmers: LEARN TO CODE". That should be a winning election formula.
How about: "Farmers, do you want a good paying job? We have a variety of jobs that you may learn, and we will provide you with the assistance you need to change to those jobs."

Or, they could complain that the world is changing, and refuse to change with it.
Quote:
If you really think that what Rural Americans want is more big government education programs and subsidies to help them move and become good city dwellers, or that they can be bought off with tax cuts while you regulate them off their farms and out of their fields, you aren't getting it.
Okay, so it's a "Keep your govt hands off my agricultural subsidies!" type argument then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't disagree with any of this.

I guess my post was in response to the 'just get a job' comments earlier. One of the points that Andrew Yang has made, one that resonates with me, is that just switching careers ain't easy, and we as a society generally lack mechanisms which facilitate career changes. That is partly why even as the economy gradually rebounded from the 2008 market crash, labor participation tended to stagnate more.
We should make changing jobs easier, as there will probably be only more jobs made obsolete in the future. We need to understand this, and help people out on it.

We should not say, "Oh, well it's hard to change, so we won't expect people to do so."

Quote:
Originally Posted by lokij View Post
Maybe I'm just familiar with different 'rural' areas than you, I don't know. The kind of communities you describe by and large don't exist anymore outside of religious enclaves like the Mennonite and Amish communities and haven't for decades. Barn raising?
Such things exist, but in communes. Leave it to a conservative to try to control the free market and try to make sure that outcomes are guaranteed through collective social efforts.
  #60  
Old 03-20-2019, 04:49 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Not all of them are that dumb, but enough of them are. Coal is not coming back- ever. It doesn't matter who is in power. Automation is making many manufacturing jobs obsolete. Anyone who believes that a president can make coal and factories come back to 1950s levels is stupid, gullible, or more likely, both.

I don't think it's so much that rural voters support the candidate that sounds like he cares about them, it's that they vote for the candidate who hates the same people they do. There is a lot of racism and fear that drives the rural vote. They don't see many minorities, so they fear them as the unknown "other". They want the clock turned back to a time where the "other" could legally be barred from working in their shops, living in their neighborhoods, or dating their daughters. They represent the death throes of a time that has overstayed its welcome. Every year that passes, the nation becomes less rural and less white. Sooner or later, the white rural vote will become irrelevant.

There is nothing that a Democrat can do to win over the anti-abortion voter or the gun lover. Trying to appease them will only alienate those who hold Democratic values dear. If Kamala Harris twirled a pair of six shooters in her hands while speaking at her rallies, it wouldn't gain her a single vote.

I don't think Democrats fail to understand the rural voter, it's that the rural voter cannot be converted.
Seriously, where do you get this shit from? Who are these fucking people that want the laws rolled back so that blacks cannot legally date their daughters? I grew up in a rural area, and I will admit that racial views have not progressed as much as they have in large cities or even small cities.

But this idea that people think that voting for Trump or voting for a Republican candidate for Congress means that blacks will be put back "in their place" is absurd beyond belief. Do you have any cites for this beyond your own ill-informed notion of what rural people think?

Also why is abortion on demand and banning guns "Democratic values"? I mean, clearly I am against legal abortion, but Democrats could win on the argument by using the personal freedom angle, which is very persuasive. However, to listen to some of you all argue in favor of it, it seems (just seems) like you actually like abortions. That is what turns off the rural voter and even the independents.

And guns as well. I think that most people could get behind the idea of more regulations on the purchase or possession of firearms if only there wasn't the sneaking suspicion that you all want to ban them all, which several posters admit that is their goal when we have the gun debates.

So I don't think that it is rural people who are intractable on these positions so much that the Democratic party has such a radical view about them.
  #61  
Old 03-20-2019, 05:27 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Also why is abortion on demand and banning guns "Democratic values"?
because they are not.
Quote:
I mean, clearly I am against legal abortion, but Democrats could win on the argument by using the personal freedom angle, which is very persuasive.
Except to republicans who value personal freedom unless it involves a woman.
Quote:
However, to listen to some of you all argue in favor of it, it seems (just seems) like you actually like abortions.
That would be an example of a conservative admitting that they do not understand democrats.
Quote:
That is what turns off the rural voter and even the independents.
If what turns off rural voters is shit that they make up, then there really is no way to reach them, is there?
Quote:
And guns as well. I think that most people could get behind the idea of more regulations on the purchase or possession of firearms if only there wasn't the sneaking suspicion that you all want to ban them all, which several posters admit that is their goal when we have the gun debates.
So, you would be fine with regulations, except you are not fine with regulations because of what you think about democrats.
Quote:
So I don't think that it is rural people who are intractable on these positions so much that the Democratic party has such a radical view about them.
I don't think that the Democratic party has a radical view about them, I think you just described how the rural voter makes stuff about democrats up to justify their vote against them.
  #62  
Old 03-20-2019, 06:36 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
because they are not.

Except to republicans who value personal freedom unless it involves a woman.

That would be an example of a conservative admitting that they do not understand democrats.

If what turns off rural voters is shit that they make up, then there really is no way to reach them, is there?

So, you would be fine with regulations, except you are not fine with regulations because of what you think about democrats.


I don't think that the Democratic party has a radical view about them, I think you just described how the rural voter makes stuff about democrats up to justify their vote against them.
The rhetoric from the party makes it seem as if they favor abortion on demand and gun bans. Why? Because of third trimester abortion laws in New York and the proposed law in Virginia.

The gun threads on this very board have posters who support banning guns.

Further, it is not that we don't want personal freedom for women. I think you know that is bullshit. There is another life inside a pregnant woman that even the Roe and Casey opinions admit that there is a powerful interest in protecting. I think only the extremists on the issue don't recognize that and that seems to be the Democratic party when they proposed laws like in New York and Virginia.

And having AOC and her socialist ilk come into national prominence. The Republicans couldn't have had a wetter dream than that. You guys keep killing yourselves when it comes to the voters that you used to have by the balls. I mean, West Virginia? You all let West Virginia turn Republican? That state couldn't elect a Republican as a dog catcher when I was growing up, but your party went so far left....and continues to do so.

Last edited by UltraVires; 03-20-2019 at 06:37 PM.
  #63  
Old 03-20-2019, 06:38 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Anyways, why should the Dems worry about rural farmers? The Dems need to reclaim the rust belt.
Any serious statesman should care about the well-being of farmers because it's the right thing to do. That's different from assuming you can get their votes.
  #64  
Old 03-20-2019, 06:43 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Seriously, where do you get this shit from? Who are these fucking people that want the laws rolled back so that blacks cannot legally date their daughters? I grew up in a rural area, and I will admit that racial views have not progressed as much as they have in large cities or even small cities.

But this idea that people think that voting for Trump or voting for a Republican candidate for Congress means that blacks will be put back "in their place" is absurd beyond belief. Do you have any cites for this beyond your own ill-informed notion of what rural people think?

Also why is abortion on demand and banning guns "Democratic values"? I mean, clearly I am against legal abortion, but Democrats could win on the argument by using the personal freedom angle, which is very persuasive. However, to listen to some of you all argue in favor of it, it seems (just seems) like you actually like abortions. That is what turns off the rural voter and even the independents.

And guns as well. I think that most people could get behind the idea of more regulations on the purchase or possession of firearms if only there wasn't the sneaking suspicion that you all want to ban them all, which several posters admit that is their goal when we have the gun debates.

So I don't think that it is rural people who are intractable on these positions so much that the Democratic party has such a radical view about them.
Actually,

Quote:
According to Pew, about half of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic said they felt the increasing number of interracial marriages was good for society. Just 28 percent of Republicans and right-leaning independents said the same.
Yes, a lot of whites do think that Donald will "put blacks in their place". Look at the way so many went bananas over having a black president. Look how his birth continues to be a subject of interest for right-wingers. These rural whites love him because he hates the same people they do.

No, nobody likes abortions. We happen to dislike sanctimonious cafeteria Christians who try to impose their morality on the rest of us, who at the same time cheer an immigrant infant being ripped from its mother's breast.

So conservatives would welcome gun regulations but are afraid that really means that we're out to take their guns away. One cannot argue with that logic, as there is no logic to argue with.
  #65  
Old 03-20-2019, 07:15 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The rhetoric from the party makes it seem as if they favor abortion on demand and gun bans. Why? Because of third trimester abortion laws in New York and the proposed law in Virginia.

The gun threads on this very board have posters who support banning guns.

Further, it is not that we don't want personal freedom for women. I think you know that is bullshit. There is another life inside a pregnant woman that even the Roe and Casey opinions admit that there is a powerful interest in protecting. I think only the extremists on the issue don't recognize that and that seems to be the Democratic party when they proposed laws like in New York and Virginia.

And having AOC and her socialist ilk come into national prominence. The Republicans couldn't have had a wetter dream than that. You guys keep killing yourselves when it comes to the voters that you used to have by the balls. I mean, West Virginia? You all let West Virginia turn Republican? That state couldn't elect a Republican as a dog catcher when I was growing up, but your party went so far left....and continues to do so.
How has the democratic party gone far left vs decades ago? If anything we are more centrist and moderate (not saying thats a good thing). Under LBJ we had sweeping health care reform and social reform. Things that modern democrats would be terrified to pass. The days of bold progressivism of FDR & LBJ are long gone, replaced with the wimpy centrist of Schumer, Clinton & Obama. In my view, the democratic party has become much more conciliatory and centrist (although that has started to reverse under Trump), while the GOP keeps going further and further to the right, but the right claims the left has lost its mind.

What % of people do you think actually support banning guns?

As far as third term abortion, about 1% of all abortions occur after the 21st week. And I'm sure a lot happen due to the mother not being able to get an abortion earlier despite wanting one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-po...=.e93d0570187b

It sounds like you're a conservative spouting conservative talking points, more than an undecided independent.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #66  
Old 03-20-2019, 10:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
As to the premise of the OP ... interestingly enough lots of those rural voters that went Trump in 2016, they actually moved D-ward by 2018 mid-terms.
Quote:
... roughly five percent of rural Trump voters cast their ballots for a Democrat running for a House seat. ...
In some races the shift was much larger and key in D victories.

It may be relevant to the op as to how the candidates in those races in particular achieved such big shifts, how they got so many rural Trump voters to pull a D lever.

Well point the first was simply that they didn't ignore the rural regions. Pretty simple doncha think?
Quote:
Evers understood the importance of visiting rural areas, including a Halloween-day campaign stop in Grant. Along with a strong focus on public education in a state where schools have been hollowed out by Scott Walker’s budget cuts, that helped Evers enormously. On Election Night, Evers returned Grant County to the Democratic column—along with the entire state.

I heard a similar story from Henry Schwaller, a Democrat in Ellis County, Kansas. In 2016, more than 70 percent of Ellis voters chose Trump; only 23 percent opted for Clinton. Laura Kelly improved on this margin dramatically. In 2018, slightly more than 40 percent of the county’s voters cast ballots for Kelly, while 49.3 percent chose Kris Kobach. “She got a really healthy percent of the vote,” Schwaller said. Kelly’s strategy appears similar to that of Evers. Schwaller, a councilman in the county’s largest town, told me that Kelly’s focus on public education and reversing the GOP’s budget cuts helped boost her popularity, including in rural counties.
There are messages that can resonate BOTH with the key Democratic constituencies and with many rural voters. Public education, limiting the power of the near monopolistic conglomerates, wealth inequality ... And they can be made with explicit recognition and personal vignettes of how these problems impact rural communities as part of why they must be addressed.

Gun control? A Democratic candidate is best off starting any answer about it by pointing out that SCOTUS rulings have made made a variety of gun rights pretty secure so any fear of a slippery slope has been eliminated. Given that doing some very basic items can be undertaken without gun owners having any fear that doing such might lead to other regulations that they disagree with. SCOTUS has made such impossible and made clear that regulations can only go so far.

I'd also like to try again to emphasize that rural voters are not all farmers ... far from it.
Quote:
... Figure 1 shows the economy in rural counties is diverse and not necessarily dependent on farming or manufacturing. In fact, the largest segment of the civilian workforce in rural counties (22.3 percent) is employed in the education services, and health care and social assistance industry. This industry is mainly made up of schools, hospitals, home health care services and similar employers. It is in this industry where you find our elementary and middle school teachers and registered nurses. Another 10.9 percent of the workforce in rural counties is employed in the retail trade industry. A smaller share of the workforce is employed in the finance, wholesale trade and information industries combined.

While no longer the top industries in these areas, resource-based activities such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining still employ one out of 10 workers in rural counties. A somewhat higher share of rural employment in is in manufacturing. In fact, 12.1 percent of the rural civilian workforce is in this industry, performing duties as assemblers and fabricators, production workers and managers.
These are people ripe for messaging on adequate education, adequate healthcare, a living wage for low paid workers in retail and manufacture, and restricting the excessive power of the near monopolies and the billionaire class (which does not require demonizing the wealthy). They just have to feel that they are being spoken to also when the message is given.


And BobLibDem, why is the increasing number of interracial marriages was good for society? Can someone feel that it is neither good or bad but completely neutral from the POV of society? One can feel that neither an increasing number or a decreasing number is desirable per se, that what is desirable is that people can marry who they love without having others pass judgement upon them or their choices. Such a belief is hardly evidence of wanting anyone to be "put in their place."
  #67  
Old 03-21-2019, 08:39 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
What % of people do you think actually support banning guns?
It doesn't matter one whit how many actually support banning guns. What matters in this exercise is how many of them don't speak up against the idea, or who nod when others suggest it. Or who call for "action" when there is some gun-related incident, without specifying what concrete action needs to be done.

The pro-gun types interpret this as supporting gun restrictions, and by extension, gun bans. Their default is a slippery slope- anything that might push gun restrictions onto that slope just the tiniest bit is anathema because they feel that once on there, they're going to continue to slide inexorably downward. So they fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo or move the other direction.

So in other words, a Democratic politician who has no intention of banning guns, but who says ambiguous or mealy-mouthed stuff supporting those who do is, in the eyes of the pro-gun types, just as bad, because they can't tell that he won't actually vote the way he's talking.

And to some extent, they attribute Republican-style party discipline to the Democrats, which is not really the case- Democrats are less likely to vote party-line come hell or high water than Republicans are.

That is, IMO, where the Democrats lose the fight. They may have the more relevant, compassionate, inclusive and overall better policies and positions on things for the vast run of Americans. But they don't transmit that message in a way that gets the point across to them. They'd do well to lose the identity politics notion, and remarket themselves as a party for all, and de-emphasize issues of race, sexual orientation, religion, etc... Emphasize that they're party of the working and middle class- across the board, not just in cities, not just minorities, etc...

I believe that the identity politics and the antics and shenanigans in that regard by state and local politicians who base their careers on that are the biggest single impediment that the Democrats face. (and I say this as someone who has switched to voting Democrat in the past 5-10 years)
  #68  
Old 03-21-2019, 09:12 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The rhetoric from the party makes it seem as if they favor abortion on demand and gun bans. Why? Because of third trimester abortion laws in New York and the proposed law in Virginia.
You mean the rhetoric from the republicans about what they claim about those proposed laws. If you actually listen to the democrats who support these bills, you will see that that rhetoric is entirely unjustified.

I can't control the messaging that you choose to receive. I can only point out its flaws. Whether you acknowledge those flaws or embrace them is entirely up to you.
Quote:
The gun threads on this very board have posters who support banning guns.
Yep, there are a few posters on this internet message board who favor a total ban on guns. There are also posters on this messageboard who favor complete libertarianism or advocate scientific racism or are apologists for terrorists.

Does the fact that there are people who go out of their way to defend racists and misogynists that exist on this board affect the "rhetoric" from your party?
Quote:

Further, it is not that we don't want personal freedom for women. I think you know that is bullshit.
I know you say that. But then your actions are that of restricting the rights of women. So, if it's something that you don't want to do, then why do you do it?

It's not that you don't want personal freedom for women, I agree. It's just that you don't care about personal freedom for women. I'm sure that if you could find a way to keep women from getting an abortion without restricting her freedoms, you would be all over that, but, as it is, you have to make a choice, and in that choice, the women's interests take second place to your preference.

Of course, the position would be more defensible if the same party that is against abortion is also against effective birth control and sex education, things that would lower the number of unwanted pregnancies. Since your party fights against lowering unwanted pregnancies, the idea that it is just about the fetus loses quite a bit of credibility.
Quote:
There is another life inside a pregnant woman that even the Roe and Casey opinions admit that there is a powerful interest in protecting. I think only the extremists on the issue don't recognize that and that seems to be the Democratic party when they proposed laws like in New York and Virginia.
It only seems to be that way because you have listened to the polarized rhetoric that lies about the intentions behind these laws, rather than the actual words of the actual people who have proposed them.
Quote:
And having AOC and her socialist ilk come into national prominence. The Republicans couldn't have had a wetter dream than that.
The only reason that she has come to prominence is because the republicans can't shut up about her. I'd never heard of her until the republicans started bitching about her. the only interesting thing about her, IMHO is that she is pretty young, and while there are disadvantages to that, a certain naivety that comes with youth, it's also something that I don't mind seeing. She's got a long road ahead of her if she plans on becoming a prominent political official, but I certainly don't fault her for taking her first steps down it.

She's a freshman rep with no more or less power than someone like Steve King.
Quote:
You guys keep killing yourselves when it comes to the voters that you used to have by the balls. I mean, West Virginia? You all let West Virginia turn Republican? That state couldn't elect a Republican as a dog catcher when I was growing up, but your party went so far left....and continues to do so.
What seemed to happen there was economic problems brought on mostly by republican failed economic policies. then they listened to the rhetoric from the right that told them it was the democrats fault for not protecting their unions well enough from the republican's attempts at dismantling them. Then when say Hillary goes to them, and says that she is going to work to provide programs to help out of work miners, the focus is on her ackwoldegin the reality that there are going to be out of work miners.

What do you see as a solution to the poverty problems in West Virginia? Do you see republicans addressing those problems? I know I see democrats trying to, but being blocked by the republicans who the people who want solutions to their problems voted for.

You guys are winning on the rhetoric, no question about that. It is easy to break down nuanced policies into out of context soundbites that suggest something other than what the speaker intended. It's not hard to do, and there is no honor in winning that way, but it is an effective tool for propaganda, which is why it is a favorite of the right. They know they can't win on policy, they can't win on facts, so they fight with misrepresentations and misinterpretations, and often times, just outright lies.

Current republicans, OTOH, do not have nuanced policy proposals. Their proposals are sound bites, so it makes it harder to take out of context. It makes it impossible to turn those sound bites into actual working policy, as there is no content to them, but they sound good and get voters.

"Lock her up", "build the wall", "Make America Great Again", all simple chants that work up a crowd, but not a single actual policy position behind them.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 03-21-2019 at 09:14 AM.
  #69  
Old 03-21-2019, 09:30 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
It doesn't matter one whit how many actually support banning guns. What matters in this exercise is how many of them don't speak up against the idea, or who nod when others suggest it. Or who call for "action" when there is some gun-related incident, without specifying what concrete action needs to be done.

The pro-gun types interpret this as supporting gun restrictions, and by extension, gun bans. Their default is a slippery slope- anything that might push gun restrictions onto that slope just the tiniest bit is anathema because they feel that once on there, they're going to continue to slide inexorably downward. So they fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo or move the other direction.
Is there a way for them to actually see reality, or will they always jump to such inane conclusions any time a congressman doesn't tear his clothes and rend his flesh from his passion of disagreeing with the slightest gun restriction?
Quote:
So in other words, a Democratic politician who has no intention of banning guns, but who says ambiguous or mealy-mouthed stuff supporting those who do is, in the eyes of the pro-gun types, just as bad, because they can't tell that he won't actually vote the way he's talking.
How will he get his message to people who only listen to the messages they want to hear?
Quote:
And to some extent, they attribute Republican-style party discipline to the Democrats, which is not really the case- Democrats are less likely to vote party-line come hell or high water than Republicans are.

That is, IMO, where the Democrats lose the fight. They may have the more relevant, compassionate, inclusive and overall better policies and positions on things for the vast run of Americans. But they don't transmit that message in a way that gets the point across to them. They'd do well to lose the identity politics notion, and remarket themselves as a party for all, and de-emphasize issues of race, sexual orientation, religion, etc... Emphasize that they're party of the working and middle class- across the board, not just in cities, not just minorities, etc...

I believe that the identity politics and the antics and shenanigans in that regard by state and local politicians who base their careers on that are the biggest single impediment that the Democrats face. (and I say this as someone who has switched to voting Democrat in the past 5-10 years)
The local democrats that I work with are all about economics. They have positions on things like guns or abortion, but they don't talk about them on the campaign trail, but, well they do have them.

However, even though they don't bring up their positions on guns or abortion, other people do. How do you propose that a local democratic politician prevent people from bringing up the issues that they disagree with that politician about race, sexual orientation or religion? When people bring up questions about race or sexual orientation or religion, should they talk about their positions, or should they tell people that they don't want to talk about that?

And, finally, when the republicans attack people for their race or sexualorientation or religion, should the democrats just stand by and let them, for fear of being accused of putting the needs of marginalized minorities over that of white male interests?

It really is not the messaging that the dems are putting out that is the problem. It is the message that the republicans insist on listening to. Do you actually have a suggestion for how to get through to someone who refuses to listen?
  #70  
Old 03-21-2019, 12:39 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,064
One disadvantage for Democrats is that for a large swath of people, rural will elicit more sympathy than urban. "City people" has almost never had a positive connotation, whereas the popular image of rural America is idyllic farmland, tractors, farmers, grain silos, a "salt-of-the-earth" image, some countryfolk notion. Sure, there are those who will see such people as inbred hicks or rednecks, but such people were probably already on the blue side to begin with.

It's simply much easier to campaign, from a PR standpoint, on the side of the rural people against the urban people, than vice versa.
  #71  
Old 03-21-2019, 01:57 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 43,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
One disadvantage for Democrats is that for a large swath of people, rural will elicit more sympathy than urban. "City people" has almost never had a positive connotation, whereas the popular image of rural America is idyllic farmland, tractors, farmers, grain silos, a "salt-of-the-earth" image, some countryfolk notion. Sure, there are those who will see such people as inbred hicks or rednecks, but such people were probably already on the blue side to begin with.
That certainly true is the "large swath of people" being asked are, themselves, mostly rural. If you question urban people, I suspect you'll find almost precisely the opposite result.
  #72  
Old 03-21-2019, 02:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
One disadvantage for Democrats is that for a large swath of people, rural will elicit more sympathy than urban. "City people" has almost never had a positive connotation, whereas the popular image of rural America is idyllic farmland, tractors, farmers, grain silos, a "salt-of-the-earth" image, some countryfolk notion. Sure, there are those who will see such people as inbred hicks or rednecks, but such people were probably already on the blue side to begin with.

It's simply much easier to campaign, from a PR standpoint, on the side of the rural people against the urban people, than vice versa.
Ah the old "Rural America is the Real America" trope.

Yeah, I get why you buy into such a silly belief, the question is, why do you think I should?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 03-21-2019 at 02:22 PM.
  #73  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:31 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And BobLibDem, why is the increasing number of interracial marriages was good for society? Can someone feel that it is neither good or bad but completely neutral from the POV of society? One can feel that neither an increasing number or a decreasing number is desirable per se, that what is desirable is that people can marry who they love without having others pass judgement upon them or their choices. Such a belief is hardly evidence of wanting anyone to be "put in their place."
Agreed. That is one of those questions designed to get the desired result. I would have answered it the same way. It is good that people have the choice to marry who they want to marry but is it "good" that there are an increasing number of interracial couples? I would have to answer "no" that it is neither good nor bad.
  #74  
Old 03-21-2019, 03:33 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Agreed. That is one of those questions designed to get the desired result. I would have answered it the same way. It is good that people have the choice to marry who they want to marry but is it "good" that there are an increasing number of interracial couples? I would have to answer "no" that it is neither good nor bad.
If there were 0 or a very small number when they didn't have a choice, then it is "good" that there are more now that they do.

Simple as that.
  #75  
Old 03-21-2019, 04:43 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If there were 0 or a very small number when they didn't have a choice, then it is "good" that there are more now that they do.

Simple as that.
I suppose you could look at it that way, but I wouldn't believe that the questioner was referring to increases since the year 1967, but some more recent increase.

Likewise, if someone asked if it was "good" that an increasing number of same sex couples were getting married, I wouldn't interpret the increase as being from zero on the date that same sex marriage was legalized.
  #76  
Old 03-21-2019, 05:09 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I suppose you could look at it that way, but I wouldn't believe that the questioner was referring to increases since the year 1967, but some more recent increase.
Legalized in 1967, but still not accepted by many. The fact that interracial marriages is going up is not a "good" thing in and of itself, but it indicates that there is a "good" thing of greater racial equality that allows that stat to go up.

Quote:
Likewise, if someone asked if it was "good" that an increasing number of same sex couples were getting married, I wouldn't interpret the increase as being from zero on the date that same sex marriage was legalized.
And I would consider it in the same way, that such things are becoming less stigmatized and more accepted, and that is, IMHO, a good thing. More SSM marriage is not inherently a good thing, it just indicates that it exists in an environment that is improved from when it was lower.
  #77  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:04 AM
Capn Carl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 248
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Can we have cite for the claim that "tax increase for the middle class" are "the Republican position"? As I recall, the last big tax bill was passed late in 2017 by the Republicans, with no votes from the Democrats, and it gave the middle class a substantial rate cut.


Let me ask you this: do you actually know what regulations are currently in place that affect farmers? Or truck drivers? Or small business owners? Or people working in countless other industries? Have you studied every regulation and worked to understand arguments both for and against it?

The answer is no, because there are hundreds of thousands of federal regulations, plus more at the state level, and nobody could possible know all of them, much less study the arguments for and against all of them. So if you wave your hand and declare that all regulations Republicans view as useless are things that benefit the working and middle class, what do you have to back that up other than blind faith?

Let's put it this way. There are some working class people who know that they have lost their job, or their small business has closed, or they have had to cut back hours or make expensive changes, because of government regulation. Is telling them that the regulation is question is really good for them likely to be a convincing argument?
Regarding Republican vs Democratic tax cuts and hikes, the difference is clear. Rep cuts disproportionately benefit the rich, Dem cuts disproportionately benefit the middle class. Look at Bush’s or Trump’s cuts vs Obama’s cuts. If you haven’t noticed this, it’s because you didn’t want to.
  #78  
Old 03-22-2019, 11:38 AM
Capn Carl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 248
ITR Champion, I forgot to address the Republican position on middle class tax hikes. Their stated position is very much against such hikes. But when they do raise taxes, they’re more likely to pass hikes that affect the middle class, such as payroll tax hikes. A 5 minute read about Reagan’s tax cuts and hikes clearly shows this.
  #79  
Old 03-27-2019, 02:46 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 38,575
While not all rural voters are farmers, Elizabeth Warren is doing something real for farmers: Elizabeth Warren Calls for a National Right-to-Repair Law for Tractors

Apparently manufacturers like John Deere have maintained a legal monopoly over repair facilities for their farm equipment, making repairs expensive, and hard to obtain in a timely manner.

And this is on top of her plan to attack consolidation in agriculture-related industries:
Quote:
"The number of purchasers of soybeans or hogs has shrunk dramatically," [Warren] said. "The number of seed providers has shrunk dramatically, and the diversity of the seeds (offered) has shrunk. Concentration in those industries has put a real squeeze on small- and medium-sized farms in Iowa."
So, what is the GOP offering to small farmers that competes with that, either in practical effect, or in insight into the problems that farmers face?
  #80  
Old 03-27-2019, 02:54 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
There is a lot of racism and fear that drives the rural vote. They don't see many minorities, so they fear them as the unknown "other". They want the clock turned back to a time where the "other" could legally be barred from working in their shops, living in their neighborhoods, or dating their daughters. They represent the death throes of a time that has overstayed its welcome. Every year that passes, the nation becomes less rural and less white. Sooner or later, the white rural vote will become irrelevant.

Wow. Can you not understand how incredibly bigoted, condescending, and generally offensive that paragraph is? Thinking like that is why Trump is POTUS.
  #81  
Old 03-27-2019, 03:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Wow. Can you not understand how incredibly bigoted, condescending, and generally offensive that paragraph is? Thinking like that is why Trump is POTUS.
The data does show, according to Nate Silver, that the best statistical indicator of Trump support was frequency of google searches for racist terms.

And why would anyone be surprised by this? The things that made Trump stand out in the 2016 race were his years and years of unrepentantly spreading a bullshit racist conspiracy theory (i.e. birtherism) and hateful language about immigrants and Muslims.
  #82  
Old 03-27-2019, 03:26 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,798
A gift to the Russkie troll farms. Explains why I saw so much racist crap and Bernie Bro madness in my Facebook. How hard would it be, after all, to subvert Facebook's algorithms to feed racist shit to racists without alerting the rest of us?
  #83  
Old 03-27-2019, 03:38 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The data does show, according to Nate Silver, that the best statistical indicator of Trump support was frequency of google searches for racist terms.

And why would anyone be surprised by this? The things that made Trump stand out in the 2016 race were his years and years of unrepentantly spreading a bullshit racist conspiracy theory (i.e. birtherism) and hateful language about immigrants and Muslims.
Attempting to justify bigotry is also bigotry.
  #84  
Old 03-27-2019, 04:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Attempting to justify bigotry is also bigotry.
Obviously. Not sure what you're disputing.
  #85  
Old 03-27-2019, 04:35 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Obviously. Not sure what you're disputing.
Not disputing a goddamn thing. Stating that you apparently endorse that other poster's anti-rural bigotry.
  #86  
Old 03-27-2019, 04:41 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Attempting to justify bigotry is also bigotry.
Disliking racists isn't bigotry.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  #87  
Old 03-27-2019, 04:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Not disputing a goddamn thing. Stating that you apparently endorse that other poster's anti-rural bigotry.
I was talking about the statistics of support for Trump, and its correlation with statistical indicators of racism. And how this shouldn't be surprising, considering the many years of racist statements by Trump.
  #88  
Old 03-27-2019, 04:51 PM
Covfefe's Avatar
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I was talking about the statistics of support for Trump, and its correlation with statistical indicators of racism. And how this shouldn't be surprising, considering the many years of racist statements by Trump.
In response to a post responding to a post characterizing white rural voters. It wasn't characterizing Trump supporters. It wasn't characterizing racists. The fragment quoted was characterizing white rural voters.
  #89  
Old 03-27-2019, 04:59 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
In response to a post responding to a post characterizing white rural voters. It wasn't characterizing Trump supporters. It wasn't characterizing racists. The fragment quoted was characterizing white rural voters.
Then there was some broad-brushing that I think should generally be avoided. If he was just criticizing that broad-brushing, then I misread it.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-27-2019 at 05:02 PM.
  #90  
Old 03-28-2019, 10:00 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Wow. Can you not understand how incredibly bigoted, condescending, and generally offensive that paragraph is? Thinking like that is why Trump is POTUS.
Agreed iiandyiiii that it might be a broad brushstroke overstated, and a bit overly simplified, but not bigoted.

Would you claim that racism (even if implicit), fear/resentment of "the other", and fear of decreasing relevance and power relative to various "others" play no factor in rural whites support of Trumpism?

NO I do not think that most rural voters explicitly want "want the clock turned back to a time where the 'other' could legally be barred from working in their shops, living in their neighborhoods, or dating their daughters" but without a resonating more positive vision to attach to blaming "the other" has been a successful sales pitch.

And you are completely right in your assertion that messaging that is heard as dismissing them as soon to be completely "irrelevant" (even when not stated as clearly as BobLibDem did) drives Trumpism strongly.
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 06:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.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.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017