Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:31 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,023

James Carville on the state of the election


The day after the inauguration I thought there was no way Trump will get a second term. Voters that stayed home will come out and vote against him. Now I am not so sure. In a recent interview James Carville said pretty much exactly what Iím thinking.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...james-carville
  #2  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:05 PM
NAF1138 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North of Philly
Posts: 10,115
He nails the whole problem with the primary process right now.
  #3  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:17 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 279
Old man yells at clouds.
  #4  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:17 PM
Nicest of the Damned is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 444
Quote:
Hereís another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. Iím not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They donít want to hear this shit. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. Itís just not a winning message.
This gets an "OK, Boomer" award.

Leaving left and right out of it, student debt and things like the shortage of affordable housing and lack of good jobs are things affecting a large part of the population. These aren't just kids, these are people now in their thirties and even forties. These are not problems that only developed in the last few years. The Democrats haven't exactly been there for them.

I think winning them back is important, not just to win elections but to bring back the ideals I was brought up being told the Democrats stood for. Unfortunately I don't know how long it would take to re-engage people. Ignoring them might in fact be a good short term strategy for winning. But I don't think it's a good long term one.
  #5  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Not sure if this belongs here, but it's mentioned in the OP and touches on what Carville is complaining about: ISTM that "voters who didn't turn up" as a reason for the loss is a myth generated in the immediate aftermath of the election. From what I can see, 2016 turnout wasn't all that low - same as 2012. The notable anomaly was black turnout, which dropped noticeably but only to pre-Obama levels.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-cast-ballots/

This strongly argues against "energizing the base" strategy and supports the "get swing voters" strategy. Imho.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-07-2020 at 03:23 PM.
  #6  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:25 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,991
Even through some of the worst press coverage, I've never had Trump's reelection odds at much less than 50%, and that was strictly based on the power of incumbency.

We already know that partisans aren't going to change their votes one way or the other, so once again we're left to predict how first-time voters and perpetually confused voters will vote. And I can tell you that for the majority of them, when looking at candidate A vs candidate B, the question that voters start out with when voting for or against Trump is this: If (we assume) that he's going to leave office in 4 years anyway, what's the urgent need to replace him with someone else?

If the economy is doing well, many of these confused and anxious voters are going to be convinced that it's better to just play it safe and deal with the SOB that you know rather than taking a chance on someone else.

The first bit of bad news is that the economy is actually doing well - at least in purely statistical sense. In the short term, Iowa made compounded this problem for Democrats because it made for terrible optics: if a party can't be trusted to run a simple statewide election, why should they be trusted to run the country? I could see voters forming that conclusion based on what happened.

But the real problem is that Trump's rise and his presidency have polarized the left. The progressives keep talking about the perfect candidate who can unify the party, and to be honest, I don't know if that guy or that gal exists. It sure seems like a lot of Yang's and Steyer's voters went home rather than offering to join another candidate's caucus in 2nd round voting. And many of Bernie's voters seem just as bitter and chair-throwing mad as they were in 2016, so I could see many of them refusing to support the Democratic nominee if it ain't Bernie. However, I don't think it's just Bernie Bros either. I'm not sure if Biden's or Bloomberg's supporters are going to be that enthusiastic about voting for Bernie Sanders either.

Right now I'd put Trump's reelection chances over 50%.
  #7  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:29 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,991
Quote:
We have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration. Theyíre talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking. Youíve got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals and terrorists vote from jail cells. It doesnít matter what you think about any of that, or if there are good arguments ó talking about that is not how you win a national election. Itís not how you become a majoritarian party.
Spot on.

Quote:
For fuckís sake, weíve got Trump at Davos talking about cutting Medicare and no one in the party has the sense to plaster a picture of him up there sucking up to the global elites, talking about cutting taxes for them while heís talking about cutting Medicare back home. Jesus, this is so obvious and so easy and I donít see any of the candidates taking advantage of it.
And this is why I'm firmly in the Bloomberg camp. I think he understands messaging. He understands how to beat Trump. Maybe it takes a good billionaire to beat a bad one.
  #8  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:30 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 294
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post

The first bit of bad news is that the economy is actually doing well - .
One would think that is good news..
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #9  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:31 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuntanLotion View Post
One would think that is good news..
It would be if it weren't an economy that's primarily benefiting the wealthiest people in this country.
  #10  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:31 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,530
I don't know how this fits into this thread, but it's what popped into my head when I read Carville's interview (which I do pretty much agree with): People like Bernie and AOC et al are good at pure organizing, not governing. And by that I mean, they have their ideas and they organize around those, "victory" be damned. Because, win or lose, they'll keep on organizing. If they win? Look at what we can do when we work together! If they lose? We need to keep on building our power because we're getting beat; "they" are out to get us!

For a pure organizer, 0% of a win is better than 50%, because you can spin a total loss to your benefit. It's harder to spin and further organize around a compromise.

Nominating organizers to lead our country is a damn scary idea. It's what we have now in Trump. We need a leader, an executive, a govern-er, a horse-trader, a bureaucrat, a wonk, a successful delegator, or someone with some combination of those qualities.

So the fact that we have another pure organizer now pulling out into the lead is a tad scary, because I believe they'd rather burn the shit down in order to organize another day rather than compromise or govern effectively. Almost any of the candidates would be better than Trump or Bernie at governing, I believe. Yet, we're now faced with a growing possibility of either Trump or Bernie. Obviously I'll take the organizer that isn't batshit insane and shares my values, but I wouldn't be necessarily pleased to see Bernie at the helm. (And please don't read this as me saying Bernie's as bad as Trump. Bernie is and would be much better than Trump just by the fact he's a better person. But it doesn't mean he's what I want running the country or as the de facto head of the Democratic Party.)

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-07-2020 at 03:33 PM.
  #11  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:32 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Even through some of the worst press coverage, I've never had Trump's reelection odds at much less than 50%, and that was strictly based on the power of incumbency.

We already know that partisans aren't going to change their votes one way or the other, so once again we're left to predict how first-time voters and perpetually confused voters will vote. And I can tell you that for the majority of them, when looking at candidate A vs candidate B, the question that voters start out with when voting for or against Trump is this: If (we assume) that he's going to leave office in 4 years anyway, what's the urgent need to replace him with someone else?

If the economy is doing well, many of these confused and anxious voters are going to be convinced that it's better to just play it safe and deal with the SOB that you know rather than taking a chance on someone else.

The first bit of bad news is that the economy is actually doing well - at least in purely statistical sense. In the short term, Iowa made compounded this problem for Democrats because it made for terrible optics: if a party can't be trusted to run a simple statewide election, why should they be trusted to run the country? I could see voters forming that conclusion based on what happened.

But the real problem is that Trump's rise and his presidency have polarized the left. The progressives keep talking about the perfect candidate who can unify the party, and to be honest, I don't know if that guy or that gal exists. It sure seems like a lot of Yang's and Steyer's voters went home rather than offering to join another candidate's caucus in 2nd round voting. And many of Bernie's voters seem just as bitter and chair-throwing mad as they were in 2016, so I could see many of them refusing to support the Democratic nominee if it ain't Bernie. However, I don't think it's just Bernie Bros either. I'm not sure if Biden's or Bloomberg's supporters are going to be that enthusiastic about voting for Bernie Sanders either.

Right now I'd put Trump's reelection chances over 50%.
Right now against most of the field I put Trumps chances at about 50% as well. Maybe a little higher against Warren. 100% 2nd term if itís Bernie. My state will go Dem no matter who is the candidate and the primary is late so Iím basically a spectator at this point.
  #12  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:37 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,709
Hmm, it’s kinda Ok, Boomer but not totally. It definitely seems like the Dems have moved past some of the nutty stuff that was coming out of the early debates.

It seems like the debate has moved towards more affordable college rather than canceling student debt which is a winning issue. Canceling student debt I think brings to mind to many voters some 25 year old with a masters degree from a private school sitting in a Brooklyn coffee house on a MacBook Pro whining on Twitter about the world and how unfair life is.

I’m tired of hearing about turnout in Iowa. I’ll scream until I’m blue that 2008 was a rare aberration. The caucus were January 3, which was a Thursday right after New Years. Lots of people are off work those weeks of Christmas and New Years making a pain in the ass caucus not a big deal. A Monday night after the Super Bowl when you’ve got work the next day is different.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His

Last edited by dalej42; 02-07-2020 at 03:39 PM.
  #13  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:39 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicest of the Damned View Post
This gets an "OK, Boomer" award.

Leaving left and right out of it, student debt and things like the shortage of affordable housing and lack of good jobs are things affecting a large part of the population. These aren't just kids, these are people now in their thirties and even forties. These are not problems that only developed in the last few years. The Democrats haven't exactly been there for them.
On your student debt point: For about 75% of the adult population, student debt isn't a concern because they don't have it. Only about 7% of the total population (44 million out of 327 million) have college debt in our country. Hanging your hat on the nail of eliminating student debt isn't necessarily one that resonates with most Americans.

Now career prep would be something to get behind (trades, community college, re-training and, yes, more affordable/free public college), but free college or eliminating college debt on its own is not something that affects a majority of the population. It really is a stupid and elitist thing to make a pillar of one's message.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-07-2020 at 03:41 PM.
  #14  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:39 PM
Fretful Porpentine is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicest of the Damned View Post
This gets an "OK, Boomer" award.

Leaving left and right out of it, student debt and things like the shortage of affordable housing and lack of good jobs are things affecting a large part of the population. These aren't just kids, these are people now in their thirties and even forties. These are not problems that only developed in the last few years. The Democrats haven't exactly been there for them.

I think winning them back is important, not just to win elections but to bring back the ideals I was brought up being told the Democrats stood for. Unfortunately I don't know how long it would take to re-engage people. Ignoring them might in fact be a good short term strategy for winning. But I don't think it's a good long term one.
And also: What's with the idea that people who struggled to pay their college tuition, or their kids' college tuition, will automatically resent policy changes that make it easier for other people to pay for college in the future? For a lot of people, their lived experience of a problem makes them want to SOLVE the problem for others, not insist that everyone else also has to suffer exactly as much as they did.
__________________
Live merrily, and trust to good verses.
-- Robert Herrick
  #15  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
And also: What's with the idea that people who struggled to pay their college tuition, or their kids' college tuition, will automatically resent policy changes that make it easier for other people to pay for college in the future? For a lot of people, their lived experience of a problem makes them want to SOLVE the problem for others, not insist that everyone else also has to suffer exactly as much as they did.
When you say "what's with the idea" are you doubting that anyone would feel that way? No one is saying "automatically".

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-07-2020 at 03:47 PM.
  #16  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:49 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
And also: What's with the idea that people who struggled to pay their college tuition, or their kids' college tuition, will automatically resent policy changes that make it easier for other people to pay for college in the future? For a lot of people, their lived experience of a problem makes them want to SOLVE the problem for others, not insist that everyone else also has to suffer exactly as much as they did.
It's hard to say, but people are funny that way. And it seems to be an acceptable media narrative to amplify people saying they would resent it, even if they are in the minority.

Overall, most of what Carville says is standard "get the messaging right" stuff. But he is discounting the fact that the early campaigning is all about trying out a lot of different stuff and seeing what resonates. Later on, like right about now, the messages should start coalescing. And I can't help but wonder if when he's decrying urban elitists he's not able to see himself?

Much of the rest is expected from someone like him, he is firmly in the Democratic establishment "Never-Bernie" camp.
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #17  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:56 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Carville
Hereís another stupid thing: Democrats talking about free college tuition or debt forgiveness. Iím not here to debate the idea. What I can tell you is that people all over this country worked their way through school, sent their kids to school, paid off student loans. They donít want to hear this shit. And you saw Warren confronted by an angry voter over this. Itís just not a winning message.
What a stupid thing to say. So kids entering college today are just meant to bend over and get shackled with ever greater levels of student debt because a bunch of fucking boomers with better jobs and lower mortgages were able to clear theirs? Because to offer them debt relief wouldnít be fair to the boomers? Fuck that! Lifeís not fair. We just have to make the best of it. And if boomers like the moron who accosted Warren want to stymie debt relief measures just because they canít benefit from them...well, itís just another example of that generationís characteristically pathological selfishness, isnít it? It deserves to be opposed. And yeah, that might cost the Democrats at the ballot box, but guess what? Being a bunch of milquetoasts with no principles beyond pandering to the fucking boomers is gonna cost us at the ballot box, too.

Since the last Democrat candidate lost the most winnable election ever to a rapey, half-retarded gameshow host, despite running everything she said through a dozen focus groups, maybe this time we could try basing our positions on principle, rather than on what a bunch of spoilt boomers want to hear.
  #18  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:00 PM
Fretful Porpentine is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Bohemia. A seacoast.
Posts: 6,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
When you say "what's with the idea" are you doubting that anyone would feel that way? No one is saying "automatically".
Well, Carville's argument seems to be that trying to do anything about college tuition is a losing issue because people who have already struggled to pay for college will resent it, so he seems to be assuming this is the automatic, universally shared reaction to the idea that someone might get a benefit you didn't get. I don't think it is. (I recognize that some people do have this reaction, but a lot of the time, those are people who weren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway.)
__________________
Live merrily, and trust to good verses.
-- Robert Herrick
  #19  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:06 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Trump is running on the Carville mantra

it's the economy, stupid
  #20  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:06 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
It is getting tiresome about these people bemoaning the "lurch to the left". Voters were not enthused by Clinton seeing just another corporcrat. Remember Obama's 2008 campaign ad? "Hillary Clinton will say anything and change nothing."

Biden is just more Clinton. Bloomberg is pretty much the same. Bill Clinton's Third Way politics swung the democratic party to the right and Hillary was 100% on-board. Look what their war on drugs did to minorities. They gutted welfare. Made bankruptcy harder to get and so on. Far from closing the wealth gap they have exacerbated it and helped it along.

Medical costs spiraling out of control. Education costs spiraling out of control. Infrastructure crumbling. Prisons overflowing. Democrats have done precious little to correct those problems.

Democrats used to be the party of the working man, the middle class and they have managed to cede that to Trump. Trump of all people!

And now Clinton and Carville are bemoaning a "lurch to the left"? Seriously...fuck those guys. It is taking the party back to where it should have been all along, the champion of the middle class and blue-collar workers. That is where Sanders is going and, so far, it appears to be working. Trump edged out Clinton because he appealed to those working class voters in a way Clinton and Biden and Bloomberg never can or will. How Trump managed it is remarkable. Sanders, on the other hand, has been championing their cause his entire career and never wavers.

In 2016 Trump's own pollster said that had Sanders been in the general election instead of Clinton Sanders would have won. Sanders consistently wins polls in a matchup against Trump. Sanders is out fund raising everyone else and doing so without PAC money (Bloomberg is writing huge checks to himself). Sanders consistently draws large crowds that his opponents only dream of. Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa and is looking good going in to New Hampshire.

Yet we have Carville sitting there bitching like crazy about Sanders. The damage is not coming from Sanders moving things to the left. It is coming from Carville and Clinton and their ilk. Have a seat Carville, you had your turn...for decades, and look where we are now. Sanders clearly appeals to working class voters in ways no other candidate does except (maybe) Buttigieg.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-07-2020 at 04:09 PM.
  #21  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:10 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,817
I think his arguments are premature. Whoever gets the nomination will fall back closer to the center as they always do. And their message will be more on point because they no longer have to compete with other Dem candidates.

You'd think old man Carville would know this by now.
__________________
"What kind of a man desecrates a defenseless textbook?"
  #22  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:12 PM
Nicest of the Damned is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
On your student debt point: For about 75% of the adult population, student debt isn't a concern because they don't have it. Only about 7% of the total population (44 million out of 327 million) have college debt in our country. Hanging your hat on the nail of eliminating student debt isn't necessarily one that resonates with most Americans.
My larger point is that the number of people who struggle with issues the Democrats have not really been addressing is large enough to swing the election. If they could be convinced someone was actually going to help them out they might be persuaded to vote for them. But many of them are probably not even paying attention at this point.

And of course simply getting one progressive president in office is not going to be enough to enact real changes. People have to realize they have to be in it for the long haul and stay engaged.

My other larger point is that maybe the Democrats should try to take care of the more vulnerable members of the population because historically that was something that they stood for.

I wonder as the boomers die off and those on the cusp of and in early middle-age now move into that demographic how things will look. i am not sure their concerns will be the same as those that older voters have now. Will they turn out to vote in large numbers? My understanding is the oldest Millennials are now pushing forty.
  #23  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:14 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Carville's dead on. The party's gone way too far left in some kind of weird, quixotic response to Trump's personality cult and associated nonsense. Like he said "talking about that is not how you win a national election. It’s not how you become a majoritarian party."

The answer to Trump isn't to double down on the left-wing stuff and pander to the hardcore base, but rather to craft a platform that attracts a majority of people, and that platform is by necessity going to be less left than a lot of the hardcore base would like.

Mark my words, if the Democratic party doesn't get away from this seriously progressive nonsense, they're going to lose in November. People who are undecided are going to go with the devil they know, rather than left wing stuff they don't.
  #24  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:14 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
Well, Carville's argument seems to be that trying to do anything about college tuition is a losing issue because people who have already struggled to pay for college will resent it, so he seems to be assuming this is the automatic, universally shared reaction to the idea that someone might get a benefit you didn't get. I don't think it is. (I recognize that some people do have this reaction, but a lot of the time, those are people who weren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway.)

He was just saying it's a bad campaign plank. It's not just some boomers it turns off. The majority of Americans don't have a college degree.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-07-2020 at 04:17 PM.
  #25  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:15 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Sanders clearly appeals to working class voters in ways no other candidate does except (maybe) Buttigieg.
May be, but does he appeal to working class voters more than Trump? THAT is what counts here, and that's what Carville is saying.
  #26  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:21 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,991
Dating back to the beginning of 2019, the energy behind the movement to go through with the impeachment of Trump wasn't in the center; it was coming from the solid left. That's predictable, because it's the hard left that's most enraged by him.

It's worth pointing out that impeachment failed. It's also worth noting that on the day he was acquitted, he received some of his highest approval ratings in his entire term.

I'm not saying that impeachment was the wrong move, but I think the pattern of thinking that I see from the hard-charging AOC/Bernie left is similar to what HappyLendervedder described. With impeachment, the assumption among those who advocated it early and often was that if you just go through with it and use the power and resources of your office, the public will be persuaded. And that just didn't happen.

Frankly, I see the same kind of thinking coming from supporters of Medicare-for-All. The assumption is that if we talk about it loudly enough and remind Americans how evil the insurance companies are often enough, then Americans can be persuaded to buy into a radical overhaul of the health system, and I think that's just a dangerously baseless assumption that's based on passion and not much else.
  #27  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:22 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post

Since the last Democrat candidate lost the most winnable election ever to a rapey, half-retarded gameshow host, despite running everything she said through a dozen focus groups, maybe this time we could try basing our positions on principle, rather than on what a bunch of spoilt boomers want to hear.
No heís saying to pick and choose which principles to push and make that your clear message and not jump on every far left position that will alienate large portions of the voters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretful Porpentine View Post
Well, Carville's argument seems to be that trying to do anything about college tuition is a losing issue because people who have already struggled to pay for college will resent it, so he seems to be assuming this is the automatic, universally shared reaction to the idea that someone might get a benefit you didn't get. I don't think it is. (I recognize that some people do have this reaction, but a lot of the time, those are people who weren't going to vote for a Democrat anyway.)
Itís not about getting a benefit you didnít get. Itís about having your net worth be in a 100k deficit that you will never get back because you were responsible and to also shoulder the bill for others who will never have that deficit. Because only the stupidest donít understand that free means taxpayer funded. Itís about losing money and worth not about someone else gaining.

As a parent with a child in college I am very interested in the issue but I am also very leery of any politician offering something ďfree.Ē There are also many other moving parts to the issue that make it complicated and worthy of its own thread.
  #28  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:25 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
He was just saying it's a bad campaign plank. It's not just some boomers it turns off. The majority of Americans don't have a college degree.
Yeah, but the majority of Americans don't have a Mexican stealing their job either, but the message of Build That Wall still resonated with them. Certain messages resonate, even if they are not personal. (For example, not a perfect analogy by any means, YMMV, all caveats apply.)
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #29  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:33 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
I think his arguments are premature. Whoever gets the nomination will fall back closer to the center as they always do. And their message will be more on point because they no longer have to compete with other Dem candidates.

You'd think old man Carville would know this by now.
Most probably will. Do you think Bernie will go anywhere near the middle? I donít.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post

Much of the rest is expected from someone like him, he is firmly in the Democratic establishment "Never-Bernie" camp.
If you read the entire article you would see that he said he would support whoever got the nomination and would vote for Bernie. The fact that he has doubts if Bernie can win doesnít mean heís never Bernie.
  #30  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:34 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Yeah, but the majority of Americans don't have a Mexican stealing their job either, but the message of Build That Wall still resonated with them. Certain messages resonate, even if they are not personal. (For example, not a perfect analogy by any means, YMMV, all caveats apply.)
It's the fact that the Democratic party has focused their messaging (mostly economic) on every group besides the working class is why so many working class voters finally turned to Trump. Its why my dad and father-in-law and brother-in-law did. It's the campaigning on helping the poor and helping college grads that pisses them off. That messaging makes the working class voters think the Dems aren't gonna fight for THEM.
  #31  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:34 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
Yeah, but the majority of Americans don't have a Mexican stealing their job either, but the message of Build That Wall still resonated with them. Certain messages resonate, even if they are not personal. (For example, not a perfect analogy by any means, YMMV, all caveats apply.)
But it was personal. "Build that wall" spoke not specifically to people afraid of losing their jobs to Mexicans. It spoke to people both afraid for their jobs and people afraid of Mexicans. "Forgive college debt" doesn't really reach as far.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-07-2020 at 04:35 PM.
  #32  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:37 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Dating back to the beginning of 2019, the energy behind the movement to go through with the impeachment of Trump wasn't in the center; it was coming from the solid left. That's predictable, because it's the hard left that's most enraged by him.

It's worth pointing out that impeachment failed. It's also worth noting that on the day he was acquitted, he received some of his highest approval ratings in his entire term.

I'm not saying that impeachment was the wrong move, but I think the pattern of thinking that I see from the hard-charging AOC/Bernie left is similar to what HappyLendervedder described. With impeachment, the assumption among those who advocated it early and often was that if you just go through with it and use the power and resources of your office, the public will be persuaded. And that just didn't happen.

Frankly, I see the same kind of thinking coming from supporters of Medicare-for-All. The assumption is that if we talk about it loudly enough and remind Americans how evil the insurance companies are often enough, then Americans can be persuaded to buy into a radical overhaul of the health system, and I think that's just a dangerously baseless assumption that's based on passion and not much else.
Exactly. Itís one thing to acknowledge that most people donít like their health care and insurance companies. Itís quite a larger leap to the bring out the pitchforks and torches. ĎWE WANT RADICAL CHANGE NOW!!!í Whereas that office worker turns their concern to the traffic on the way home (not even considering a better public transit system) and then contemplated what changes to her/his fantasy football team to make for the next week.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #33  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:39 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
But it was personal. "Build that wall" spoke not specifically to people afraid of losing their jobs to Mexicans. It spoke to people both afraid for their jobs and people afraid of Mexicans. "Forgive college debt" doesn't really reach as far.
And it also spoke to those, like my mom, who goes on a rant every time she hears, ĎPress one for English.í
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #34  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:39 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
May be, but does he appeal to working class voters more than Trump? THAT is what counts here, and that's what Carville is saying.
As I cited in my previous post Trump's own pollster felt he did back in 2016.

I suspect Trump will lose people at the fringes from that crowd to someone like Sanders and Trump cannot afford to lose many.

And sure as shit Bloomberg or Biden isn't going to appeal to those people and I doubt Klobuchar or Warren would either.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-07-2020 at 04:40 PM.
  #35  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:42 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,688
I think he's a little incoherent:
  • Bernie is an awful candidate.
  • Definitely don't follow Bernie.
  • Definitely all the other candidates suck too, though (but especially Bernie).
  • The purpose of political coalition is about power, nothing else.
  • Democrats should be about never saying anything that anyone might question, and only saying things that most people want.
  • Democrats are the party of African Americans.
  • Enfranchising inmates and felons should be off the table.

I mean, I understand some of where he's coming from, but as a fellow freaked-out citizen, it looks like the "power at all costs" philosophy breads exactly the sort of environment that houses the corrupt, corruptible, greedy, and dishonest who are running government at the moment.

Also, you know what else threatens the success of a "majoritarian" party? People vying for leadership positions who don't represent the majority and the already entrenched powers. Jews, atheists, women, people of color, gays, etc etc.

He doesn't say it in this article, but his argument directly aligns with a "white Christian straight male only please" policy.

He's right that there's a huge issue of representation in general; the Senate is an extremely powerful body that, at the moment, wields the will of the minority with a mighty fist. For Democracy in America to survive, we have to address this.

But I don't see him proposing a solution. And I don't think that this "power at all costs" Democratic party is going to pull it off if/when they make it into power.

Last edited by Eonwe; 02-07-2020 at 04:43 PM.
  #36  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:44 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Most probably will. Do you think Bernie will go anywhere near the middle? I donít.


Yeah, Bernie ain't changing. He's the exception. I didn't think about that until after I posted.
__________________
"What kind of a man desecrates a defenseless textbook?"
  #37  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:49 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Carville's dead on. The party's gone way too far left in some kind of weird, quixotic response to Trump's personality cult and associated nonsense. Like he said "talking about that is not how you win a national election. Itís not how you become a majoritarian party."

The answer to Trump isn't to double down on the left-wing stuff and pander to the hardcore base, but rather to craft a platform that attracts a majority of people, and that platform is by necessity going to be less left than a lot of the hardcore base would like.

Mark my words, if the Democratic party doesn't get away from this seriously progressive nonsense, they're going to lose in November. People who are undecided are going to go with the devil they know, rather than left wing stuff they don't.
I agree wholeheartedly with this (and Carville). However, I want to point out that after the 2008 Election that saw Obama/Biden elected, when the Republicans had McCain/Palin, then in 2012 they had Romney/Ryan, the Republican propaganda machine (fueled by the Tea Party - remember them?) was churning out the idea that they needed candidates that are MORE conservative, not moderates, on the ticket next time around. They got what they wanted in 2016 and the rest is history. I suspect some on the Democrats side now are thinking the same thing: we need to be MORE extreme in order to win. Somehow, I doubt it will work this time.
  #38  
Old 02-07-2020, 04:54 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
Also, you know what else threatens the success of a "majoritarian" party? People vying for leadership positions who don't represent the majority and the already entrenched powers. Jews, atheists, women, people of color, gays, etc etc.

He doesn't say it in this article, but his argument directly aligns with a "white Christian straight male only please" policy.
I don't think that's it, but rather that the party's platform should have its largest plank being support for white Christian people. Not out of racism, but out of basic recognition that white Christians are the largest single demographic in the country by a huge margin.

But does the Democratic party do that? No, they go on about the poor, and about racism, and about pretty much everything that means something to everyone BUT white Christian people, who make up something like half the country.
  #39  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:02 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Eonwe, I think his message was "getting power is what matters" not "power at all costs". Big difference. He went out of his way to say he's not debating the issues, he is debating there use in a Presidential campaign against Trump.
  #40  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:09 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I don't think that's it, but rather that the party's platform should have its largest plank being support for white Christian people. Not out of racism, but out of basic recognition that white Christians are the largest single demographic in the country by a huge margin.

But does the Democratic party do that? No, they go on about the poor, and about racism, and about pretty much everything that means something to everyone BUT white Christian people, who make up something like half the country.
There are a lot of them but not as many as you seem to think:

Quote:
After more than two centuries of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance, the United States has moved from being a majority-white Christian nation to one with no single racial and religious majority.

<snip>

I noted that the percentage of white Christians in the general population had dropped from 53 percent to 47 percent between 2010 and 2014 alone. Now, at the end of the decade, only 42 percent of Americans identify as white and Christian, representing a drop of 11 percentage points.

In the world of demographic measurement, where changes typically occur at a glacial pace, this drop in self-identified white Christians, averaging 1.1 percentage points a year, is remarkable. Changes of this magnitude are large enough to see and feel at the local level, as church rolls shrink and white Christian institutions hold less sway in public space.

SOURCE: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ca-ncna1106936
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #41  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:13 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I don't think that's it, but rather that the party's platform should have its largest plank being support for white Christian people. Not out of racism, but out of basic recognition that white Christians are the largest single demographic in the country by a huge margin.

But does the Democratic party do that? No, they go on about the poor, and about racism, and about pretty much everything that means something to everyone BUT white Christian people, who make up something like half the country.
Might better split that as "white and/or Christian." There are a significant number of racial-minority Christians who also ascribe to the notion that Christians in America face persecution and are dismayed by what they see in Hollywood/the media/etc.

(Again, whether or not Christians are actually persecuted in America is irrelevant - if they feel they are, they feel they are.)
  #42  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:16 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What a stupid thing to say. So kids entering college today are just meant to bend over and get shackled with ever greater levels of student debt because a bunch of fucking boomers with better jobs and lower mortgages were able to clear theirs? Because to offer them debt relief wouldn’t be fair to the boomers? Fuck that! Life’s not fair. We just have to make the best of it. And if boomers like the moron who accosted Warren want to stymie debt relief measures just because they can’t benefit from them...well, it’s just another example of that generation’s characteristically pathological selfishness, isn’t it? It deserves to be opposed. And yeah, that might cost the Democrats at the ballot box, but guess what? Being a bunch of milquetoasts with no principles beyond pandering to the fucking boomers is gonna cost us at the ballot box, too.

Since the last Democrat candidate lost the most winnable election ever to a rapey, half-retarded gameshow host, despite running everything she said through a dozen focus groups, maybe this time we could try basing our positions on principle, rather than on what a bunch of spoilt boomers want to hear.
This pathetic 'boomer' vs whoever, lazy issue-framing is a big winner for Trump and the republicans. Carville isn't right about everything, but he's bang on that this is self-destruction. Enjoy your four more years.

ETA: As with everything in American politics, it comes down to race and class. Are the emerging elites younger than the Boomers in any way, shape or form different? Fuck no. Trump won the young white vote and probably will again. Greed and self-interest win every time and can always be exploited.

Last edited by Blank Slate; 02-07-2020 at 05:20 PM.
  #43  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:17 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
It's the fact that the Democratic party has focused their messaging (mostly economic) on every group besides the working class is why so many working class voters finally turned to Trump. Its why my dad and father-in-law and brother-in-law did. It's the campaigning on helping the poor and helping college grads that pisses them off. That messaging makes the working class voters think the Dems aren't gonna fight for THEM.
Sanders absolutely champions the working class. He has for his entire career. He constantly harps about how workers are getting screwed. Why do you think it is only about helping college grads or the poor? It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Very recently: Sanders vows to renegotiate 'disastrous' North American trade deal
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #44  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Sanders absolutely champions the working class. He has for his entire career. He constantly harps about how workers are getting screwed. Why do you think it is only about helping college grads or the poor? It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Very recently: Sanders vows to renegotiate 'disastrous' North American trade deal
There is no mention of Sanders in the post you replied to. He was talking about the college funding issue as a campaign plank.
  #45  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:28 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
There is no mention of Sanders in the post you replied to. He was talking about the college funding issue as a campaign plank.
Which is a plank of Sanders and Warren. Not sure about the other candidates but I don't think they are for it (or at the least not championing it). It is not a plank at the national level, I do not think.

It is worth noting that college funding is far from the only group that they hope to help and they explicitly agitate for the working class.

Then add that Carville's rant in the OP chided all the dem candidates but particularly singled out Sanders for extra criticism on issues like this.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-07-2020 at 05:30 PM.
  #46  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:32 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blank Slate View Post
This pathetic 'boomer' vs whoever, lazy issue-framing is a big winner for Trump and the republicans. Carville isn't right about everything, but he's bang on that this is self-destruction. Enjoy your four more years.
Seems like everything which rubs people up the wrong way during an election year is a “Big winner for <INSERT OPPOSING CANDIDATE HERE>”. I’m sure it may seem that way to you, but that don’t necessarily make it so.

Bottom line is we tried it Carville’s way in 2016. We nominated the most middle-of-the-road career politician we could find, sent her out there on a blandly centrist policy platform designed to appease as many groups as possible, and...guess what? It was a big winner for Trump and the Republicans! I’m sick of listening to people like Carville who, for all their swearing and their bluster, don’t have any fucking balls. Doing something about student debt may not be popular with everyone, but doing nothing about it is just morally unacceptable. So if a bunch of pathologically selfish boomer assholes like the guy Carville explicitly referred to want a fight about it then I say let’s give them one.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 02-07-2020 at 05:36 PM.
  #47  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Which is a plank of Sanders and Warren. Not sure about the other candidates but I don't think they are for it (or at the least not championing it). It is not a plank at the national level, I do not think.

It is worth noting that college funding is far from the only group that they hope to help and they explicitly agitate for the working class.

Then add that Carville's rant in the OP chided all the dem candidates but particularly singled out Sanders for extra criticism on issues like this.
Omg, are you saying Carville doesn't like Sanders?

No, it's not remotely worth noting "that college funding is far from the only group that they hope to help". Everyone is quite aware that they aren't trying to make the Democrats into a one issue "college debt" party.

Eta: btw, Buttigieg also has free college stuff up on his campaign website.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-07-2020 at 05:39 PM.
  #48  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:45 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Bottom line is we tried it Carvilleís way in 2016. We nominated the most middle-of-the-road career politician we could find, sent her out there on a blandly centrist policy platform designed to appease as many groups as possible, and...guess what?
She wasn't really a career politician. That's the problem, similar to Warren. Parachute a smart someone who's been grinding around in the background of politics for a while into a safe Senate seat. Then people start to think they're great politicians because they're smart and hey, they got elected.
  #49  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:46 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Omg, are you saying Carville doesn't like Sanders?
Did you even read the article? Carville said he would vote for Sanders if he was the nominee but beyond that he singled out Sanders for special criticism. Maybe he likes Sanders personally ok...I dunno, but he is not rooting for him.

Quote:
No, it's not remotely worth noting "that college funding is far from the only group that they hope to help". Everyone is quite aware that they aren't trying to make the Democrats into a one issue "college debt" party.
Then why is Happy Lendervedder pointing out his family's concern over helping poor people and paying for college tuition as the thing that steers them away from democrats?

Quote:
Eta: btw, Buttigieg also has free college stuff up on his campaign website.
Buttigieg has a different plan in mind where the wealthiest 10% pay tuition and the rest get free tuition, the other two want free tuition across the board. Certainly have that debate and work out whatever makes the most sense. Personally I am not married to one or the other idea. I just want the discussion to happen on how to fix the serious problems tuition is causing in America.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #50  
Old 02-07-2020, 05:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Then why is Happy Lendervedder pointing out his family's concern over helping poor people and paying for college tuition as the thing that steers them away from democrats?
Because they really don't like it? Or they think it takes up a disproportionate amount of the Dem platform even if they don't think college funding is the only group that they hope to help.




Quote:
Buttigieg has a different plan in mind where the wealthiest 10% pay tuition and the rest get free tuition, the other two want free tuition across the board. Certainly have that debate and work out whatever makes the most sense. Personally I am not married to one or the other idea. I just want the discussion to happen on how to fix the serious problems tuition is causing in America.
Yes, well Carville's point is that is an alienating debate to have during an actual Presidential campaign. The questions are: "do you think that debate helps get the Dems elected?" and "do you care whether it changes their election chances?"
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 06:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017