# How can the Dems better appeal to suckers, chumps, marks and rubes? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 2, 2017, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395 "2017-12-02T22:33:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/21 "2017-12-03T04:16:43Z")
To expand on my last post: The current moral panic over the sexual morality of politicians (and other prominent individuals) may be a signal where mass public opinion is sending the message that our next group of elected leaders will be, from a personality standpoint, anti-Trumps. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/22 "2017-12-03T04:49:25Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > First, stop thinking of people as being a bunch of rubes. Put that out of your mind, and just treat them as people. As long as you think they’re rubes, you’re unlikely to reach them. How do you know a campaign with the theme “Don’t Be A Chump”, featuring dumbass shaming with commercials starring prominent academics and intellectual thought leaders _wouldn’t_ work? Seems like a plan. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/23 "2017-12-03T06:50:15Z")
Was it Mark Twain who first said A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes ? Anyway, this is the big political advantage of the GOP. Free to grind out the most loathsome and blatant lies, their exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric will always surpass a party which embraces science and truth: science leads to long words and equivocations. Do we want both parties to be dominated by _corrupt_ liars? In olden times, we relied on statesmen and journalists to call attention to politician’s lies, but not any more. Anderson Cooper does a good job but low attention-span voters will have changed channels before he’s even introduced his guests. Rachel Maddow only preaches to the converted. No, I’m afraid we’ve turned the country over to Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers. Enjoy. > [@gatorslap](#): > > The argument I kept hearing right after the 2016 election is that the Democrats didn’t even make a pitch to those voters. That the Democrats as a party have been focused solely on issues affecting urban dwellers. And so what the Democrats need to do is merely listen to their concerns (about small towns dying, certain industry jobs going away, and so on), treat them as valid, and offer some kind of response, because currently they’re offering nothing. > > I’m not optimistic that if the Dems would just follow this advice, they’d win landslides across the country. It’s not that simple. But I do think it’s worth putting the effort in. After all, if these people only voted GOP because they were suckered, that means they can potentially be “suckered” back by the Democrats. Yes, the Democrats are dominated by urban elites, rather than the underemployed. I wanted to cry when I saw Democrat elites focus on Bernie Sanders’ acceptance of hunting rifles in Vermont, rather than focus on GOP kleptocracy. Did these idiots even _want_ to win the election? It would be pleasant to see the Democratic Party move towards sanity. But I’m not sure it will do much good — the suckers, chumps, marks and rubes will still just vote for whomever Sean Hannity tells them to. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/24 "2017-12-03T12:23:48Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Was it Mark Twain who first said > A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes No it was not. [I am shocked, shocked that a quote attributed to Mark Twain is not actually by him.](http://freakonomics.com/2011/04/07/quotes-uncovered-how-lies-travel/) ---
**Author:** ![ThisIsTheEnd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thisistheend/32/4713_2.png) [@ThisIsTheEnd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisIsTheEnd)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/25 "2017-12-03T12:44:39Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The funny thing is that with Democrats, the middle class gets lower taxes and more benefits. More money in the hands of the middle class —\> actual growth, which would surely pay for the higher taxes the wealthy are call upon to pay. With the GOP, the middle class gets higher taxes and loses their benefits, yet react to a lot of screaming about socialism on TV (I think) such that they view the government doing something positive as some kind of negative. > > It just seems like there are so many false narratives fed to conservatives. Am I wrong about that? Yes. Repubs are a coalition of rich guys who want a lot more money and don’t give a shit about ideology one way or another, and not-rich guys who care mostly about ideology and are willing to give up money. See Ditker, H. in post 14. He mentioned 6 things, only one of which is about money. ---
**Author:** ![Pinmin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@Pinmin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pinmin)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/26 "2017-12-03T15:27:47Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The funny thing is that with Democrats, the middle class gets lower taxes and more benefits. More money in the hands of the middle class —\> actual growth, which would surely pay for the higher taxes the wealthy are call upon to pay. With the GOP, the middle class gets higher taxes and loses their benefits, yet react to a lot of screaming about socialism on TV (I think) such that they view the government doing something positive as some kind of negative. > > It just seems like there are so many false narratives fed to conservatives. Am I wrong about that? But that’s basically an assumption on your part of the outcomes of D policies. There are fewer chumps, rubes, and suckers than you think. A vast majority are trying to accomplish what they believe is best for them a best for the country. Look back at threads about “voting against their best interests” - they are usually assuming values and priorities for people who are voting. However, their priorities and values may be different from yours. This is the point being made above by others - try to understand where they are coming from and why. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/27 "2017-12-03T19:51:15Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > How do you know a campaign with the theme “Don’t Be A Chump”, featuring dumbass shaming with commercials starring prominent academics and intellectual thought leaders _wouldn’t_ work? > > Seems like a plan. In all serious, though, let’s assume for the sake of argument that these “rubes” or “chumps” are basically in an abusive relationship with Republican politicians. That’s a relationship that has grown over time, and the rubes and chumps are likely comfortable with it if they’re not leaving that relationship voluntarily. The idea that someone new can barge in, be abusive in basically the same way and expect to win hearts and minds doesn’t make a lot of sense. Better to try and show them what a non-abusive relationship can be like, and hope for the best. It’s not guaranteed to work, but the other method is almost certainly guaranteed to fail. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/28 "2017-12-03T22:04:59Z")
Is it just me or are people unaware that the term rube is a pejorative based upon where someone lives? If people use that term and think it’s OK, if people claiming to be democrat or liberal feel that it’s oh just fine to use these terms to describe people that are prejudicial and discriminatory based upon where they live then you deserve whatever shitty political representation comes your way. And I don’t even feel bad for you. I’ve always been a liberal person and supported liberal causes but the fact that noone seems to care about discriminating against people in this way blows my mind. I never heard Joe Biden use the term rube, I never heard Al Gore say anything approaching this, Bernie Sanders no way. The problem isn’t the politicians, it’s the narrow minded prejudicial people they have to cater to. Liberalism as I used to understand it and support was against discriminating against people, and used reason not prejudice to guide their values. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/29 "2017-12-03T22:32:00Z")
But rubes don’t know what the word means, so no harm no foul. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/30 "2017-12-03T22:38:29Z")
**Try2B Comprehensive** **Always Remember :** When dealing with the GOP, attack Politicians, Trump, the Bills, or the Big Money Backers. Never attack a (potentially flip-able) voter. WOO the Voter. They are the victims of this GOP swindle. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Nylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mr.Nylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Nylock)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2017, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/31 "2017-12-03T22:47:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But rubes don’t know what the word means, so no harm no foul. Replace that word with the n word and see how that sounds. That is what many people who may be inclined to vote for democrats are hearing if they do not live in a big city. Speaking this way should and does have the effect of making policy take a back seat to rhetoric. People say rural voters are voting against their own interests, but I think most reasonable people, when forced between a choices of one side that may not offer the best policies for them vs. another side that is associated with people who blatantly prejudicial towards them then I think the choice is not that hard. In other words what rural people are hearing is “those nwords don’t know what’s good for them.” I find the rhetoric loathsome and the people who use it ignorant. But that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/32 "2017-12-04T00:44:09Z")
As a suggestion for an answer to the OP’s question, I say the Dems should promise coal mining jobs that never materialize. That one works every time. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/33 "2017-12-04T01:20:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I voted for Trump hoping to get a conservative Supreme Court Justice, a repeal of ObamaCare, a tax cut, less government regulation, an undoing / shrinking if Utah’s oversized national monuments, and fewer illegal immigrants. I’m getting most of that, or at least progress on pretty much all of those points. Utah’s national monuments were that big an issue to you in the election, or is this just one of the few “accomplishments” that one could actually point to in retrospect? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/34 "2017-12-04T01:24:40Z")
From a while ago but: > [@Trump Won-Time for an Alt Left?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-won-time-for-an-alt-left/780815/1): > > That is where a new, “alternative left” that can face the potent nativist nationalism of the alternative right comes in. Broadly speaking an alternative left would seek to create a left populist opposition that would form a coalition of the multiracial middle and working-class. As many moderates have pointed out Democrats did make significant gains in diverse Sunbelt states such as Arizona and Texas, even winning my native Orange County for the first time in 80 years. Here we must distinguish between two potential elements of the coalition in these areas. Democrats should without reservation welcome the incorporation of Hispanic and Asian Americans into the body politic and seek to increase their turnout in future elections in these areas. While we should similarly not turn up our nose at upper middle-class voters in these areas who are turning to the Democratic Party, we must fight entryism that threatens to undermine a strong commitment to socioeconomic populism in favour of a bourgeois ideology of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” that will only alienate the most loyal elements of the party. In turn, this commitment to the heritage of Jacksonian democracy, Bryanite populism, the New Deal, and the Great Society requires us to win back the white working-class. The white working-class is bearing the brunt of a systematic socioeconomic and psychological collapse in much of American society that in many ways parallels that of Russia’s in the 1990s. Most tellingly, mortality rates have increased and life expectancy has declined for white Americans without [college degrees](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-for-the-first-time-since-1993/2016/12/07/7dcdc7b4-bc93-11e6-91ee-1adddfe36cbe_story.html?utm_term=.053297f3215a), primarily due to significant increases in incidences of drug/alcohol abuse as well as suicide. In turn, much of this is attritbutable to a wide array of factors including deindustrialization, wage stagnation, social atomization, and so forth. It was this pain which Trump (not entirely implausibly) blamed mass immigration and free trade for that produced Trump’s victory. To win again, especially given the presence of gerrymandering and laws hindering voting, Democrats must have a robust agenda. > > With some reservations, the [most plausible agenda I’ve found](http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html) is outlined here. In broad terms I would advocate for: > > [1] Universal Welfare State-Americans dislike means-tested benefits programs that can be agitated against on the grounds of it going to “undeserving” people while social insurance programs such as Social Security that everyone pays into and everyone benefits from are strongly popular. Thus Democrats should advocate an increase in Social Security benefits by removing the income tax cap, propose universal paid leave, and possibly look seriously into a universal basic income. > > [2] Social Patriotism-For too many Americans, Democrats especially those of a more left-wing variety are seen as “un-American” if not “treasonous”. Democrats should counter this by adopting the language of patriotism and declare (quite correctly) that true patriotism is not to an abstract concept of a nation but to the people which compose a nation. It should be seen as a national disgrace that life expectancies for millions of Americans are declining, that many part of the country such as Indian reservations live in conditions nearing Third World poverty, that corporations can jack up prices for drugs, and so on. The poor and others in want should be seen as fellow citizens, not as objects of charity. > > [3] Populism-The strongest left-wing movements in both America and the rest of the world have been populist in character, by empowering the people themselves to undertake political action. After Trump, many liberals seem to think the opposite is the case and that the people cannot be trusted with political power despite the fact that _more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton_. Liberals must recognize that even “experts” have unconscious biases that lead them to favour their own personal interests when setting policy and that having a college degree in say 18th Century Chinese Literature or Molecular Biology might make them an expert in that given field but not give them any particular enlightenment in regards to government. In tandem with this, the left should favour radical democratization through automatic voter registration, abolishment of the Electoral College, reform of the US Senate, ending gerrymandering of the House of Representatives, and otherwise removing all archaic and reactionary barriers to the pure expression of the popular will. > > [4] Solidarity/Communitarianism-Americans have always been an individualistic people but simultaneously as observers from Tocqueville to Putnam have noted, they have often been equally devoted to the life of the community as well. In an era of social atomization and increasing isolation of individuals, Democrats should do everything to counteract such trends and strengthen civil and social institutions that serve as intermediaries between individuals and the State or the Market such as families, friendship ties, social clubs, churches, and the like. The left must appropriate the language of the right and declare that only an ideology that recognizes limits to the all-encompasing claims of the market even when it breaks town social ties can allow for humans to flourish as social beings. > > [5] Big Tent without Pandering-To get laws passed, Democrats must retake the House and state governments which are already biased in favour of rural Middle America. Thus to do so, Democrats should adopt a big tent towards particularly sensitive issues. Gun control in general should be dropped given that most plausible gun control measures yield little return in exchange for large-scale political losses while Democrats should be allowed to vote their conscience on the most contentious issue of abortion which unlike many other battles of the Culture War looks unlikely to go away even 40 years after Roe v. Wade. It’s clear that the extreme pro-abortion legalization approach adopted by Hillary Clinton last year which theoretically rejected limitations on abortion even after viability and supporting repealing the Hyde amendment alienated significant numbers of Catholic and evangelical voters, leading to the spectacle of Trump winning the highest percentage of the evangelical vote of any Republican candidate despite all his past history. While it’s unlikely a national Democratic candidate will be pro-life anytime soon, any pro-choice candidate would do better to emphasize reducing abortions through better availability of contraception and more robust social safety net for families. This does not mean Democrats should cede the ground on “Culture War” issues or “identity politics”-in particular Democrats should stand for the equal protection in terms of race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity, religion, and so forth. Indeed, Democrats should be taking leadership on certain cultural issues such as marijuana legalization and copyright reform where the public has moved ahead of them. > > I realize this post is somewhat incoherent and rambling due to the late hour at which I write this. If anything is unclear, I will be more then happy to answer the points. While I don’t expect Dopers to agree with everything written here, I hope that my “Alternative Left” provides a framework for where the Democratic Party should go in the years ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/35 "2017-12-04T01:28:41Z")
The Democrats are already doing this to a certain extent with Schumer and Pelosi’s “Better Deal” agenda which also includes some promising planks (for example) on anti-monopolism and it seems to have triggered some of the “right” hardcore “Hillary or the Highway” Clintonites and similar types, so they can’t be all wrong. However, the platform is probably not comprehensive or ambitious enough as of yet. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/36 "2017-12-04T01:41:37Z")
> [@Jacquernagy](#): > > I agree with the poster above who mentioned gun control. The Democrats should not make it a campaign issue at all. If questioned about it during debates, they should simply say “it’s an issue of crime, not guns, and our solutions for reforming the criminal justice system and drug policy will address the gun violence, as will making mental health care more readily available.” That’s all they need to do. Shut up about assault weapon bans and magazine capacity. By God, Sir, that is brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/37 "2017-12-04T01:46:34Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > Is it just me or are people unaware that the term rube is a pejorative based upon where someone lives? If people use that term and think it’s OK, if people claiming to be democrat or liberal feel that it’s oh just fine to use these terms to describe people that are prejudicial and discriminatory based upon where they live then you deserve whatever shitty political representation comes your way. And I don’t even feel bad for you. I’ve always been a liberal person and supported liberal causes but the fact that noone seems to care about discriminating against people in this way blows my mind. I never heard Joe Biden use the term rube, I never heard Al Gore say anything approaching this, Bernie Sanders no way. The problem isn’t the politicians, it’s the narrow minded prejudicial people they have to cater to. > > Liberalism as I used to understand it and support was against discriminating against people, and used reason not prejudice to guide their values. I can’t say I’m motivated by “liberalism”- I consider myself a pragmatist and only registered as a D last year in order to vote in the primaries. I consider all the candidates in every election but honestly, having a math and science education, I find I can never support the Rs. I don’t intend to discriminate. I think you are touching on something big here though- there is a split between urban and rural people. It would be helpful if this division could be seen as simply a facet of diversity and not turned into a partisan, one-against-the-other kind of conflict. I grew up fairly rural myself- on the border between the suburbs and the farms. I could walk across the street into undeveloped land and hunt birds, explore the creeks and so on. My gf literally grew up on a farm milking cows and shoveling shit. But now she has a PhD, and I live in a very nice but not very large city- the mountains are just a few miles away. Am I rural or urban? Kinda both. I think many people are one or the other though, and likely to misunderstand the other group. I think this is made obvious with the gun issue- a gun in NYC means something totally different than what it means out in the country. I know people who live on big acreages- they get concerned with drainage, fence repair, are interested in motorcycling and hunting, often on their own land. Their concerns are often very different than what you’d expect out of a New Yorker. Is one better than the other? I don’t really think so. But only one group has a lot of land… But it does seem like rural areas have had more economic problems than urban areas, generally. They’re more vulnerable to a big employer folding or packing up, a big fish in a smaller pond more closely approximating The Only Game in Town in a less populated area. Are these people more vulnerable to propaganda that tells them the root of their problem is “liberals”? That the reason the jobs left is that the wealthy did not get a tax cut? (The [real story](https://medium.com/basic-income/the-real-story-of-automation-beginning-with-one-simple-chart-8b95f9bad71b) is that automation is gobbling up more jobs than anything else, and will continue to do so.) If they are voting for jobs because the Rs are going to bring them back- well I’m sorry, it really looks like they got fooled. I’d call 'em rubes, but I don’t see the rural-specific aspect of the word. You really think it is as bad as the n-word? And, if conditions are only going to get worse, wouldn’t it be best to inform them that they have in fact been fooled, in no uncertain terms, rather than let them suffer the consequences of fake assistance that was only ever offered in order to give a big windfall to the wealthy? I believe there is a moral component to authority. If a person is in a position of high authority, they should not use it to abuse the powerless for their own profit, which I think is what the GOP is doing with this tax plan. Of course my views may not fit with some people’s conceptions of how capitalism is to be applied, but me, I think it takes place in the context of a nation and that concerns other than a (high-ranking) individual’s personal profit ought to be considered. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/38 "2017-12-04T02:01:04Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > Replace that word with the n word and see how that sounds. That is what many people who may be inclined to vote for democrats are hearing if they do not live in a big city. Did you read the fist post I made in this thread? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/39 "2017-12-04T02:49:26Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > They didn’t get suckered. I am not convinced. > [@](#): > > I just checked some of Trump supporter HurricaneDitka’s posts from late last year. He or she was concerned that maybe Trump would revert to being a liberal. Hasn’t happened. But if it did, that’s what would be turned HurricanDitka into a sucker. > > The voters Democrats can plausibly gain are the swing voters who reductantly voted for Trump. Theirs was not a HurricaneDitka-style concern that Trump might revert to liberalism. The swing voters went for more neutral reasons – one often being a desire to give someone different a chance. > > Now that the Republicans have had their chance, most of these people will come back on their own. Give them room. And don’t insult them. Enough of them will, eventually, convince themselves. I think the GOP electorate breaks down into more groups than “pro-racism” and suckers. A multimillionaire voting for the GOP isn’t a sucker if getting that tax cut really is a priority, for example. But many other people who were swayed by the GOP’s economic message were, IMHO. It might help if I explained in more detail why I have this opinion. Consider [Why Tax Reform Will Lead To BOOMING Economic Growth](http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/01/why-tax-reform-will-lead-to-booming-economic-growth/). This isn’t the end-all be-all of GOP propaganda, but I think it is representative of the line you can find coming from all the major conservative outlets. Pretty much every paragraph promotes some kind of lie, so let’s look at just the main ones. > [@](#): > > When Kennedy entered office, the top income tax rate was 91 percent. He reduced that to 70 percent, and then reduced all the other tax rates by an equivalent percentage — roughly 23 percent — as well. > But that did not result in a 23 percent reduction in income tax revenues, which would have been the static estimate not considering resulting economic growth effects. Instead, revenues rose as the economy boomed for the rest of the 1960s, until Nixon’s tax increases and monetary policy chaos (cutting the dollar’s tie to gold) cut the boom short. This is your standard Laffer Curve argument. Tax rates got cut, yet revenues increased, therefore tax rates cuts Always lead to increased revenue! The first thing to point out here is that the article I am citing is entirely devoid of context. It seems to present a world view in which tax policy is the only thing driving events (besides things like going off the gold standard). First of all, Why was the top rate 91%? Well, back when conservatives were not allergic to arithmetic, Eisenhower realized that the US really ought to pay back the enormous debts it had incurred during WWII. How was he to _raise revenue_ for that? By raising taxes, obviously. The top rate really was 91%, and a Republican administration made it that way. Maybe Eisenhower went too far (I am not claiming the Laffer Curve is pure fiction, merely that the idea is distorted by liars who make marks out of…you know), but noone can claim that the goal of paying down that debt was not achieved. With greater government revenues under Kennedy’s policies, this continued. In the Reagan era, the Baby Boom generation came to full maturity. Demographics drove the economic boom, not tax policy. Had things been managed more wisely, this period would not have been the dawn of the current age of ever-ballooning federal deficits. The article I’m citing pointedly does not ever mention deficits, just as it pointedly does not mention that the main economic shift during the Nixon era was not the abandonment of the gold standard but the beginning of US dependence on imported oil. I hope this discussion does not get derailed into a discussion of the merits of the gold standard. What I am saying is that these colossal omissions are the _very hallmark_ of GOP propaganda. They are _lying by omission_ to people who are vulnerable to such lies, for the purpose of entrenching a false narrative in the public mind, for the purpose of the enrichment of a few at the expense of many. The goal is not national betterment, as is was during the Kennedy or Eisenhower eras. The goal is enriching the already rich, at the expense mainly of those who actually work for a living. It is a rather un-American view if you ask me, which is why they need to resort to deception in the first place. Americans generally mean well, and you only get these kinds of problems when the vicious and powerful lead the masses astray. > [@](#): > > This year’s tax reform now focuses on the business side, where the real economic problem lies today. America’s corporate income tax rates, 40 percent counting state rates, are uncompetitive in today’s global economy. In Asia, corporate rates average 20.1 percent; in Europe 18.9 percent. The “pass through” rates for smaller businesses – partnerships, sole proprietorships, Limited Liability Corps (LLCs), Subchapter S Corps – are even higher, over 40 percent. > > The tax reform would reduce the federal corporate rate to 20 percent, with a new special pass through rate of 25 percent. That would make America competitive again. This is another lie by omission. While the corporate tax rate may be nominally higher than that of other countries, the rate that American companies actually pay is far lower thanks to loopholes in the tax code, loopholes which the current proposal exacerbates rather than ameliorates. See [The Secret To Getting A -45% Corporate Tax Rate](http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-tax-rate-dirty-thirty-2012-1): > [@](#): > > The report by Citizens for Tax Justice examined 280 Fortune 500 companies that were profitable between 2008 and 2010. Although the corporate tax rate is 35 percent, it found the average tax rate for the U.S. firms was 18.5 percent. > > The report identified 30 companies — the “Dirty Thirty” — that were particularly crafty at dodging taxes, including 29 firms that had a negative tax rate over the three-year period, while spending a combined half a billion dollars to lobby Congress. > > According to the report, here’s how companies—including GE, which enjoyed a -45% tax rate—get away with paying less than nothing: > > Most simply, a company enjoys a negative tax rate if it gets a net tax rebate from the federal government. Corporations achieve negative tax rates in a few different ways. If a company had excess tax deductions or credits in a given year, it can “carry” them back to a previous year, when it did not enjoy excess deductions, and thereby get a refund check from the federal government. > > A company may also not receive tax benefits claimed one year until a later year. This happens when the corporation’s tax attorneys claim a tax benefit they don’t expect the IRS will eventually grant them. Since they aren’t counting on it, the benefit isn’t reported in that earlier year’s annual report to the SEC. If the IRS unexpectedly grants them their wish in a later year, the benefit gets reported as a decrease in the income taxes it has to pay the year it was received. > > This was a major way that GE was able to achieve a negative tax rate over the three-year period of the study. There is more to that article, you should really read it. Point is, these are nuanced issues and the GOP presents a self-serving, simple minded explanation and then hammers that message into the minds of the vulnerable in what I consider to be a morally bereft way. How do the Dems turn this reality into votes, and then turn those votes into policy that actually benefits the population at large? It is a sensitive subject. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395/40 "2017-12-04T02:56:02Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Utah’s national monuments were that big an issue to you in the election, or is this just one of the few “accomplishments” that one could actually point to in retrospect? Bears Ears didn’t happen until after the election, but it was surmised here locally that it was going to happen well before the official announcement. I remember talking to my state rep before and asking him what the odds were of Obama declaring another monument in Utah on his way out the door. He said “100%”. When it did happen, it angered / annoyed people in Utah. Grand Staircase-Escalante has been around long enough that much of the anger has subsided. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-the-dems-better-appeal-to-suckers-chumps-marks-and-rubes/803395.md?page=3)