Yes, and that’s the failure. They chose the comforting lie over the hard truth. Fantasy over reality.
How can we combat that, without abandoning principles?
I think you missed part of it - the Democrats had a plan to re-train those in (or formerly in) the coal industry for jobs in other industries. The Dems weren’t promising to revitalize coal, they were promising to revitalize the workers.
That’s wild. I can see a benefit to the primaries as it prevents the party leaders parachuting some insider into a safe district, but not being able to get rid of someone who may bear little relation to your stated aims and disagree with most of your policies is pretty weird.
It wasn’t that blue then, if the Dems only won 55-45 against a real candidate?
Then you still don’t understand what an American political party is. It’s not an organization. It doesn’t have owners or managers or controllers. There is no organizational aim or policy. There is no one at the top. There’s no entity to be kicked out of. “Democratic Party” and “Republican Party” are not organizations or entities. They are labels that individuals and smaller operating entities choose to operate under.
An American political party is merely a loosely affiliated group of individuals and entities that voluntarily co-operate to run elections, vote in legislative sessions, hold public events, and make public statements. It’s all voluntary. Any of the individuals or entities can choose whether or not to participate in any particular activity.
So, an individual Democrat may or may not choose to endorse another Democrat’s statement or position. But there’s nothing to require that. The Democratic National Committee might choose to invite this Democrat or that Republican to the convention and can create a platform (and there are always some people from a different party each time). But the D.N.C. doesn’t decide who gets to be a Democrat and Democrats who aren’t party of the D.N.C. aren’t obligated to follow its lead. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee might decide which candidates to give campaign money to and how much, but it doesn’t decide who is allowed to run for or win any nomination. The House Democratic Caucus can decide what position it will take on any particular vote in the House of Representatives, but it can’t force anyone to go along with it.
So, do you see how it works? And do you see how it’s nonsensical and dishonest, for example, to blame Biden for something that Ocasio-Cortez might or might not have said?
Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party only to the extent that other Republicans voluntarily choose to treat him as the leader of the party. They don’t have to.
Sure, them and those like them.
Do their children not speak English? If not, then that’s kinda a problem that’s on them.
As I said, even if the most feverent liberal had the reigns, we aren’t getting off oil anytime soon. They will have jobs until they retire.
Do they expect to leave these jobs to their children? They don’t want anything better for them than to work dangerous dirty jobs that drain our treasury and destroy our environment?
I don’t see it that way – at least across the pond.
I see American Christianity as taking a rather bigoted stand against some mythical incursion of Islam into this country (Islam’s numbers here are very small), and a tendency to resent the straw man argument that tolerating American Islam will lead to American Sharia law.
Which is utterly ironic, since it’s really American Christianity actively trying to (violate our Constitution and) foist its vision of morality upon the rest of us through legislation.
If I may be pithy for a moment …
Besides equal rights and fairness, what’s at stake ??
The consistent effort to codify their religious beliefs into civil law is the gateway to Sharia Law in the United States. The US cannot appear to favor one religion over another.
[and I’d wager the DJT SCOTUS would agree with me on this]
So … if religion is deemed to be superior to civil law (for example, allowing cake bakers and photographers to discriminate against gay couples), then the United States must grant the same rights to any religion.
Including Islam.
Ergo … Sharia Law.
American Christians have numbers, money, machinery, votes, and power. I don’t believe in managing to the exception. Muslims in the US are the dramatic exception. If and when their numbers grow and they start behaving like American Christians here, my view of them will surely change.
Actually I did read it but dont have the time to do research and show some opposing evidence. However I think the posts on this thread show the walk away movement is real and the democrats strategy that if they can only convince all minorities that they are oppressed and that dems will save them is not working anymore. It sort of reminds me of school desegregation when people told black families their kid cannot hope to learn in school unless they are sitting next to a white kid.
Dude. Have you been to a colonia? You cannot imagine the kind of grinding poverty many of these people live under. How are they going to teach their children English, at the shitty schools they can’t send their kids to because they need them to work or via television powered by the electricity that they’re not hooked up to?
Nothing you’ve posted here is factual. It is trivial to look up the definition of identity politics on Google:
a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Furthermore, what you have stated does not in any way, shape, or form resemble any position put forth by a Democrat. Thus it is a strawman.
The only way this post can describe anything then is if it is what you believe the opinion is of those who switched from voting Clinton to Trump. But then it doesn’t explain anything, as it doesn’t explain why anyone would believe this counterfactual. Anyone can come up with stupid things that said voters may believe.
(I will note that it also doesn’t explain why someone might believe that Republicans blame anyone but themselves for their problems. However, at least that has been established on this board many times. Still, it would be good for you to establish this belief as well.)
But why would they? Nothing you said hurts anyone. At most it’s some inconvenience. Inconvenience is the entire point of any protest. If it was just getting the message out, you’d just stay home and send a bunch of letters or post on TV. It’s why, say, abortion protesters do everything they can to stand in the way of anyone getting an abortion.
It’s at least understandable that someone might think rioting is bad as it causes harm. Destruction of property may not be death, but it at least can cause very significant harm to people. But just having to drive a little further? Or hold up your hand for a second, when everyone knows you might not mean it?
If someone thinks that is more important than stopping police from abusing people’s rights, having poor training, and killing unarmed people of color, then I would argue said people are essentially unreachable–at least, until some cop harms them or someone they care about.
I’ll disavow rioters. At most I’ll say forcing people to hold their hands up is stupid and won’t convince anyone. But the rest? I do not care.
Again, the way to stop protests of something that has a legitimate issue is to resolve that issue. Not to vote for the guy who couldn’t stop the protests in the first place.
And now we know the anti-abortion crowd will support blatant racism to get their way. Not to mention the most sinful man to occupy the Oval Office in recent times.
Peaceful demonstrations? Nope. Most of those things are only annoying, and you know what? With 70 Million trump voters, more people need to get annoyed.
But Joe loudly and forcefully condemned any violence. While trump gave the Proud Boys a thumbs up. See the big difference?
Speaking of English, it’s rein.
Either could fit, if you have liberal presidents reigning. 
You’re seriously quibbling over definitions? I’m describing what (I think) people believe, it doesn’t matter whether you call it identity politics or something else.
It’s pretty easy to get this idea. Worried about riots? You’re unreasonable. Worried about immigration? You’re racist. Worried about your job? You’re just looking for the easy way out and refusing to make the difficult choice. Black people are poor and suffering police violence? This is somehow the fault of every white person because White Supremacy, and we need to tear down national heroes and have everyone confess their privileges. Instead of being a beacon of enlightenment, America is now an indelibly flawed country. Even the idea of meritocracy is somehow racist. Does no one else see how off-putting these ideas are for the average (and particularly average white) American?
Are you asking me to prove something that you already believe is true and no one is disputing? Waste of time.
Perhaps you can’t persuade them to agree with you on this one issue. Fine. But could they still be persuaded to vote Democrat? That’s the important question.
There’s something else I’ve been thinking about. In a previous job I had a colleague who used to say the next fascists would come from the left. I thought this was silly because there are still plenty of old style fascists around on the right. But seeing what’s been happening the last few years, and especially looking at the attitudes of many young people, I’m no longer so sure. I think this view that the left (or an influential segment of it) is fascist is pretty common, and voters aren’t going to be nearly as concerned at Trump’s fascistic tendencies if they think the other side is the real threat.
Thanks for the explanation. I wonder how that interacts with the widespread gerrymandering. In those areas there would be no need to worry that your preferred candidate is too extreme to be electable, so does that lead to a greater number of radical politicians getting elected?
It sounds like you disagree with @k9bfriender. Current workers are going to lose their jobs (maybe no matter who runs the country). I can’t help thinking of the many, many people who are fully convinced of the reality of global warming, but still refuse to make relatively minor changes to our lives like stopping flying (I am one of them). And yet we expect these people to vote to upend their whole lives and communities? That’s a hell of a hard sell.
New voters is a reasonable hypothesis when most people are so entrenched in supporting their tribe. We’re not going to get any of those people in this forum, though.
Even most of the conservative posters here are probably far from average. Not sure where you’d look, but you’re quite right that speculating and arguing with yourself isn’t productive.
And you were also championing people’s right to react to other people’s speech. By, perhaps, not voting for the party AOC and co are trying to influence.
This is an odd thing to say. You’d be more likely to take it seriously if eg iiandyiiii disagreed with you on something and look into it, than if your brother did, right? That’s not Andy trying to con you.
Probably true, but he’s exposing himself to liberal ideas and arguments anyway.
I’m wondering… @urbanredneck2, have you learned anything here that changed your mind or at least made you understand the other ‘side’ better? Do your real life friends wonder how anyone could possibly vote for Biden?
Well, this is the thread in which I’d like to have an informed conversation about issues that divide us. To do so, I’d like to encourage you to be better informed on the opinion you’re putting forward than to simply reject it out of hand while insisting it is nevertheless true. So let’s do that, if you don’t mind.
I have put forward why I think some minorities chose to cast their vote for Trump in this election. These results are based on very preliminary data so I’m not sure we know how much of this is actually true, but I’m prepared to grant it for the sake of argument; that minority votes are not monolithic and there is no reason to think all minorities views align with the progressive values. But if we go further and admit that a ‘walk away’ movement is a thing, would you admit that it’s a two way street when we look at a 5% decrease in white male votes among the Trump voters? Certainly white women voters have also moved away from Trump. Is it reasonable then to think that to the extent that there is any ‘walk away’ movement, it is people whose priorities and minds are changed for reasons that are not always transparent and we can’t draw well informed conclusions without more data.
What should democrats say about legal peaceful protests? What did Democratic Party leadership say about violent protesters? What did republicans say about armed Michigan protests in the State Legislature? What did GOP leadership say about plots to kidnap a Democratic governor?
I wonder how much of the culture wars are influenced by what people see in television programs that are largely in no way political. As an example, what you see in a lot of popular sitcoms are people living and working in major cities or suburbs. This is true whether it’s sitcoms like Seinfeld and 2-and-half men, or TV dramas. There are values that are being expressed through those shows, which depict the life experiences of people living in cities, and often mock people who don’t. I suspect that’s one reason why Trump supporters flock to shows like Duck Dynasty and Ice Road Truckers. It shows a different “reality.”
As I said on another thread, I get the sense that a lot of Trump supporters feel alienated by much of what qualifies as ‘mainstream’ television, and not just in the news media. It’s their reaction to movies, television, and other aspects of popular culture. Musicians have long been a focus of right wing resentment, and hell, they even turn on their own, as they did when the Dixie Chicks criticized George W Bush in 2003. I guess I get the sense that, more and more, Trump supporters, many of whom are white and rural, feel that their story is increasingly not being told by (largely urban) media institutions, which is partly what fuels their hatred of the news media.
But then you get into the political realm, and that’s where distrust and feeling indignant over the lack of respect can turn into outright hostility. It’s just my own experience and interaction with Trump supporters - as someone who grew up in the heart of Trump Land - but a lot of people who identify with Trump work hard. Many of them built their own small businesses. They drive pickup trucks. A lot of them might laugh at off-color jokes but don’t strike me as people with a burning hatred of minorities, but they feel like the Democrats, along with media and other cultural institutions, bend over backwards to give breaks to minorities that they wouldn’t give to whites like them.
I’m not saying they’re right and I obviously have many disagreements with people in Trump world, but in a way, I concede, I can kinda ‘get it.’ If you work hard to work around business regulations to build a small business, pay your taxes, pay your business license and permit fees, if you act responsibly, you resent people who don’t act responsibly and then ask for assistance that you, in part, pay for. And honestly, Democrats would do a little better if they’d just acknowledge some of that publicly. That sentiment is amplified when it comes to illegal immigration, and it’s amplified times ten if you’re living in an area that was once white and largely English speaking a generation ago and is now brown and largely Spanish speaking now. Democrats and progressives have to acknowledge that there’s some legitimacy to the fears and concerns - in some cases. That is the only way that their case for tolerance is going to be heard, and ultimately accepted.
All of that said, yes, Trump is a shithead and a lot of his supporters are unapologetic assholes, too. We have to accept that in a democracy, there are irredeemables.