So, he said that xenophobes can be appeased by capitulating to them? Please quote him on that, I must have missed it.
Well, you have said that we should give them what they want, and you have placed no limit on what we should give them, so unless you want to specifically state what it would be that would be too much of an ask for you to give up to appease them, you are saying exactly that.
Where would you draw the line? Be specific.
The Democrats will never again be the party of Racism.
You really seem to be intent on having some argument you’ve already practiced up on rather than the one we’re having. I said pretty explicitly that making a skills based immigration policy part of the party platform would appeal to “weaker” xenophobes and is well within Western norms. Why do you need to know “how far I would go” to argue that policy decision?
They just did, the Dems won the House handily. In order to win the Senate the GOP had to spend big bucks and cheat like a muthafucker.
The GOp cheated like mad in that race. If someone voted the straight Democratic ticket, the machine changed your vote from Beto to Cruz. I have no doubt that Beto would have won without cheating.
So? What’s wrong with that?
Good cites.
And American born white people do not want those jobs.
No. Simply no. Not at all what I said. Not even close.
Soooo.
Trying to appease xenophobes won’t satisfy those whose prime issue is irrational fear of those who come from other places. That’s not true Scotsman, it’s a tautology.
And it won’t address the actual root issues and problems of non-college educated whites that lead many to fall for the finger pointing at immigrants (and others) in the absence of any appealing alternative.
To my read the expressed anti-immigrant sentiment is for most a symptom but not the disease. Being left behind, others passing them up on the socioeconomic ladder, being on the losing side of increasing wealth inequality even (and possibly even especially) in a strong economy, and feeling that their lives and their problems do not matter to the rest of the country are the actual issues. Anti-immigrant rhetoric and such is just a way to distract while those behind the curtain get even wealthier and more powerful.
You seem intent on continuing to uncharitably assert motivations to your debate opponents, rather than have an actual debate. I have not practiced an argument or rehearsed anything. I am only responding to the words that you write. (I will note that you do not do the same courtesy, snipping and ignoring the parts of my posts that you find you have no answer for.)
Yes, you said that we should do skills based immigration. Okay, we already do that. Now what? It hasn’t appeased the xenophobes. (And it is destroying industries that rely upon lower skilled migrant workers.)
You want to limit family reunification? Okay, I don’t know what good that does to deny american citizens the ability to sponsor their parents to come to the US, but lets say we put that out there. Do they do that in Canada? No, in fact, in the US, it is limited to immediate family, and in canada, you also get grandparents, grandchildren, nieces and nephews. What you are asking for here is not something that is well within Western norms.
So, since you have already put out ideas that are not within western norms, that further restrict an immigration policy that is already stricter than the one that you are comparing it to, it is on you to say how far you would go. Is that it? Is that as much as you would do? What we already do in restricting non-family reunification immigration to almost entirely skills based, and even adding in your stipulation that citizens may no longer sponsor their parents isn’t going to be enough, I do not think.
If it is not enough, will you then agree that appeasement isn’t going to work, or will you decide that there are a few other things that you are willing to allow others to sacrifice to try to appease the xenophobes?
Oh give me a break. It’s exactly what you said. “True” xenophobes can’t be appeased, because it’s give them an inch they’ll take it a mile.
Oh, and now you deign to define a “true” xenophobe:
No it’s not a tautology. Are you saying the guy who likes his Pakistani pharmacist but wouldn’t like him marrying his sister isn’t a “true” xenophobe? That a guy who thinks Clarence Thomas is “one of the good ones” isn’t a true racist?
We’ve been through this a million times with “homophobe”. No, irrational fear is not the one true meaning of the word. Not in the dictionary and not in real life.
Why would someone hack a voting machine in such a way that the voter can see that their vote has been changed?
Your accusation does not make sense.
Did i say they hacked it? No, it possible was a glitch. Or if not a glitch then a very clever hack.
But here’s the point- the Republican officials have known about this “glitch”, one immensely and significantly in their favor, for years- and done nothing to fix it.
This “glitch” cause Cruz to win. No doubt.
Yup k9bfriender. Not worth any further engagement with that particular poster.
As to the actual op -
The Democratic party needs to do better with non-college educated white voters than HRC did, even if it is only as good as Obama did in 2012. Actually, due to changing demographics and the fact that non-college educated voters will be a decreasing share of eligible voters in 2020 than even in 2016, even just keeping the exact performance across the board the same as in 2016 would lead to a Democratic win of “the popular vote by 3 points, and they would take back Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to carry the Electoral College 279-259.” But states being how they are doing that poorly with non-college educated white voters (and no better turnout of other groups) opens up many paths of D popular vote wins with electoral college losses with various minor shifts.
So yes better and more intentional messaging that includes this group* and recognition of and concern for their real problems, without pandering to the fear of the other, to xenophobia, to even implicit racism, without disrespecting the continued unfair playing fields for many other identities, is called for. The Ds don’t need to win them … but they would benefit by losing them a bit less badly.
*Groups really. Rural non-college educated voters and more urban ones are not homogenous entities.
Whatever. Feel free to continue your pious circle jerk.
That’s enough, Carnal K. Any more of that and it’ll go poorly for you.
From an opinion piece in 11/10’s NYT -
Bolding mine.
No American political party is permanently either in the majority or the minority. A number of states, including my own home state of Ohio, are now turning to nonpartisan drawing of Congressional district lines, so gerrymandering should be less and less of an issue. Long-term demographic trends favor Democrats - they have most of the votes from women, Latinos, blacks and youth, and that advantage will likely increase over time. Not to say Dems are on Easy Street, but I’m feeling good about the future.
Not sure the evidence of 2018 supports this. If the voting had gone the same way in a general election the electoral college would NOT have saved the GOP. I’d read 10% was the winning margin in popular vote, but the same goes for a 6% victory. Trump is the biggest “minority president” in modern times, and he won 2% less votes than Hilary.
And while jerrymandering clearly effected the senate result, the main reason it went the way it did is far more democrat incumbents were up for election than republicans, because of how the senate election schedule works. In 2020 the reverse will be true.
Finally the economy is going OK. All other things being equal, you would expect a normal, not led by a racist human dumpster fire, governing party to do fairly well in that situation. There are plenty of signs an economic downturn is due, and an incumbent going into an election with an unpopular president during an economic downturn is NOT going to do well. That is just a fact of life.
Permanent is a strong word. In my op I meant that the democrats will be at a structural disadvantage which will be hard to overcome unless or until demographic trends benefit the democrats in ~15 years.
Democrats win more votes. But due to our democracy rewarding rural voters more than urban voters, and cheating by the gop its going to be hard to win. The democrats need to win by 3-6% just to break even.
I’m feeling good about the future too, but the next decade will be difficult.
However overturning voter suppression and gerrymandering by the courts, ballot initiatives and legislative agendas will help.
I don’t know if DSeid writes some where, but I’d pay to subscribe to any publication he writes for.
Great posts and lots of food for thought, for the posters in this thread (except the ones that suck at reading comprehension).