Lefists like the narrative that America’s success was an accident of history, as opposed to any inherent superiority. That America’s advantage was due to not having had our factories bombed during WWII, but I don’t think that is correct.
According to this site, the United States had significant economic advantages in 1937 before the war even started:
America is as wealthy now as it has ever been. Our debt to GDP ratio was actually higher during WWII. And the unemployment rate is currently around 4%. So why the perception that America is “in decline” or that there’s “not enough to go around”?
David Roberts of Vox puts his finger on the issue: [INDENT][INDENT] It’s striking that conservatives seem to have pivoted entirely to anti-anti-Trump. There’s just no way to coherently defend Trump himself – no discernible principle or policy approach, just a careening wannabe strongman. So they resort to “Trump’s critics are too mean.”
And, US media being the dumpster fire it is, it works. Even as Trump imposes random cruelty & suffering on thousands, US elites are consumed with a discussion of the hurt feelings of wealthy, prominent conservative polemicists with large platforms.
[/INDENT][/INDENT] x.com
Oliver Willis interprets this nonsense as a sign the attacks are working. Furthermore, the central challenge liberals have is to drag potential non-voters to the midterm polling booth. x.com
The US is in long term relative decline, not absolute decline. China and India have faster GDP growth than the US, because adapting technology is easier than inventing it (though they do that too) once you get the economic fundamentals in place.
Relative decline isn’t a bad thing though, insofar as US living standards are concerned. In fact, it’s a good thing. The US gains more from having Samsung compete with Apple in the smartphone market, than they would if Apple was left to its own devices (pun unintentional, or rather not one I can sign off on).
ETA: I’m dubious about American exceptionalism arguments regarding US economic growth, because Europe, Japan and others have tread the same successful path. But I agree that advanced economies do share a certain foundation.
I feel the need to point out that people are no more likely to change their political views based on anything the other party says any more than you could rationalize to a New Yorker that the Red Sox are superior to the Yankees. I only point this out because conservatives seem to get it while liberals don’t. Conservatives don’t care that Trump is a douche for the same reason they don’t care that A-Rod is a douche. Because he hits home runs and pisses off Sox fans.
So long as we don’t get into any major wars (that people actually care about) and the economy stays strong, chances are Trump is going to get reelected.
True. They are also starting from a place of billions of people living in poverty. Economically, it does makes sense to have the rest of the world catch up to the USA, Europe and Japan. There may be some environmental implications, but that is a discussion for another time.
The problem is that the rise of India and China puts some holes in the conservative narrative of the USA as the Greatest Country in the World Ever. They become rivals to be conveniently scapegoated.
Much of this is correct. But the comment about “debt to GDP ratio” is very misleading. World War II was a major event, if you didn’t notice. Factories were pushing out tanks, warplanes and warships instead of automobiles. Sixteen million Americans served in the armed forces. So, yes, the Treasury did issue paper to pay for all this, and patriotic Americans bought the paper. When the War was over, the top marginal tax rate was set at 91% (that’s Ninety-one with an N) to pay for the war.
Contrast that with the present era. You say “America is as wealthy now as it has ever been” and maybe that’s true. But at the height of this prosperity, are we taxing to pay down the debt? No, we are printing paper, not to pay for the hugest war in history, but so the super-rich can enjoy their caviar, while the middle-class goes into debt to trade-in their old iPhones. And still all we hear is whining.
Economically, the U.S. is still powerful. Morally, we’re as bankrupt as Rome was before its fall.
And let’s face facts. Most Trump voters have no real idea where the economy is. At best, they get their information from Fox news. Nowadays they’re more likely to get it from Trump tweets.
So all Fox and company need to do is claim the economy is bad when the Democrats are in power and then turn around and claim it’s good when the Republicans are in power. A lot of people will just believe whatever they’re told and vote accordingly.
To use your analogy, Trump doesn’t have to hit any home runs. He just needs to tell a bunch of people who’ve never seen a baseball game that he’s the greatest player in baseball.
Not proven. I say that if we enter recession, Trump will get the blame as have any other sitting President. If I’m wrong… that’s a new development.
If you are saying that Fox News viewers can’t distinguish between long run growth of 2.3% vs. 2.7%, then I agree with the qualification that New York Times readers won’t flip their vote either on that basis.
Apropos nothing, 538 puts Trump at 42.1%, trending upwards since oh about a month ago. How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight
Ironically, 42% is what Trump claimed the unemployment rate was during his campaign. This was a ridiculous figure; at the time he made the claim the actual unemployment rate was 5.1%. But his followers apparently accepted his claim.
I’m not hoping for a recession, but if it occurs we’ll might obtain some decent data on the extent of epistemic closure among the conservative base, relative to the past.
New developments happen. Support for establishment candidates in the 2016 GOP primary hovered around 20% collectively. That was new. Earlier it was closer to 80%+.
It is not just a matter of mouthing the words. HRC had a history and was not perceived as sincere or as really caring. Hey, I was a strong supporter and I think she in fact actually did, but it did not come through. Her intellect did. Her policy expertise did. But caring, compassion, and emotional connection? When she tried to show that side it came off forced and not real. And of course her using the same exact words that Bill used, or that Obama used, to connect would not have been effective.
I just read that Detroit speech. Sorry I don’t see so much empathy there. I see some pathetic attempts to connect that I am sure fell like lead balloons: “… I’ve always remembered that I’m the daughter of a small-business owner and the granddaughter of a factory worker …” Fail. This? “And how can you not be frustrated, and even angry, when you see nothing getting done? And a lot of people feel no one is on their side and no one has their back. And that is not how it’s supposed to be in America. If I am fortunate enough to be your President, I will have your back every single day that I serve.” Missed the mark by a mile. I highly doubt many heard that and felt that this woman understands what my fears and my dreams are, or inspired to aim for us to be more, together and for each other.
Maybe she could have stuck with a theme not too far off from that sense that no one has your back - We need to have each others’ backs, not fear each other and blame each other. We need to work together so that none of us are left behind. Continue to address historic inequities and help those who being pushed downwards in the rapidly changing economy … President Obama’s leadership has accomplished great things for this economy, for us all, but the recovery is still incomplete. Jobs are coming back but not yet always jobs that pay enough, not everywhere, and many are still insecure, fearful, that they may lose what they have. [insert vignettes of urban and rural, minority and white, real stories here] So on.
My intent though is not to rehash how HRC’s campaign lost but how the next one wins.
It’s easy to see all the flaws and shoulda-beens two years after the fact, but the true test is whether in 2016–prior to knowing the election results–would you be as confident that she wasn’t empathetic enough.
I dunno. I think its self-evident that there was very little she could’ve done to woo those seduced by Trump’s bluster. Whatever shortcomings she had need to be considered against a larger backdrop. Is it fair to ding Clinton for not showing the proper amount of empathy, when Trump didn’t bother faking that himself and in fact,repeatedly touted how rich he was?
Here’s a thought experiment: If Hillary had said everything that Trumps did to working class whites, word for word, do you think she would gotten anywhere close to his results with this demographic? Now consider the effect on the Democratic base. Better or worse?
That’s pretty much what I figured, but I wanted to give people like the OP and Velocity and HurricaneDitka a chance to dig any good for-instances out of the 18 pages of this thread (for those of us who still use the default page size) if there were any there.
At the time my critique of her campaign was pretty much the same. I had, several times, put out there that she should do more outreach and marketing specifically to the white rural demographic and not just cede that to Team Trump. Here’s one of those times.
So not just 20/20 hindsight. In her case she both ceded white rural districts and failed to maximize urban turnout. Probably could have gotten away with one, but not both.
I don’t think Democrats are wrong to support the rights of minorities or the transgendered. Gay marriage is pretty much a mainstream idea now. Democrats can’t go wrong by fighting the good political and legislative fight.
But one of the great mistakes Democrats keep making is in their messaging, or their lack of it to white audiences at times. It’s pretty much agreed that one of the greatest unforced errors Hillary Clinton made in her campaign was taking the rural Midwest for granted. She didn’t even visit certain places, either because she had long ago assumed there was no chance of her winning, or because she assumed there was no way she could lose.
Even if you know you’re not going to win over the white Christian demographic, some white Christians want to be spoken to. A lot of white voters feel like they’ve been ignored. Obviously some hardcore conservatives aren’t going to change anytime soon, but if you want at least some of the more flexible voters to move from R to D in 2020 or 2022, then you have to start at least getting them to listen to you.
No, he’s posited that media critics’ critiques about the way fat is portrayed and which characters are or are not Black, and microaggressive snark from podcasters with a thousand likes is being read as representative of the Democratic party as a whole, more than what leadership and candidates say and do, and must be policed and censored as politically incorrect thought which cannot be expressed by the rest of us.
I agree Hillary Clinton is not good at projecting a warm personality.
But in what universe is Donald Trump good at projecting a warm personality?
Regardless of whether or not you believed her, Clinton was at least saying the words. Trump wasn’t. His campaign wasn’t even pretending it was about caring and compassion. And the emotional connection he was going for was “your enemies are my enemies” and “we share a common hatred”.