Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
"Scientific research" is what you said Obama disregarded. Show your work! Arguments often depend on evidence.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Barack Obama Speaks at The University of Chicago (Livestream)
- Thread starter Oersted
- Start date
- Status
The real problem here is that the majority of voters are such idiots that this scenario is feasible.
Platinumstorm
Member
Lately what has been tossed around political analyses on answers given. Some are good, and some are not good. It would be wrong to call them scientific studies, and you especially can't do it given most of the recent analyses based on the ANES data aren't necessarily using the same criteria for the questions being analyzed. You end up with some information being "all voters" and others being "white voters views on black "X"", and then some analyses have seemingly discarded sentiments towards racial groups other than black folks. Basically, since each data group can be skewed skewed slightly differently, you draw conclusions that are valuable, but should not be considered scientific.
I thought this analysis was good.
http://www.demos.org/blog/4/13/17/how-racism-helped-trump-halts-progressive-policy
I kind of analyzed the analysis myself, and I found what I think is an interesting flaw in his conclusion vs final graph and sentiment of the treatment of black citizens by the US government graph.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=234256807&postcount=426
-------------
It's kind of interesting to hear the leaders of the Democrat party talk about listening to people who might not support them, not being quick to judge others as being racist or without care, and to respect others, but some of us are very vocal about "screw them, f* them, they don't matter, they get what is coming to them".
Secondly I didn't hear a defense of racism or of racists, and I watched the entire program live. I went back and scanned through a second time thinking I missed something based on posts in this thread, and all I heard again was the questioning section where he said what I paraphrased just above this. Point it out to me if I missed it please so I can watch it again.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
In addition to all the rest, great post here, thanks!
What do you propose, then? Purity tests like this will ensure that the Democrats never win another election ever again.
Calling someone a racist, even if it is true, will turn them off from voting for you forever.
Social sciences aren't science. More importantly those results require more qualification than you're giving them.
The vast majority of people being dumb is the core issue democracy has to work around.
I'm not going to delve into the actual contest of this post, but I think it's interesting that you say voting is the greatest freedom one has and then that one is required to vote a certain way.
theclosetfan
Member
My father, who I love dearly despite it all, is a living stereotype of the Fox News-watching Trump zealot who believes absolutely crazy things when it comes to politics.
He watched this today on CNN, after years of hating Obama and ranting about golf trips and Benghazi, and called me to let me know "it was great" and he was "incredibly impressed with what Obama said and how he interacted with those kids."
I'm not sure if it's the fact that Obama is now free of partisan politics and people like my dad can finally hear him clearly and take what he says at face value... or the message he was spreading of "you have to talk to and listen to your fellow citizens" led him to believe Obama was giving Trump some sort of endorsement.
In any sense, I didn't dig too deeply out of fear of destabilizing whatever thought process he was having and I left the conversation feeling sort of bewildered.
He watched this today on CNN, after years of hating Obama and ranting about golf trips and Benghazi, and called me to let me know "it was great" and he was "incredibly impressed with what Obama said and how he interacted with those kids."
I'm not sure if it's the fact that Obama is now free of partisan politics and people like my dad can finally hear him clearly and take what he says at face value... or the message he was spreading of "you have to talk to and listen to your fellow citizens" led him to believe Obama was giving Trump some sort of endorsement.
In any sense, I didn't dig too deeply out of fear of destabilizing whatever thought process he was having and I left the conversation feeling sort of bewildered.
RPGCrazied
Member
Did he slay Trump? I know he won't, but Jesus man, he is walking all over you. Your legacy, your character, just lashing out. How can one sit there and take it. Defend yourself.
No. Thankfully Obama is smarter than that.
Henry Jones Jr
Member
Obama attacking Trump would be the best thing that could happen to Trump. It would give him another clear enemy (which he loves) and would fire up his base again.
theclosetfan
Member
Yep. See my post above.
"Don't be racist" is a purity test now. Wow, I've heard it all.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
The point is that "don't be racist" isn't a viable legislative, political, or social policy right now. What do you propose to do with stating the obvious?
You're thinking about your principles, but you don't appear to be thinking about how to apply them in reality. How can you expect others to follow your message if you haven't tried to form it?
I mean, would you rather be right, or win elections? You gotta see the forest through the trees. People are surprisingly flexible when arguments are made from a place of respect, whether you agree with that or not. Nobody likes to feel stupid when they realize they're wrong, otherwise they're just as likely to double down into those beliefs even more.
you completely missed his point.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Give less than zero fucks about Trump voters. His margins of victory don't say we need his racists. It says we need turnout and enthusiasm.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Platinumstorm
Member
You're identifying the problem of the DNC between Howard Dean, who did the 50 state strategy, along with President Obama in his election, vs the most recent strategy by the DNC which was to not support state organizations well. Nebraska [a split vote state] saw its offices and employed workers heavily reduced, along with Wisconsin [I believe]. Secretary Clinton also abandoned many states to their own mechanics and just ignored them entirely. I actually think part of that is why the recent poll showed that 15% of Clinton voters would not vote for her again. Not only did she disappoint her voters, she didn't connect with a lot of them by not even visiting many states. Her campaign slogans were also very much about HER rather than more abstract ideas like Presidents Obama and Trump.
If you abandon the smaller states and rural communities for lengthy periods of time, you can't expect to get votes. The next wave of candidates have to have great plans for local and state levels, and there can't really be a drop off in putting Democratic exposure in more conservative states.
cooljeanius
Member
Did anyone get the names of the other panelists? I wanna find out if I know that Republican kid from New Hampshire
Bruce Springsteen
Member
and he likely won't say anything about him in the near future either, if he mentions Trump once he falls for the bait
Jmanunknown
Member
A person may vote for a single issue but no matter which candidate you voted for by casting a vote for that person you are supporting that person's entire platform. We do not get to pick and choose which issues we support in a candidates platform and then say naw I do not like everything else you take the good with the bad and live with the consequences. Complaining that people are being labeled after the fact is bs. Those are some of the consequences of voting you take the good with the bad.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Did you vote for Obama in '08? If so, why were you so against marriage equality? That's absolutely disgusting of you to be so firmly against the rights of the LGBT community. So sad.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Tired of Dems and self-proclaimed liberals being more defensive of Trump voting idiots than the idiots themselves
His 08 platform did include denying LGBT rights, I remember now!
His 08 platform did include denying LGBT rights, I remember now!
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
He said marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. So yeah, kinda.
So using the logic of "if you support one thing the candidate is for and vote for them, you support everything they're for," if you voted for him in '08, you were against marriage equality.
To be fair to Obama, you can see interview questions he answered from the 90s where he supports marriage equality for LGBT. David Axelrod said his campaign convinced him it would be political suicide to be pro-marriage equality in 2008, so after much debate he gave in. He was apparently very frustrated about having to do that.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
You know what, I'm convinced. There is absolutely no difference between the Obama 08 campaign and the trump campaign and anyone who says otherwise is a giant hypocrite.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Absolutely. I don't think for a second he was actually against marriage equality. He was playing the game to get elected.
But in '08, if you were pro-marriage equality, you kinda had to hold your nose and vote for Obama, hoping he was bullshitting about the stuff you didn't like. Isn't it therefore possible that well-meaning Trump supporters held their noses about the stuff they didn't like when they voted for him, because they supported his other stances (such as promising the return of rust belt jobs)?
I get why people want to thrust the title of bigot onto anyone who voted Trump. It's infuriating to think that someone can overlook such glaring racism/sexism in a candidate. And I have zero doubt that many Trump supporters are disgusting bigoted assholes.
I just think it's ludicrous to do this transitive property thing where if bigots support Trump, and Trump is a bigot, all Trump supporters are bigots. That's just nonsense.
I'll just say this: Obviously there's a difference in the rhetoric between Trump in 2016 and Obama in '08. But the fact of the matter is that Obama did speak out against marriage equality as a candidate for the presidency. You can't deny that.
So if all Trump voters have to carry the name "bigot" or "enabler," all '08 Obama supporters (myself included) have to carry them too.
Which is fucking stupid. The world is more nuanced than that. And people, even stupid people who were suckered by Trump, are more nuanced too.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Studies show that racism was the strongest correlating factor, not necessarily that it was what specifically animated them. I'd argue it was more the glue holding that coalition together than the actual force that set it into motion, which, tbh, is a lot more abstract and disparate.
Lil'DigiOp
Member
💯
You have a good post but one thing you're not accounting for is how this isn't just politics. We had a candidate grab into the racial undercurrent of America and broadcasted it live. This isn't politics, this is life. He took real divides and issues and split the earth between them. There are people out there blaming others simply for looking different.
Yes, this is because our shit ass education, our weak government involvement (Which is waned from the jump)
So he uses that to his advantage, spreads deception and lies. The worst part is that the entire executive branch is complete garbage in an already broken system
It's a difference in scale for one. Obama's campaign was not literally defined by being anti-marriage equality. Trump's entire candidacy is bookended with him being racist against Mexicans and immigrants of all stripes, being a grotesque misogynistic, sexual abusing fraud and then being more racist.
Trying to cherry pick "rust belt jobs" from that quagmire is therefore also one of scale: you either ARE a bigot, are OK with bigotry to support your piece of shit selfish ways, or are so dumb you shouldn't be voting.
Plus, in depth study after in depth study shows racism was what motivated Trump voters, not economic anxiety. So you can try to be Abraham trying to locate desperately the few decent Trump voters to save them from the wrath of good people everywhere, or you can accept they're monsters too.
EatinOlives
Member
Yes, because the reason why racists are not voting for us is because we call them racists. If we just don't say that word, they'll be duped for voting for a pro-diversity platform!
Perd Hapley
Member
They aren't comparable. Everyone has to overlook a murky issue here or there when voting for a politician. I don't think anybody denies that. Normally I'd love to agree with you about all of this.
But, with Trump, the racism is like, the entire platform. It's inextricably tied to every facet of his proposed policy. To overlook something so pervasive and all-encompassing is a different thing entirely.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Sorry if you have friends or family who voted for Trump and your feelings are hurt when they're called out, but how about helping them see reality more clearly and becoming better voters instead of rationalizing their terrible decision
DontBeThatGuy
Member
If they're true believers, they're beyond help.
I simply cut them off. This election was a defining point.
Secret Fawful
Member
If "don't be a racist" isn't a viable legislative, political, or social policy, then what's the point? When will it be viable? Let's just take this to its logical conclusion. We'll have "order" but supremacy gets to win and live another day. The "great" compromise.
El_Tiguere
Member
I blame a third phenomenon dividing the middle income and poor workers in this country into race/gender/culture wars... concerted propaganda in the media, targeted at those it can dupe into fearing the foreign brown man, and those it can dupe into actively hating an entire segment of the US population as deplorable and irredeemable racists. Can you imagine if the media, instead, showed interview after interview of the struggles of a poor white American, and the poor black American side by side? I think people in GAF would be astonished to see that their lives,hopes, and dreams are not all that different between them.
We can tap into those hopes and dreams if we understand what would motivate them to want to work together as a country towards a common goal (like eradicating the historically extreme level of corruption and favoritism towards the rich that is plaguing governments across the entire world to the detriment of everyone else and the planet).
You don't use political campaigns and elections to change the culture of a country. That's what your day-to-day life is for. You use political campaigns to ensure that you have enough butts in congress that won't enact racist/bigoted/regressive legislation for the next four years. That involves telling people in our 434 house districts that our guy is better than the Republican. Objectively, you need the majority of the people in at least 221 of those districts to put their trust and future in the hands of your guy, versus the Republican. Too bad for GAF, but some of those districts are STILL in ass-backwards disconnected parts of our country who have been getting crushed by our globalized/financialized economy for more than 40 years. The status quo has failed them, and now Fox News/Rush Limbaugh told them over and over that "the brown men are taking over their jobs and country - because of those globalist liberals!?!". If GAF is the Democrat running in that district and the message is "those other Americans are too dumb, ignorant, and are racist! - can we please get more non-racists to please support us? weren't the last 8 years so great?!? ... anyone?"
What if GAF instead said "shit has been unfair for you, the wealthy at the top have gotten most of the favors from government in the last 40 years, the anxiety about the future you feel every day when literally half of you are living paycheck to paycheck doesn't have to be so. We can take the trillions of dollars corporations are suctioning away from our government each year (because our government is corrupt as shit under either party), and provide a basic equal footing for all (without the crushing stress about health care affordability when the eventual medical emergency happens, without the soul-crushing insecurity as a worker, without the despair of thousands of dollars of debt based on future income that will no longer materialize, etc.). That message will resonate across all races, geographies, genders, etc.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I think you have to ask yourself that... what's the point in our principles if they don't result in change? The existential question of hippies for decades.
It'll be viable when we make it viable, like any issue that voters have to weigh in on. It's not written in stone that people will, to a person, vote the same on issues their whole life. Look at any issue's support over the years, we'll trend from barely having any support to gaining majority support on an issue within a decade if arguments are convincing enough.
It's not like I don't fully agree that anti-racism should just speak for itself (just look at my post history for the last five years), it's that no one is showing any benefit to just calling people racists. Even Obama would finally start saying what we're all thinking if it resulted in actionable legislation and change. That's just politics.
- Status