• 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.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT7| Notorious R.B.G. Plans NZ Tour

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KingK

Member
Vahagn said:
Britain and America have a 5% unemployment rate and we're blaming the rising fascism in both countries on neo-liberalism and a "failed economy"?

what utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think Brexit (and obviously Trump) definitely had more to do with racism/xenophobia than anything else, but we really shouldn't dismiss complaints about the economy just because of the unemployment rate. Being employed doesn't automatically mean everything is fine and dandy. A lot of those people are severely underemployed and/or underpaid. Income inequality is worse than it's been since the 20s.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
See, I don't have a problem with the basic premise of Bernie's op-ed. Globalization has disproportionately benefitted the upper classes in the US and Europe at the expense of the working class, and the Brexit vote is, in part, due to misdirected anger there. And there is a danger to Democrats if we don't recognize this.

But his proposed solutions are not going to work. Those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, so fundamentally he's making promises he can't keep. We as a society need to figure out a way to deal with globalization and make its benefits more equitable, not try and find a way to turn back the clock to an economy that is never going to exist again (and which is largely being romanticized in any event).

But I suppose it's easier to just say "Hillary-GAF thinks Bernie is racist."
 
B

Brinbe

Member
lol... Didn't Trump say he wanted to contest and win Jersey? Good luck with that!
http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/160629/

Hillary Clinton retains her lead in the 2016 presidential race among Garden State registered voters, but the inclusion of Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson hurts Clinton more than Trump. The most recent statewide survey of registered voters from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds Hillary Clinton with a 21 point advantage over Donald Trump (52 to 31). That lead drops by 12 percentage points when Johnson is added to the mix of candidates. Under this scenario, Clinton still dominates with 44 percent while Trump garners the support of 32 percent of registered voters. Gary Johnson attracts the support of nine percent.
Click to expand...
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Even Q has Clinton with an 8 point lead in florida. Trump has no realistic path without florida and it seems like something drastic will have to happen for him to come back there
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Vahagn said:
Britain and America have a 5% unemployment rate and we're blaming the rising fascism in both countries on neo-liberalism and a "failed economy"?

what utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

Rupert Murdoch Is the root of all this shit in both countries, the man is a cancer.
 
B

Brinbe

Member
Also, this note from NBC makes sense. And further cause for hope in Nov.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-trump-vs-big-business-n600961
Mind the education gap
As Trump yesterday gave his anti-trade speech outside of Pittsburgh and then later appeared in southeastern Ohio, it's worth pointing out the SIGNIFICANT education gap in the latest NBC/WSJ poll. Trump leads Clinton by 23 points, 54%-31%. among whites without a college degree. But among whites with college degrees or more, Clinton has a one-point advantage, 44%-43%. Why is this a big deal? As Ron Brownstein wrote last month, "In the history of modern polling dating back to 1952, no Democratic presidential candidate has ever carried most college-educated whites; even Lyndon Johnson fell slightly short during his 1964 landslide… From 1952 through 1980, in fact, no Democratic nominee reached even 40 percent with college-educated whites, except Johnson."
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


He's got that old, dumb, white, racist, male demographic sown up!
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
Emarv said:
Yooooo

Battleground bloodbath: Clinton leads Trump in 7 swing states

http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing...2016/06/clinton-trump-swing-state-poll-224923
Click to expand...

Those numbers do look nice, however they do seem to be showing bigger leads than other polls of those states, and they were in the field an awfully long time. As usual, throw it on the pile and look at the aggregates.

Diablos said:
b-b-but PA is gonna flip

Why are so many poligaffers thinking that Pennsylvania is actually going to flip or be a close race

I do worry generally speaking that because Clinton is also a rather polarizing figure, that voters might just get turned off and vote Johnson or Stein, enough to have an impact on the electoral map if enough people would be inclined to vote that way
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I don't expect PA to flip. However, in the event that the election ends up being close (which is when individual state results matter most) I would expect PA to be close as well.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
KingK said:
I think Brexit (and obviously Trump) definitely had more to do with racism/xenophobia than anything else, but we really shouldn't dismiss complaints about the economy just because of the unemployment rate. Being employed doesn't automatically mean everything is fine and dandy. A lot of those people are severely underemployed and/or underpaid. Income inequality is worse than it's been since the 20s.
Click to expand...


The economy could be better, sure. But blaming the economy as the reason is silly. Blaming neo-liberalism is even stupider.

The people behind Trump and Brexit aren't trying to punish the rich, they're not trying to install socialism. They're trying to punish the educated and the immigrants.


This is a perfect example of seeing the world through a single lens even if it doesn't fit. It's Bernie proving he's a single issue candidate.

It's one thing to suggest that super poor people resort to crimes because of economic issues. It's another to suggest upper middle class folks do. Britain and America's economies are far closer to the latter.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Box of Kittens said:
See, I don't have a problem with the basic premise of Bernie's op-ed. Globalization has disproportionately benefitted the upper classes in the US and Europe at the expense of the working class, and the Brexit vote is, in part, due to misdirected anger there. And there is a danger to Democrats if we don't recognize this.

But his proposed solutions are not going to work. Those manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, so fundamentally he's making promises he can't keep. We as a society need to figure out a way to deal with globalization and make its benefits more equitable, not try and find a way to turn back the clock to an economy that is never going to exist again (and which is largely being romanticized in any event).

But I suppose it's easier to just say "Hillary-GAF thinks Bernie is racist."
Click to expand...

Agree.

Also - interesting article on Slate talking to David Frum (senior editor of the Atlantic, noted conservative) about Brexit / Trump / GOP future

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._the_republican_party_can_go_after_trump.html
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
Vahagn said:
Britain and America have a 5% unemployment rate and we're blaming the rising fascism in both countries on neo-liberalism and a "failed economy"?

what utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

No one votes based on how "the economy" as a whole is doing. They vote based on how they personally are doing. Unemployment could be 1% and the middle class could be in the best place it's ever been, but if someone's personal purchasing power has declined, they're probably voting for the guy who says he can improve it, even if it costs everybody else. We tend to vote for our selfish interests, not some generic graph showing an uptick in "the economy." And as someone pointed out earlier, virtually all the gains we've seen in the economy since the recession are going to the extremely wealthy, so even if "the economy" as a whole is improving, most people don't actually feel like their personal situation is improving. Blaming that on immigrants and free trade agreements is a red herring, but it would never work if people legitimately felt that they were making gains. Increasing income inequality between the super-wealthy and everyone else might not equate to a "failed economy," but it certainly has a lot of people convinced that the economy isn't working for them, and that's a good source of anger for politicians to exploit.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Vahagn said:
Britain and America have a 5% unemployment rate and we're blaming the rising fascism in both countries on neo-liberalism and a "failed economy"?

what utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the financial insecurity that many people in America have to live with.
A ton of people have practically no savings, the median household saving for retirement is $5000.
Five.
Thousands.
Dollars.

Those people have no idea how they'll ever going to retire and they are well aware they're one bad break from dropping down from their middle class life (or almost middle class or kinda poor but managing) into poverty.
And it sucks.
And it's scary.
And most people don't understand why it wasn't the case for their parents.
And racists and fascists are more than happy to provide simple explanations and easy solutions.
 
K

KingK

Member
Vahagn said:
The economy could be better, sure. But blaming the economy as the reason is silly. Blaming neo-liberalism is even stupider.

The people behind Trump and Brexit aren't trying to punish the rich, they're not trying to install socialism. They're trying to punish the educated and the immigrants.


This is a perfect example of seeing the world through a single lens even if it doesn't fit. It's Bernie proving he's a single issue candidate.

It's one thing to suggest that super poor people resort to crimes because of economic issues. It's another to suggest upper middle class folks do. Britain and America's economies are far closer to the latter.
Click to expand...
There was just a post on this page about the education gap with Trump's supporters that would imply it's not the upper middle class he's drawing his strongest support from.

Race, class, economic inequality, and neoliberalism are all connected. Rarely, if ever, can you point to a problem and only blame one or the other because they're so interwoven. It's been really frustrating this election seeing people from all sides constantly try to make this false dichotomy between racism and economics.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Atomic Playboy said:
No one votes based on how "the economy" as a whole is doing. They vote based on how they personally are doing. Unemployment could be 1% and the middle class could be in the best place it's ever been, but if someone's personal purchasing power has declined, they're probably voting for the guy who says he can improve it, even if it costs everybody else. We tend to vote for our selfish interests, not some generic graph showing an uptick in "the economy." And as someone pointed out earlier, virtually all the gains we've seen in the economy since the recession are going to the extremely wealthy, so even if "the economy" as a whole is improving, most people don't actually feel like their personal situation is improving. Blaming that on immigrants and free trade agreements is a red herring, but it would never work if people legitimately felt that they were making gains. Increasing income inequality between the super-wealthy and everyone else might not equate to a "failed economy," but it certainly has a lot of people convinced that the economy isn't working for them, and that's a good source of anger for politicians to exploit.
Click to expand...

To justify the rise of extremism on the economy, you need an extremely bad economy. To have a solid economy, in fact, one of the few best in the world, and then have extremism, means that the extremism is being fueled over other things.

In fact, what's become clear is, that Brexiters and the Leave campaign pivoted to immigration once it became clear that they were losing the economic argument.

Blaming neo-liberalism for the rise of far right extremism is like conservatives blaming moderate conservatism for the rise of far left socialism. It's the same absurdity. It's no different, at all, then right wing nutjobs claiming that if only the elected conservatives were conservative enough, and we all saw their true glory, we'd never vote liberal.

If only liberals war far left socialists, the far right wouldn't be mobilized because they'd have 10,000 in their savings instead of 5K. That's absurd thinking.


KingK said:
There was just a post on this page about the education gap with Trump's supporters that would imply it's not the upper middle class he's drawing his strongest support from.

Race, class, economic inequality, and neoliberalism are all connected. Rarely, if ever, can you point to a problem and only blame one or the other because they're so interwoven. It's been really frustrating this election seeing people from all sides constantly try to make this false dichotomy between racism and economics.
Click to expand...

Wow. Yea, you're wrong here. I'm going to assume you're a young white male. Because that's the same argument that lost Bernie the vote and that Bernie Bros couldn't grasp.

Chichikov said:
I think you underestimate the financial insecurity that many people in America have to live with.
A ton of people have practically no savings, the median household saving for retirement is $5000.
Five.
Thousands.
Dollars.

Those people have no idea how they'll ever going to retire and they are well aware they're one bad break from dropping down from their middle-class life (or almost middle class or kinda poor but managing) into poverty.
And it sucks.
And it's scary.
And most people don't understand why it wasn't the case for their parents.
And racists and fascists are more than happy to provide simple explanations and easy solutions.
Click to expand...

So not the point. You can give people an extra 10K. You can give them 1950's level prosperity. They're not going to stop being racist. And a far right wing out of power isn't going to stop appealing to people's intolerant and nativist sensibilities to get back into power.

The far right peddles the same thing in every country they're in. Nativism, religious intolerance, and a rejection of multi-culturalism and anti-zionist conspiracy theories as a means to reject globalization. The biggest thing that eliminates racism and bigotry is education, it's not wealth or financial security.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
In order to make the argument that democrats need to wake up, would mean that you believe that democratic politicians are blind to the negative effects that globalization has had. If anything democrats have been too scared for a long time to admit to people that their manufacturing job that gave them a middle class lifestyle with a decent retirement is never coming back.

I don't think democrats have anything existentially to be worried about when racism and xenophobia as tools work far less effectively when you have such a mixed population.

Also do people have become more racist or more susceptible to racism over the last 30 years?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
That Quinnipiac poll is junk. No wonder they show Hispanics so close considering how badly they've blown it in Colorado and Nevada in the past.

I think their final CO poll in 2014 was pretty accurate after producing howlers like Hickenlooper losing by 10. They're similar to Rasmussen, they put out junk polls to drive narratives and garner attention and then put out an accurate one at the last second so they can claim credibility.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
metalslimer said:
Even Q has Clinton with an 8 point lead in florida. Trump has no realistic path without florida and it seems like something drastic will have to happen for him to come back there
Click to expand...
Amendment 2 (legalizing medical marijuana) is also going to be on the ballot again for this election, which is going to help bring out liberals and younger voters even more.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Vahagn said:
So not the point. You can give people an extra 10K. You can give them 1950's level prosperity. They're not going to stop being racist. And a far right wing out of power isn't going to stop appealing to people's intolerant and nativist sensibilities to get back into power.

The far right peddles the same thing in every country they're in. Nativism, religious intolerance, and a rejection of multi-culturalism and anti-zionist conspiracy theories as a means to reject globalization. The biggest thing that eliminates racism and bigotry is education, it's not wealth or financial security.
Click to expand...
It's very hard to get someone to abandoned their racists opinions, not impossible, but hard, and it's true that handing them money is not going to do that.
But again, we know from history and we know from some (admittedly, limited) studies that people who are poor and concern about their economic future are more receptive to the bullshit that the far right peddles.
It doesn't mean that if you end poverty you'll kill racism and it doesn't mean that every person who is under economic duress is going to become racist, but it does mean that giving people economic stability and security can help in the long term dry up a lot of the racist right wing potential base.
It's not going to be quick and easy, but it's the right thing to do (and it would've been the right thing to do even if it didn't have that effect).
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
We have a weekly, fairly liberal paper where I live that has a section for rant and rave. Basically, a bunch of people call or email and they print some of them. Normally, it's a lot of racist and sexist bullshit. Including people supporting Trump, insulting Hillary, Obama, etc.

One said that he looks forward to the Republicans losin because they aren't supporting trump. Gigglesnort
 
P

pigeon

Banned
metalslimer said:
In order to make the argument that democrats need to wake up, would mean that you believe that democratic politicians are blind to the negative effects that globalization has had. If anything democrats have been too scared for a long time to admit to people that their manufacturing job that gave them a middle class lifestyle with a decent retirement is never coming back.
Click to expand...

It doesn't require assuming Democrats are blind, just that they haven't succeeded in responding.

I think a big part of the problem here is that the globalization push happened in or at the end of the Reagan/Thatcher revolution, which was really targeted at delegitimizing social support programs.

1. Slash welfare programs
2. Create free trade agreements that help nationally but depress specific people and communities
3. Those people attempt to use welfare programs to cushion themselves
4. ???
5. Brexit

The solution is equally straightforward, I think.

metalslimer said:
I don't think democrats have anything existentially to be worried about when racism and xenophobia as tools work far less effectively when you have such a mixed population.

Also do people have become more racist or more susceptible to racism over the last 30 years?
Click to expand...

I think that the US is relatively well-cushioned against racism as a tool for dominating the population only because we're inoculated from the last two hundred years of existence. Like we're clearly going to have a bunch of crazy racists but I think Trump has already demonstrated the limits of the "let's just be racist" strategy. You get 30% of America and then you're done.

However, just as a better socialist candidate could probably have won the Democratic nomination, a better protectionist candidate could probably be the next GOP president if we don't watch out. This is a really weird year because of the generally poor campaign quality of literally everybody running for the presidency.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Chichikov said:
It's very hard to get someone to abandoned their racists opinions, not impossible, but hard, and it's true that handing them money is not going to do that.
But again, we know from history and we know from some (admittedly, limited) studies that people who are poor and concern about their economic future are more receptive to the bullshit that the far right peddles.
It doesn't mean that if you end poverty you'll kill racism and it doesn't mean that every person who is under economic duress is going to become racist, but it does mean that giving people economic stability and security can help in the long term dry up a lot of the racist right wing potential base.
It's not going to be quick and easy, but it's the right thing to do (and it would've been the right thing to do even if it didn't have that effect).
Click to expand...

This is what confuses me though. Which liberals are arguing against trying to reverse economic inequality? It seems like we all generally agree on that point.


1. Slash welfare programs
2. Create free trade agreements that help nationally but depress specific people and communities
3. Those people attempt to use welfare programs to cushion themselves
4. ???
5. Brexit

The solution is equally straightforward, I think.
Click to expand...

But that solution is going to get massive pushback because any attempts to help is seen as primarily going towards minorities.
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
Vahagn said:
The far right peddles the same thing in every country they're in. Nativism, religious intolerance, and a rejection of multi-culturalism and anti-zionist conspiracy theories as a means to reject globalization. The biggest thing that eliminates racism and bigotry is education, it's not wealth or financial security.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. I'd go a step further; the biggest thing that eliminates bigotry is spending some time interacting with members of the group you're bigoted against. Reading about the plight of poor black people isn't going to have much of a connection with a racist; spending time among them and realizing that they're people just like everyone else is much more convincing. Dick Cheney is a gung-ho conservative about everything until it comes to gay rights, because having a lesbian daughter will help someone realize "shit, I guess the gays actually aren't completely different than me." It's like learning a language; immersion is the best form of education. Doesn't always work; some people are stubborn and stupid. But more often than not, bigotry crumbles when the target is seen as a person.
 
B

Boombloxer

Member
royalan said:
Yep.

What more could he possibly want? They've already bent over backwards for him. You don't get the ENTIRE platform when you've lost.

His reasoning for staying in no longer makes sense. Anything to keep from admitting you lost, I guess.
Click to expand...

There's a great West Wing quote in Season 7, where they're about to call the election, and Santos and Josh are talking about if he should contest the results. Josh tells him doing that is "the same as the guy that berates the ump because he doesn't like the call at the plate--no one votes for that guy again".

Sounding like this.
 
K

KingK

Member
Vahagn said:
Wow. Yea, you're wrong here. I'm going to assume you're a young white male. Because that's the same argument that lost Bernie the vote and that Bernie Bros couldn't grasp.
Click to expand...

That's cool. Apparently I'm wrong for saying that most issues have a complex mix of causes and that reductionist arguments pointing at one single reason or another often miss pieces of the whole picture. My first post today even said that racism/xenophobia is obviously the primary source of the Trump/Brexit movements but I guess even the slightest suggestion of nuance makes me an ignorant young white male Bernie bro. Ok.

Bernie's problem was implying that racism is just a symptom of economic hardship, which isn't true. That doesn't mean that the two issues are never related.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Modern Socialists remind me of New Atheists.

People that apply their philosophy and one idea to literally every problem in the world. FFS, Piketty's last paper was "how inequality is the cause of ISIS."

I'm an anti-domestic violence voter, but I'm not going to explain Brexit with domestic violence. Socialists and New Atheists should show some restrain as well...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Kemal86 said:
I'm not sure what ends up turning to reach 350, unless Arizona really does turn. Giving Hillary all of the current swing states tops out her count at 347.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd love to see his map. To go beyond 347, Hillary would have to pretty much make the next tier of swing states reachable.

NeoXChaos said:
They polled Kasich and Ryan too.

600px-BP_Poll_-_Survey_Results_%28percent_support%29_Chart.png


https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia's_battleground_poll,_2016
Click to expand...
Damn, I just felt a bullet graze my ear. This year could've been disastrous.
(Although her Florida numbers are looking impressively stubborn..)
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Kemal86 said:
I'm not sure what ends up turning to reach 350, unless Arizona really does turn. Giving Hillary all of the current swing states tops out her count at 347.
Click to expand...
Georgia could be on the table too.

I think what we're going to see is that certain swing states (VA, FL, PA) will be very much out of reach for Trump at that point, allowing Clinton to focus on flipping some Romney states. I think Iowa and Ohio will be closer than usual, but still in her camp. NV and CO won't even be on the table.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
106
9K
Mr Hyde replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
52K
Topher replied
Xbox 360 'First Party' dev/pub output DID NOT drop in 2nd half after Kinect, but barely changed. People are likely mixing up TP exclusives with FP.
2 3
148
8K
feynoob replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom