Cesare Borgia
Banned
I wonder if the CIA or FBI are doing that with Trump on Russia lol, trying to determine if intel is being shared with the Kremlin.
-
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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
I wonder if the CIA or FBI are doing that with Trump on Russia lol, trying to determine if intel is being shared with the Kremlin.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Oh for sure, I didn't say it would be easy, I just think the current strategy is both bad electoral politics and unhelpful policy. If our gun laws got us kicked out of office but actually made serious long term impact on gun violence in the country, I'd be all for it. I just don't think "No Fly No Buy" or "Gun Show Loophole" or "Assault Weapon Ban" or any other Sensible Common Sense Gun Control will do any of that. They're moderated so the people involved can say "We're not trying to take your guns away, this is just common sense" and then they accomplish nothing and both sides feel righteously angry.
because the administration is so clearly worried about PR disasters
Heh, I remember wanting Obama to wait to run until 2016 and the economy was doing better, and saddle the GOP with the recession through and through. I get the cycle thing, and, yes, had Clinton won in 2016, we probably would have gotten destroyed in 2020.
See; I don't think white identity politics have "taken over" rural areas - I think they did for this election because of the nature of Trump v Clinton, but people forget that Obama could have had 2004 electoral turnout and still easily won election in 2008. These things are super swingy; and 4 years is a long time. Coalitions are generally unique to presidential candidates more than people tend to realize - and I think trying to shift towards suburbs and cities
a) is not feasible because the policies suburbanites will want will be in extreme conflict with what someone who lives in the city would want - Trump being so un-civil forged a stronger alliance between the two groups than normally happens, but that alliance shatters the second a non-Trump candidate shows up. Taxes, public infrastructure, etc.
b) is electorally extremely weak due to the nature of the electoral college and Congress.
Also, that mental health rule was BS - even the ACLU opposed it.
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama
Allowing the GOP to consolidate unchecked outside of major metropolitan areas isn't much of a plan, and only contributes to white identity politics in the long term. You need your Kanders and Buttigiegs because people aren't going to bother with a party (or candidate) that ignored them in the name of political expedience.
shinra-bansho
Member
Yeh, a gay mayor is going to play really well with rural voters.
I guess he can be one of the good ones.
I guess he can be one of the good ones.
I'm not saying ignore them. I'm saying don't rely on them as part of the base coalition. They will betray you. There's a difference.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It is bad electoral politics, but unfortunately there are people in suburban and urban areas who want gun control. And those people - especially the ones in urban areas - are a bigger part of the Democratic base than people in rural areas. This is why it is not as simple. If you drop everything to appeal to the WWC, you risk alienating other parts of the base.
Urban and suburban voters are in extreme conflict, but urban and rural are not? Not sure this makes any sense.
Also, that article calls an assault weapons & high capacity magazine ban "political popular," which it posits as the "substantive gun control measures." It makes some interesting points re: discrimination & access to guns, but it doesn't make that great of a case at all. And certainly doesn't provide actual alternatives.
Buttigieg is going to need rural voters if he's planning to run for governor eventually.
Question 12 in that poll will piss trump off. Also Congressional Dems are not as hated as congressional republicans according to that poll. Also 32 percent of trump voters voted for him last year because they hated hilary according to that poll. Also wow at the results for Question 17.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I think this would be a problem, but not *that* much of one since opposition to LGB is decreasing substantially (lot of work for the T though!). Buttigieg isn't RuPaul. He's not flamboyant, he's a military veteran, he's white ("one of the good ones," as you said). I doubt it would be an issue except for evangelicals who weren't going to vote for him anyway.
But maybe I'm too optimistic.
shinra-bansho
Member
He isn't going to be Governor of Indiana. Lol.
Anyway, I don't really think the idea that coalitions change is that controversial.
Reliably Democratic Appalacia, stopped being reliably Democratic, and no one sees a path to the WH through WV, or to a Senate Majority once Manchin is eventually replaced by an actual Republican.
The problem is building a new coalition, one the Democrats thought they had with Obama's "ascendant" groups. Not ascendant enough.
With (sometimes the same) people saying the big tent needs to be big enough to bring in and placate the further "left" youth, and the probably kinda racist swing and/or rural. That's a tent that's going to collapse anyway, when the only tie that binds is opposition to acronyms.
Anyway, I don't really think the idea that coalitions change is that controversial.
Reliably Democratic Appalacia, stopped being reliably Democratic, and no one sees a path to the WH through WV, or to a Senate Majority once Manchin is eventually replaced by an actual Republican.
The problem is building a new coalition, one the Democrats thought they had with Obama's "ascendant" groups. Not ascendant enough.
With (sometimes the same) people saying the big tent needs to be big enough to bring in and placate the further "left" youth, and the probably kinda racist swing and/or rural. That's a tent that's going to collapse anyway, when the only tie that binds is opposition to acronyms.
When it comes to rural voters at the very least dems need to avoid the phrase "gun control" at all costs. The vast majority of the country supports expanded background checks but that wording is tainted to an insane number of voters. Even "common sense gun control" is too much. Just say "background checks to stop terrorists." It's accurate, not as scary and stopping terrorists is an easy idea to rally behind.
I know a lot of people rural Missouri that only vote R because of guns. It's one of the reasons Kander did so well.
I know a lot of people rural Missouri that only vote R because of guns. It's one of the reasons Kander did so well.
metalslimer
Member
The gun issue is the one issue where I'm comfortable with putting on the backburner for a while at least in terms of campaigning on.
The one issue I have with some people in the far left is whether they understand that the people we need to appeal to in order to win back the house are not going to be particularly liberal. Bernie says we need to learn how to appeal to working class voters again. Well, ok, but these people are not going along with voting for a tax increase in order to expand Medicaid even if they will save more overall.
The one issue I have with some people in the far left is whether they understand that the people we need to appeal to in order to win back the house are not going to be particularly liberal. Bernie says we need to learn how to appeal to working class voters again. Well, ok, but these people are not going along with voting for a tax increase in order to expand Medicaid even if they will save more overall.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
We never actually get effective gun control measures in place anyway. They're either watered down or fail right into PR disaster.
Caught the tail end of a piece on APM's Marketplace talking about the costs to businesses like farms of Trump's immigration crackdown, and there was a lady talking about how her family's struggling to make ends meet. Her husband is undocumented, although in some part of the process of getting a green card. Her 13-year-old daughter is terrified of Trump. This woman says she voted for an independent candidate.
That's a kind of idiocy I just cannot fathom. One of the two major candidates wants to destroy your family and you opt out by voting third party? What the hell. When even people like this don't get it, I lose faith in humanity.
That's a kind of idiocy I just cannot fathom. One of the two major candidates wants to destroy your family and you opt out by voting third party? What the hell. When even people like this don't get it, I lose faith in humanity.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Even that can be problematic given the knack for conspiracy theories in those communities. IE "who gets to define who is a terrorist? What if the government declares regular citizens are terrorists and takes their guns?"
The "majority" support for background checks is largely soft support. The issue doesn't dictate what candidates the average vote does or doesn't support, no matter what dem interest groups tell you. In short democrats are not rewarded for their view, and republicans are not punished for theirs.
Putting it that way, maybe metalslimer is right in thinking gun control should be placed in the backburner for awhile. Not to downplay the issue but there are things like civil liberties to worry about at the moment.
Can't read on my phone. Need an app for that. What is it?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Sure, I didn't say it would be easy! I'm just saying there are more effective options that potentially have a broader electoral appeal. Also maybe those voters should stop doing purity tests
. More seriously though, I think it also plays into the whole "gun rights are prioritized much more by their advocates than gun control by their advocates."Rural and urban areas aren't aligned obviously but Cybit's right to point out the discrepancies between suburban voters who have been the Republican backbone for a long time and what Democrats want. Being a party of social democracy will probably be difficult when you're couring the Ron Johnson vote.
It's a who did you vote for in the last presidential election question.
41% of the people that answered that question said they voted for hilary while 37% said they voted for trump/
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Unless you go hardcore authoritarian, there isn't really a technocratic way to deal with guns. The genie isn't going back in; there are plenty of guns out right now that are easy to access.
But I'm also a rural Southerner, so I don't really have any anxiety around guns. Just as dangerous as a lot of power tools as far as I'm concerned.
But I'm also a rural Southerner, so I don't really have any anxiety around guns. Just as dangerous as a lot of power tools as far as I'm concerned.
shinra-bansho
Member
Gun violence is still pretty important as an issue to black communities.
But whatever. Who else are they gonna vote for.
But whatever. Who else are they gonna vote for.
It's more along the lines of that suburban voters have been reliably Republican for a long time, and Trump is probably not the harbinger of the GOP to come, but probably a bit of an outlier for a GOP candidate. Trying to quickly revamp your coalition around a group of generally staunch Republican voters who happened to vote Democrat because of Trump is the political equivalent of seeing a chart that is trending upward and assuming it will trend upward forever.
Danger lies down that route.
Unless people are willing to go after handguns, gun violence in cities is unrelated to pretty much every major gun control law ever proposed.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
How are we going to deal with this without a massive buyback program? None of the current measures Democrats push will do anything about this. I'd rather just invest in services in their communities to end this.
If I wasn't on mobile I'd link to the Jaymal Green link of him attacking Rahm Emanuel and sayimg "if you want to stop violence, you have to talk about the economics, not police"
Carpe Libertatem
Member
This is basically the point I've been trying to make. Even if gun control proposals don't result in much positive change at all, it's still important to some people - and those people happen to be the backbone of the Democratic Party.
There's again an eagerness to alienate them in order to appeal to the WWC.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's not anxiety, it's about the violence they are used for in cities.
Which is why all the assault rifle ban stuff is annoying. If it were up to me, anyone could have any long gun, and concealable guns would be the ones to outlaw.
You can defend your home or hunt with a long gun, people generally do not need pistols for much of anything.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'd be more than happy to go all up on police misbehavior and social justice in trade for dropping the gun stuff.
I mean, I want gun control, I just think it's a losing position.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I agree with you, but not everyone in the Democratic Party thinks that way. Many of them want gun control and it's not hard to see why.
I don't think anything will change as long as rural, suburban, and urban voters all live in their own bubbles.
I'm for pretty strict gun control - I just get why actual gun owners tend to roll their eyes whenever the Dems propose gun control laws - they're usually purely designed to make people feel better rather than solve gun violence. I'd rather get behind proposals that actually help people.
EDIT: I'll point people towards https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-introduction/ as a good primer to understand the impact of various gun control proposals on gun violence as well as getting a better understanding of the whole picture.
shinra-bansho
Member
Funnily enough, control measures for legally purchased guns aren't actually at the core of urban gun violence issues. Although still important. But advocating that people just stop talking about gun violence seems like it will be super motivating.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
But democrats have focused entirely on guns that have been used in school shootings of (white) kids and adults; the national democrat message on this issue doesn't talk to black people at all. You're never going to hear a major democrat call for handguns to be banned. The vast majority of inner city gun violence is from handguns. Hell, the vast majority of gun violence outside of inner cities is from handguns too.
Going after gun traffickers and straw purchases would help inner cities. Especially Chicago, where most of the guns are pumped in from surrounding states with lax gun laws.
Randolph Freelander
Member
I'll vote for the next person to advocate 2nd amendment repeal + gun confiscation, to be honest. But I concede I'm outside the norm.
shinra-bansho
Member
See post above about how legal gun control isn't really the core. I agree. I don't think the way Dems have been going at gun violence is particularly the best. At least with regard to the issues facing core constituents.
But I'm not reading change approach to gun violence to appease white people. I'm reading stop talking about gun violence because rural people like their killing tools.
But I'm not reading change approach to gun violence to appease white people. I'm reading stop talking about gun violence because rural people like their killing tools.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
But what other coalition is possible? It's not like a socially liberal fiscally conservative democrat is ever going to win over a rural red state.
To me, it seems like the red state strategy of the last 20 years has largely been to build a coalition of people that hate their opponent, being somewhat pro-life, very pro-gun, and generally trying to keep their heads down on all other issues. And that's exactly the type of tent that collapses easily, as you pointed out.
Red state democrats need something possitive to differentiate themselves with that isn't about hating the other side, and something pro-big government/anti-corporation is the only thing that rural voters might connect with left democrats on.
We just need to figure out what big government thing rural voters want, because free college and food stamps don't really cut it. They want good jobs, and democrats need to figure a way to sell the government as the thing that will give it to them.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
The hypocrisy of these assholes....
They spent years bitching about Benghazi and proceed to slash the State Department budget.
They spent years bitching about Benghazi and proceed to slash the State Department budget.
To be honest - I think gun control is an issue the Dems do a poor job of making hay with when it comes to rural areas - especially when it comes to suicide (2/3 of all gun deaths). I kinda think we should probably talk about it more and talk about the impact it has on all areas of the country. I think we do a disservice to everyone by ceding the argument to the NRA because we're either a) frustrated or b) don't understand the topic.
I kinda think if we got our shit together on our approach, we could actually pass useful gun legislation in this country. But it requires us going about it in a different way. AKA being intersectional about gun violence with respect to mental health and providing opportunities inside cities for economic growth.
I kinda think if we got our shit together on our approach, we could actually pass useful gun legislation in this country. But it requires us going about it in a different way. AKA being intersectional about gun violence with respect to mental health and providing opportunities inside cities for economic growth.
Are you surprised? They Republicrisy party.
Perhaps not, but the inference is that LGBT candidates are strictly limited to mayoralties and perhaps a urban district in a blue state. I reject this. After the election of Obama, and now Trump, we should throw realism and electoral truisms out the window.
Unfortunately, since the emerging Democratic coalition has obviously not reached an winnable electoral form yet, the party is forced to choose between electoral blocs which have stabbed the party in the back once or twice... or have never voted for the party in recent memory! Who betrayed who?
The worsening state of education in GOP-led states is going to perpetuate racism and hatred for another generation and we need to find ways to mitigate it as soon as possible. The road to the White House still very much runs through Michigan and Wisconsin. The Democratic party needs to figure out how, say, Gillibrand won rural counties that Clinton lost by double digits.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Absolutely not
Tomorrow in the House floor. The State of the Union.
Here's a preview:
THE WORLD IS TERRIBLE AND A TERIFYNG PLACE! YOU KNOW WHAT'S NOT TERRIBLE? MY EC WIN! IT WAS AMAZING!!!
Trickster
Member
You sure it's tommorow? I was searching after i posted and found an article saying its a 9 pm tonight
edit - nvm i got the dates mixed up since it's over midnight at my place, so it's already the 28'th here
Clinton barely even got involved in the DNC Chair race - she only privately told her friends it would be okay to vote for Ellison. She didn't outright endorse anyone. Why is anyone talking about Clinton, here? The friction that exists is mostly between the Obama and Bernie people; Clinton had practically nothing to do with it.
Bernie undermined the unity message of his favored candidate when he called Joe Biden part of the failed status quo. That probably did more to turn people against Ellison than anything Ellison himself said or did.
ErasureAcer
Banned
But Biden is part of the failed status quo.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
The WH released bullet points for the speech. I'm sure there will be no off the cuff deviations from our esteemed President but here they are anyway:
http://politi.co/2lMUfry
http://politi.co/2lMUfry
Electric Eye
Banned
Looks like Sessions isn't wasting anytime being a racist prick. They are dropping the the objection to the Texas voter if law that was done so under the Obama justice department.
If Biden is a failure, Bernie is an even bigger one. Biden didn't do anything to hurt Perez's candidacy, whereas Bernie helped sink Ellison's campaign. Bernie would have been a better surrogate if he shut the hell up after making that initial endorsement.
A bunch of the people who endorsed Ellison - from Chuck Schumer to John Lewis - are also a part of "the failed status quo," and yet Bernie didn't say anything when they supported Ellison. It seems to me that he only cares to bash the status quo when it doesn't line up with what he wants - as if loyalty to him is the most important thing.
Bernie probably would have supported Sam Ronan if Ellison didn't run.
Uh........
Please be sarcasm. You can't be that big of a fool to think the Democrats wouldn't throw their full support behind Papa Joe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked