Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

If that does happen I hope democrats leave rural areas to crumble. The evil ones that voted for orange turd need to pay for what they've done and the good ones should be given the opportunity to move out to more diverse locations.

lol

 

[PBY]

You're right that the article is not insightful in any meaningful way. Not to mention the point of grass roots movements is to exist beyond the established figures(many who have taken part in them mind you, not to a crowd throwing tomatoes either). They as the base push those in elected office to new positions. It wholly ignores the work being put in by these people and their networks throughout their states when it comes to dealing with the shit Trump is doing.

The favorability problem still exists tho

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Isn't NY Daily News a conservative tabloid?

 

[Teggy]

Isn't NY Daily News a conservative tabloid?

No, the Post is the one that is Murdoch-owned.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659

Somehow dems have managed to be less popular than Donald trump (and the GOP). Smh. King's article isn't incredibly insightful but he's dead on about the grassroots movement largely existing outside of the dem party. I've been saying dems need to embrace that activism since election night and they're still being weak about it.


If you were able to convince him, it might suggest he just wasn't paying much attention to it and wasn't convinced by the little bit of it he did see.

Parties are never especially popular (numbers for GOP aren't that different). I'm not sure that poll is particularly​ useful at all since specific politicians are always liked more than their party.

(Except maybe Hillary Clinton because of the coalition of the right and the left that both hate her for simultaneously being too liberal and not liberal enough)

 

[Abinash117]

It seems it will take another economic catastrophe for Democrats to get back in power, fix it up and have stupid voters stab them in the back by electing republicans to start the collapse again.

If that does happen I hope democrats leave rural areas to crumble. The evil ones that voted for orange turd need to pay for what they've done and the good ones should be given the opportunity to move out to more diverse locations.

That is not right to hope for the destruction some of those people's lives. Rural areas might crumble though unless politicians form an effective plan to help them. The idea right now is go back to how things were in terms of importance of their towns and jobs. It seems that has shifted towards urban areas.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

It seems it will take another economic catastrophe for Democrats to get back in power, fix it up and have stupid voters stab them in the back by electing republicans to start the collapse again.

If that does happen I hope democrats leave rural areas to crumble. The evil ones that voted for orange turd need to pay for what they've done and the good ones should be given the opportunity to move out to more diverse locations.

have you considered the possibility that Democratic policies have been bad for these areas too

 

[sazzy]

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Parties are never especially popular (numbers for GOP aren't that different). I'm not sure that poll is particularly​ useful at all since specific politicians are always liked more than their party.

(Except maybe Hillary Clinton because of the coalition of the right and the left that both hate her for simultaneously being too liberal and not liberal enough)

To further my point on this, you can look at Pew polls for the last half decade and see that Americans just don't really like parties at all! Even in 2010 the GOP had a similar favorabilty to what the Democratic Party has now and in 2016 it was even worse (despite them winning nationwide).

People are tired of parties - this is why Trump and Bernie did so well. That's a lesson to learn about 2016, but I'm not sure it'll be true in 2020 - people might want an establishment candidate after 4 years of Trump. I would say my biggest takeaway is that any Democratic candidate running after 8 years of a Democratic president needs to be an outsider.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Poor Tiffany

 

[SparkleMotion]

Is Trump taking the weekend off again?

 

[Abinash117]

have you considered the possibility that Democratic policies have been bad for these areas too

If Rural areas are crumbling and Republicans are the ones in power; I can say GOP policies aren't working.

 

[sazzy]

CNN: White House was placed under security level ORANGE

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

CNN: White House was placed under security level ORANGE

What does that even mean?

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

What does that even mean?

Trump is there for the weekend?

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Trump is there for the weekend?

He's going to hate that.

 

[Piecake]

A federal court has dealt Texas another loss over voting rights, finding that Republicans racially gerrymandered some congressional districts to weaken the electoral influence of the state's booming minority population.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/texas-redistricting-racial-lines-235956

I am sure that was just an honest mistake

 

[kirblar]

have you considered the possibility that Democratic policies have been bad for these areas too

No policy was going to fix the innate problem of "no company wants to invest in a small town in 2016." 81% of the country lives in metropolitan areas. And that's only going up from now on. We're trying to help. Obamacare was a massive wealth/resource transfer from top to bottom. But you can't magically snap your fingers and make basic economics go away.

 

[Pixieking]

A profile on Joe Manchin...

Manchin in the Middle: Joe Manchin is either a moderate role model for a party that’s lost its way, or a doomed species from a less partisan era. Soon we’ll know which.

It was Jeb Bush. The two have known each other for years. Bush was the governor of Florida at the same time Manchin was the governor of West Virginia, and “governors have a bond,” Manchin mused to Bush on the phone. But Bush had not called to catch up. He had called to lobby. One of Trump’s Cabinet nominees was in trouble—Betsy DeVos, his pick to be education secretary—and she would need help to win confirmation in the Senate. Two moderate Republicans would vote against her, and Manchin, perhaps the most conservative Democrat in Washington, was the likeliest candidate to break from his party and push DeVos over the line. He had already proved his willingness to back other nominees. Could he see his way to getting behind Trump’s education pick as well?

This - the second full paragraph - is where I stopped reading, because I'm sure it'd be informative as hell to read, but it's also a pretty sickening start to the story.

I'm gonna bookmark it and read it in small chunks so as to not give myself a coronary.

Edit to add:

Adam Levine‏Verified account @cnnadam 10m10 minutes ago

BREAKING: US attorney Preet Bahrara will not submit resignation despite DOJ request- @LauraAJarrett @jaketapper report

Dianne Gallagher‏Verified account @DianneG 12m12 minutes ago

Source says US Attorney Preet Bharara doesn't plan to resign, will make President Trump fire him (Reporting from @LauraAJarrett @jaketapper)

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

No policy was going to fix the innate problem of "no company wants to invest in a small town in 2016." 81% of the country lives in metropolitan areas. And that's only going up from now on. We're trying to help. Obamacare was a massive wealth/resource transfer from top to bottom. But you can't magically snap your fingers and make basic economics go away.

I mean that's definitely true under our current policy of "let wealth concentrate into the hands of a few massive companies who redirect wealth all back into a single geographic location" but sure.

lol at Obamacare though, which works at its worst in low population density areas and best in places like Massachusetts.

 

[kirblar]

I mean that's definitely true under our current policy of "let wealth concentrate into the hands of a few massive companies who redirect wealth all back into a single geographic location" but sure.

lol at Obamacare though, which works at its worst in low population density areas and best in places like Massachusetts.

No, they are not "redirecting wealth all to a single geolocation". This is absolute nonsense and why you really should be taking the basic econ courses while you can.

It's basic economics. Cities are successful and prosperous because economic activity is based on trade between parties. Because cities have far more people, you have far more trading partners available! Because there are more trading partners available, everyone is able to specialize to a greater degree. And that leads to massive advantages when it comes to generating economic activity.

edit: Here's a UN paper on the topic aimed at non-economists - http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=3260&alt=1

 

[thepotatoman]

I mean that's definitely true under our current policy of "let wealth concentrate into the hands of a few massive companies who redirect wealth all back into a single geographic location" but sure.

lol at Obamacare though, which works at its worst in low population density areas and best in places like Massachusetts.

Subsidies are calculated on both income and second lowest cost Silver plan you can get, so the rural states with more expensive insurance get more in subsidies. What do you think Obamacare is doing that's specifically bad for rural states?

The insanity is that the republican plan is taking away both the income based calcuation and the location based calculation, so even if obamacare is bad for rural states, Republicans are just making it worse.

 

[Poodlestrike]

A profile on Joe Manchin...

Manchin in the Middle: Joe Manchin is either a moderate role model for a party that's lost its way, or a doomed species from a less partisan era. Soon we'll know which.



This - the second full paragraph - is where I stopped reading, because I'm sure it'd be informative as hell to read, but it's also a pretty sickening start to the story.

I'm gonna bookmark it and read it in small chunks so as to not give myself a coronary.

Edit to add:

Dude's probably planning on running for something.

Else it's just a stand on principle.

Either is good.

I mean that's definitely true under our current policy of "let wealth concentrate into the hands of a few massive companies who redirect wealth all back into a single geographic location" but sure.

lol at Obamacare though, which works at its worst in low population density areas and best in places like Massachusetts.

The bolded is just straight up false, though. Obamacare subsidies are geared towards helping older lower-income rural populations first and foremost. The problems inherent to rural health care are structural, and while they're not fully addressed by Obamacare, it works harder for them than for anywhere else.

 

[Ogodei]

To further my point on this, you can look at Pew polls for the last half decade and see that Americans just don't really like parties at all! Even in 2010 the GOP had a similar favorabilty to what the Democratic Party has now and in 2016 it was even worse (despite them winning nationwide).

People are tired of parties - this is why Trump and Bernie did so well. That's a lesson to learn about 2016, but I'm not sure it'll be true in 2020 - people might want an establishment candidate after 4 years of Trump. I would say my biggest takeaway is that any Democratic candidate running after 8 years of a Democratic president needs to be an outsider.

People are tired of parties because people are stupid. Parties are how shit gets done, and the refusal of the grassroots progressives to really get behind the Democrats (or for the Democrats to reach out and embrace the grassroots, but i put more of the blame on the grassroots for finding electoral politics to be icky) is why we have this massive gap between public polling on progressive issues and the country just getting more and more regressive in terms of actual policy.

The complainers need to find the balance between pressuring the party (as that's how they got the party to embrace its most progressive platform ever in 2016), and remembering to shut up about it and just vote Democrat when election day finally comes.

 

[kirblar]

Health care will always be most effective in urban areas due to economies of scale. Obamacare can't change that.

 

[Blader]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659

Somehow dems have managed to be less popular than Donald trump (and the GOP). Smh. King's article isn't incredibly insightful but he's dead on about the grassroots movement largely existing outside of the dem party. I've been saying dems need to embrace that activism since election night and they're still being weak about it.

How are elected Dems not embracing progressive activism, and what should they be doing to better embrace it?

 

[Plumbob]

People are tired of parties because people are stupid. Parties are how shit gets done, and the refusal of the grassroots progressives to really get behind the Democrats (or for the Democrats to reach out and embrace the grassroots, but i put more of the blame on the grassroots for finding electoral politics to be icky) is why we have this massive gap between public polling on progressive issues and the country just getting more and more regressive in terms of actual policy.

The complainers need to find the balance between pressuring the party (as that's how they got the party to embrace its most progressive platform ever in 2016), and remembering to shut up about it and just vote Democrat when election day finally comes.

People don't like parties because there's two of them and one has atrophied organizationally and the other one is the GOP.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

No, they are not "redirecting wealth all to a single geolocation". This is absolute nonsense and why you really should be taking the basic econ courses while you can.

It's basic economics. Cities are successful and prosperous because economic activity is based on trade between parties. Because cities have far more people, you have far more trading partners available! Because there are more trading partners available, everyone is able to specialize to a greater degree. And that leads to massive advantages when it comes to generating economic activity.

edit: Here's a UN paper on the topic aimed at non-economists - http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=3260&alt=1

Spoiler

cities outside the coasts are mostly dying too

Subsidies are calculated on both income and second lowest cost Silver plan you can get, so the rural states with more expensive insurance get more in subsidies. What do you think Obamacare is doing that's specifically bad for rural states?

The insanity is that the republican plan is taking away both the income based calcuation and the location based calculation, so even if obamacare is bad for rural states, Republicans are just making it worse.

Rural areas have less competition so the market principles the ACA works with doesn't do much there so only a few shitty plans get offered.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Woah.. around midnight there one someone who jumped the fence and reached the residental area before anyone noticed

 

[Mirand]

44/49 on Gallup

damn, below 50 unfavorability finally for the orange man

 

[Scirrocco]

44/49 on Gallup

damn, below 50 unfavorability finally the orange man

Hasn't that been the case for a while? But hes still super popular with the GOP base so they don't care.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Spoiler

cities outside the coasts are mostly dying too

I don't know that this is the case at all. Since the cost of living in coastal cities is going up so much so quickly, non-coastal cities are starting to undergo a renaissance of sorts since they're a lower cost alternative. It's especially noticeable in places like Texas and Atlanta (and is part of the reason why TX/GA are becoming bluer).

Perhaps down since their heyday in the early to mid 1900s, but they're not "dying." They're on the upswing if anything.

 

[Valhelm]

It seems it will take another economic catastrophe for Democrats to get back in power, fix it up and have stupid voters stab them in the back by electing republicans to start the collapse again.

If that does happen I hope democrats leave rural areas to crumble. The evil ones that voted for orange turd need to pay for what they've done and the good ones should be given the opportunity to move out to more diverse locations.

This is a pretty horrifying attitude. People in red states aren't uniformly monsters.

Greater attention to ailing and conservative areas by Democrats can make them less conservative.

 

[Maledict]

The saddest thing about that Manchin story is the fact Jeb Bush is ringing around trying to get support for Trump's nominees. Has there ever been a more spineless, craven politician ever?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump getting a 7 point bump in two days on Gallup looks... very confusing.

Maybe they changed their voter mix or weighting?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It seems very unclear how current US actions in Syria achieve either of these aims, though. The status quo in Syria is that Assad holds a significant military advantage and is very slowly regaining ground. The opposition has no serious chance of reversing this position, unless the US sent in active forces. The current US shipment of weapons to the opposition is simply drawing out the war, rather than changing the outcome, and the longer the war goes on, the more people die. Assad is evil. He will kill thousands, if not tens of thousands of people, when (and I say when, not if) he wins. However, that's still less than what the continuation of this war causes, since Assad is still going to win and still going to kill those people, and you have all those extra deaths in the meantime from the process of warring.

Additionally, there is absolutely no guarantee that, even if opposition groups given military support by us managed to overthrow Assad, they would be culturally allied to our interests. The US has a long history of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' reasoning that almost never worked. Did the mujahideen bring about an America-friendly government after the Soviet-Afghan War? No. Instead, it brought to power a group which had strong reason to be isolationist, hostile towards major powers, and deeply ethnonationalist thanks to an ingrained revanchism.



The US is not going to beat Assad by continuing present actions. If you want to seriously alter the political outcome in Syria, then the US needs to invade, commit ground troops for policing for a long period of time, and spend enormous amounts of money on a reconstruction programme. This would be significantly more expensive and time-consuming and American-life-endangering than Iraq, where the US did not commit sufficient troops to safeguard the rebuilding process and spent a tuppence on rebuilding the Iraqi state. If you can't commit to that, then you need to accept that US involvement is doing more harm than good, and the best possible thing the US can do is facilitate the immediate end of the war.

Right, I agree with all of this. My answer to "our current strategy isn't going to save people from being massacred" is just different from your answer of "lol, fuck them then." I posted it a few pages ago in replies to Pigeon and Bonen that we should send more support and afterwards engage in a massive project of rebuilding like we did with postwar Japan and Europe.

Also I don't really believe in or support the concept of borders, so the emotional hook of "think of the American lives we might lose" doesn't really work on me. If we lose Americans to save a hundred times as many Syrians, as far as I'm concerned, we lost humans to save a hundred times as many humans.

have you considered the possibility that Democratic policies have been bad for these areas too

There's no policy that will help these areas other than basic income plans, and we're probably not there politically to get those. We're a service economy now; the only good jobs that aren't automated are things that require customers. Even being a plumber/electrician/etc in Bumfuck, MS isn't going to pay your bills since there just aren't enough customers.

 

[kirblar]

This is a pretty horrifying attitude. People in red states aren't uniformly monsters.

Greater attention to ailing and conservative areas by Democrats can make them less conservative.

Voting 80/20 for a white supremacist pretty uniformly nationwide (alongside trends in other western nations with a resurgent far right) strongly gives the impression that this is not an issue that is solved by being "nice" to these people.

They're racist. They want racist policies. (They are not being "tricked" into enthusiastically supporting them.) In previous generations, we got power by compromising with them. We're at a point demographically where we don't have to do that anymore. (at least, on a national level.)

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Trump getting a 7 point bump in two days on Gallup looks... very confusing.

Maybe they changed their voter mix or weighting?

I found that odd too.

 

[Valhelm]

Voting 80/20 for a white supremacist pretty uniformly nationwide (alongside trends in other western nations with a resurgent far right) strongly gives the impression that this is not an issue that is solved by being "nice" to these people.

They're racist. They want racist policies. (They are not being "tricked" into enthusiastically supporting them.) In previous generations, we got power by compromising with them. We're at a point demographically where we don't have to do that anymore. (at least, on a national level.)

But it's not 80/20, Kirblar. Let's clarify, though. Who are "these people"? Whites without a college degree voted for Trump by 67%, but 33% voted against him. Should tens of millions of people suffer because others in their milieu voted for Trump?

Let's look at the South. Mississippi, a state which voted for Trump by 58%, only had 64% turnout. Louisiana, which went for Trump by a similar margin, had 67% turnout. Democrats can become competitive in Southern states without needing to change the mind of a single Trump voter. Supporting policies that would improve the living conditions of these communities could make this easier. Abandoning the South will not.

After the embarrassment of 2016, it's clear that the Democrats can't afford to turn away any voters. We should ask what can be done to get more registered voters to turn out for the Democrats.

 

[kirblar]

But it's not 80/20, Kirblar. Let's clarify, though. Who are "these people"? Whites without a college degree voted for Trump by 67%, but 33% voted against him. Should tens of millions of people suffer because others in their milieu voted for Trump?

Let's look at the South. Mississippi, a state which voted for Trump by 58%, only had 64% turnout. Louisiana, which went for Trump by a similar margin, had 67% turnout. Democrats can become competitive in Southern states without needing to change the mind of a single Trump voter. Supporting policies that would improve the living conditions of these communities could make this easier. Abandoning the South will not.

After the embarrassment of 2016, it's clear that the Democrats can't afford to turn away any voters. We should ask what can be done to get more registered voters to turn out for the Democrats.

Working on turning out your base is fine.

But this idea that the rural WWC is part of that base is not.

Look at where Trump was outperforming Romney- https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-trump-got-his-edge/

Racism wasn't some incidental factor, it was THE factor.

 

[Blader]

Woah.. around midnight there one someone who jumped the fence and reached the residental area before anyone noticed

Secret Service is already a very strained group (they have the lowest morale of any entity across the federal government), and they're stretched even further thin now that they have to secure Mar-a-Lago virtually every weekend, guard Melania and Baron at Trump Tower, accompany his sons when they travel overseas, etc. The director of the Secret Service also resigned last month and that they haven't appointed a permanent replacement for the role.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Trump getting a 7 point bump in two days on Gallup looks... very confusing.

Maybe they changed their voter mix or weighting?

It happens. They have a three-day rolling sample. Probably a bad day fell off for Trump at the same time a good day rolled in.

 

[Valhelm]

Working on turning out your base is fine.

But this idea that the rural WWC is part of that base is not.

You really can't win the South with only black and Hispanic voters. In a regional context, poor white voters are part of that base.

There's a clear precedent for Southern whites and southern blacks rallying behind pro-working class candidates who aren't racist. Charismatic progressives have a reasonable chance of winning state races without needing to appeal to racism like the moderate Democrats of yore. Because the economy is probably going to get worse under Trump, there's a real opportunity for Democrats to rebuild their bases of support in red states.

 

[kirblar]

You really can't win the South with only black and Hispanic voters. In a regional context, poor white voters are part of that base.

There's a clear precedent for Southern whites and southern blacks rallying behind pro-working class candidates who aren't racist. Charismatic progressives have a reasonable chance of winning state races without needing to appeal to racism like the moderate Democrats of yore. Because the economy is probably going to get worse under Trump, there's a real opportunity for Democrats to rebuild their bases of support in red states.

Poor/working class white voters won't align themselves with poor/working class non-white voters. There is no clear precedent of this happening- quite the opposite. It's why you have guys like Angus King running as liberals but dogwhistling about minorities up in the lily-white Northeast. It's why in order to get the New Deal through, minorities had to be left out of it. This is the "not racist" solution of previous generations. The stigma that the "Democrats are for black people" is real.

 

[pigeon]

There's plenty of scientific evidence that rural communities are hotbeds of white supremacy so that's probably a place to start when thinking about this question

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Let's look at the South. Mississippi, a state which voted for Trump by 58%, only had 64% turnout. Louisiana, which went for Trump by a similar margin, had 67% turnout. Democrats can become competitive in Southern states without needing to change the mind of a single Trump voter. Supporting policies that would improve the living conditions of these communities could make this easier. Abandoning the South will not.

After the embarrassment of 2016, it's clear that the Democrats can't afford to turn away any voters. We should ask what can be done to get more registered voters to turn out for the Democrats.

2016 was the first election where there was no federal oversight of the polls in southern states like MS/LA. I imagine that plays a large part in decreased turnout.

We shouldn't abandon the South (and we don't - the South plays a crucial part in the Democratic primary!) but we also need to acknowledge that even if every MS voter who didn't vote in 2016 voted for Democrats instead, which is unrealistic and likely not going to happen, the state is 50-50 at best.

I also don't think that you appeal to conservatives by being progressive. You do it by being conservative/centrist. So if you want the Democratic Party to move towards progressivism, you probably don't want to appeal to conservatives. If you want a large tent party as you are proposing, then the party needs to be moderated accordingly or the tent will fall down.

e: lol using Huey Long as an example of "precedent"

 

[Valhelm]

Poor/working class white voters won't align themselves with poor/working class non-white voters. There is no clear precedent of this happening- quite the opposite. It's why you have guys like Angus King running as liberals but dogwhistling about minorities up in the lily-white Northeast. The stigma that the "Democrats are for black people" is real.

I just listed two examples of that happening. Edwin Edwards was the most racially progressive governor in Louisiana history. He attached himself to the civil rights movement and appointed unprecedented numbers of black officials.

Edwards' ability to be a racial justice advocate and alleviate Southern poverty, both black and white, won him four terms as governor despite constant corruption scandals.

There's plenty of scientific evidence that rural communities are hotbeds of white supremacy so that's probably a place to start when thinking about this question

Right. So letting these places fester and build militant resentment is the worst course of action possible.

 

[Geist-]

Edit to add:

Ah, shit's about to get real.

 

[kirblar]

He left office in 1980. Something else really important happening in 1980 that completely transformed US politics!

Politics at a national level looks very, very similar nationwide. Rural areas in Vermont look like rural areas in Montana look like rural areas in KY, as far as voting patterns go. (Same w/ cities.) The southern strategy has gone national.

IRight. So letting these places fester and build militant resentment is the worst course of action possible.

They're going to be making up an ever-decreasing share of the US population. They're always going to be holding resentment because they are dying. (And I'd argue this is not a bad thing.)

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Edwin Edwards just got crushed 62-37 in a congressional election in 2014.

Him being elected in the 70s-90s is irrelevant now. Southern voters who reliably voted for the Democratic candidate at that time no longer do so. This is part of the reason why Democrats have lost so much ground in state legislatures and the House since the 90s.