Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Hodor2: I would prefer to do it like that, and indeed it should be framed that way, but when people say "working class Americans", they almost always mean the rural working class, which is almost entirely white, or rust belt whites. The geographic segregation of different demographics means they tend to have divergent economic interests, and while it's not a zero sum game, uneducated voters of all stripes seem to view it that way, and there are in fact cases where money spent addressing the economic interests of one localized demographic is money that is not being spent on another localized demographic.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:09:41 AM by CaptainCapsase
Well, I kind of think that it is a product of racism that working class means "white people"- it presumably stems from the idea that non-white people are lazy/don't work.
I mean of course, the "rustbelt" voters at issue are primarily white, but still this is why I think it's important that the framing doesn't feed into white supremacist rhetoric.
I'm thinking Trump's ego will demand that he try something spectacular to bolster America's economy "bigly". Something like say, imposing massive tariffs on Chinese trade. And since he's a complete fucking idiot when it comes to most things that don't involve swindling or conning people with the temperament of a spoiled toddler, he's going to instead fuck things up "bigly". The impact will be rather obvious and immediate. Things will be bad.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:10:39 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
![]()
I never suggested the democrats adopt a "Southern Strategy" of their own. In fact, that's one of the things I'm most afraid of, since doing that would be much more compatible with the economic interests of the economic elites that back the democratic party than a platform of economic populism. A platform that focuses more on economic issues over social issues, but which still maintains that all people should be treated equally regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation is what I'm hoping for, since, at least in my view, much of the white working class doesn't buy into white supremacy as much as they are simply apathetic of social issues that don't apply to them personally in the same way many people find it difficult to care about poverty in Africa.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:13:02 AM by CaptainCapsase
@NoName999: It is, which was a point I was making; that the over-reliance of the democrats on identity politics has legitimized for an alarmingly large block of the country the concept of white identity politics. Economic populism of the sort I'm calling for can be framed in a manner that is race blind, and I think such an appeal is the one that is most likely to work for rural America that doesn't require us to turn our backs on the cause of social justice.
Also, much like police brutality and mass incarceration aren't things that exclusively effects minorities (even if it is extremely disproportionately directed against such demographics), neither are the economic anxieties plaguing rural and rust-belt America things that exclusively impact white Americans. There is common ground that can be found, even on issues that are near and dear to the social justice movement.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:21:54 AM by CaptainCapsase
'Fun' fact about coal: it kills more people than literally any other source of energy production.
Why you'd want to step up production when there are other methods (which also create jobs) is baffling to me.
Oh, and the reason that coal-related deaths are as low as they are? The Clean Air Act. Surprise! It's administered by the EPA. The Trump Administration will put their lives in danger, too. They can talk about "clean coal" all they want; it does not exist.
Unfortunately, my chem prof estimates we've got about 200 years worth of easily accessible coal resources left, and there's always going to be someone who will want to develop those resources.
I think I need to get away from this thread awhile, thinking about this stuff so much is not good for my emotional health...
"Coal poisonous. Clean energy better. And it pay more too! But only happen if you vote for us. Republicans lie. Ugga ugga!" The Democrats have to boil their message down. Being the party of smart people and well-researched policies makes them our preferred choice because these kinds of forums select for the educated and well-informed among us, but it isn't going to do any good when talking to the uneducated.
And yes the US has a huge problem with education that the Republicans are responsible for causing and maintaining. I'd use the word "morons" and technically not be wrong, but again that's the kind of condescending language we need to stay away from when it comes to actually speaking to these people. Relying on the school system to provide these people with the necessary skills isn't going to do any good so we have to find alternate means of teaching them, and maybe that means sending people there as surveyors and the like.
Possibly in the guise of prospectors looking to scout locations for their new factories and such. The Republicans aren't above outright lying to get their way (Joe the Plumber). As loath as I am against political deception in principle, perhaps the Democrats can afford to engage in a little playing around with the literal truth of their own to get their point across.
Exactly. The fact that Clinton is such a policy wonk is her appeal to me, but most people didn't get the education that I did. The fact that she can't boil her message down is something I'd consider a character flaw of hers, and something that people like Obama, Sanders, and maybe Warren are strong in, and which future candidates need to work on.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:36:42 AM by AlleyOop
![]()
So those Rust Belt workers are literally voting for their own deaths?
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Yeah, even if HRC had tried to appeal to them I could see it not working out so well. She's...not very good at "dumbing things down".
edited 18th Nov '16 11:29:44 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@Capsase-
For me, calling those kind of things "identity politics" is itself white identity politics, because it acts like the rights of people who aren't white, straight males is a negative/partisan thing.
I'm on board with the rest of it, but that's kind of my overall issue with your framing.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:29:04 AM by Hodor2
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Again, both Democratic candidates actually had some kind of plan on how to help the lower class (which, of course, included the Rust Belt)
All the Republican candidates just had the "cut taxes for the rich and cut entitlements for everyone else el oh el" Which doesn't work. As we've seen over and over again.
Trump's biggest piece was building the wall to keep out Mexico. Even if that happens, that'll only bring jobs near the Southern Border. How will this help Ohioans? And then there's the GOP base responded positively to registering Muslims. Which has NOTHING to do with job creation.
And lastly, a wide
variety
of
polls
show Trump supporters having racial resentment. And sexist views on top of that
So no, as far as these people go, they're spiteful enough to push back social justice even if it won't help them at all.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:32:52 AM by NoName999
Trump was stronger where the economy was weaker
It's undoubtedly true that many if not most of his supporters are bigoted in various ways to various degrees. But the people who voted for him typically did perceive their family's economic futures in a pretty dismal light, among them many people who voted for Obama in 2012.
It's also true that both democratic candidates had plans to help the rust belt. Unfortunately, Clinton's message failed to come across to those voters in the same way Sanders's support for social justice issues fell flat among many black primary voters.
edited 18th Nov '16 11:35:12 AM by CaptainCapsase
I almost feel bad for saying this, but I kind of really hope that happens. If we want to see the pendulum swing back the other way, the public needs to see Trump and the GOP fuck up. Badly. Hell, if we're feeling really optimistic, it could even set an example for the rest of the world. "This is what happens when you elect an incompetent boor as your leader!"
And if it impacts the ignorant working-class whites who put in him office, then a) I get some sense of sadistic pleasure from seeing them suffer for electing Hitler, and b) maybe they see "wait a minute, that was a terrible idea" and go Democratic next time.
Still, this is all coming from a place of relative economic privilege on my part. Barring severe events (which are admittedly far from out of the question), I'm personally unlikely to be that heavily affected by an economic crash. So it's easy for me to say.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."![]()
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
While I don't want Trump to be re-elected or for the GOP to gain even more ground, I also don't want the American economy to collapse. Unfortunately, I do believe that is going to happen. When it does, I just hope the people who voted for Trump know who to blame (hint: not Obama).
edited 18th Nov '16 11:38:02 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSo here's a thing that's been kicking around in my brain.
In the parallel universe where the election was between Trump and Pence (and I get vote to US presidential elections), I would've voted for Pence. Because although I believe that Pence is not a good person, I do not believe him to be a threat to the American democracy itself. I do not believe he would attempt to turn the US into a fascist state. I do not believe that the 2020 election would end up being unwinnable with him in charge. I believe that while a Pence presidency would be bad for a number of reasons, it would something we could suffer through. That the country would still be recognizable four years later.
And, most of all, because I believe that sometimes moral compromise is needed. That when forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, you should make that choice.
So let's hope that the GOP stands up to Trump. Let's hope that he cheeses them off hard enough to put Impeachment on the table. Because that's the easiest way to start dragging the country back onto the rails.
But those rails are leading toward hell. They're on a bridge over hell that is descending into Hell. We don't need to be derailing, or progressing on the rails, we need to be fucking braking and backpedalling.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youFor what cold comfort it may provide, I remember reading that there's a historian who predicted Trump being elected - and also predicts that he will not finish his first term. According to him, the GOP will find a way to get rid of him and replace him with someone more predictable and easier to control.
I don't know how comforting that is, though. What frightens me the most about the current situation isn't even Trump himself anymore, it's the GOP running the country. Anything that allows them to exert more complete control over things is not going to be good for us. Look at who Trump's filled his fucking KKKabinet with.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
I'm no economist, but aren't there still a number of shitty things he and the GOP could do to bolster the economy, even if it's only temporary, or only an illusion? Such as going to war?
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."