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
It Was The Racism, Stupid:
a scathing and in-depth dismantling of the notion that the Dems lost because they abandoned the much-maligned "white working class."
Here, a belief that it must be something other than racism (and sexism) that won Trump the election functions as a conceptual blinder for analysts and commentators who want to deny the ugly truth about the values and beliefs held by their fellow (white) Americans. In all, these factors are part of an effort, albeit a superficial one, to empathize with the supposed pain and anger of white working–class voters who feel “left behind” and by doing so normalize their egregious, irresponsible and hateful decision to support Donald Trump.
Most important, the economic–anxiety thesis is in many ways incorrect.
It is hobbled on a foundational level: Who makes up the white working class? Is the white working class defined by geographic region, educational level, income or cultural habitus? How one defines the white working class will in turn shape any answer about its members’ voting habits and other political decisions.
To wit: Trump won white voters across almost every demographic category. Both low–income and high–income whites supported him at rates higher than their peers backed Hillary Clinton. In fact, the typical Trump supporter comes from a household that earns $72,000 a year — significantly above the national average — and has not been negatively affected by globalization.
Moreover, if the economic anxiety thesis were correct, blacks, Latinos and Native Americans (people who have much less wealth and income than whites) would have flocked to Trump. Instead, they were repulsed by him and overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
A recent analysis of county–level census data shows, in fact, that Clinton won a higher percentage of the vote in economically distressed communities than did Trump. But Trump benefited from a statistical fluke, winning enough white voters in economically distressed Rust Belt areas to score an Electoral College majority while overwhelmingly losing the popular vote.
Whatever your opinion of Salon, fauxgressive pundits need to stop peddling the WWC myth already, because it does nothing but reinforce myths while distracting from the real issues, and deflecting blame away from the shoulders of those who should bear it.note
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."I'm much more inclined to point to voter suppression as the primary culprit. In key swing states where he won by a razor-thin margin, hundreds of thousands of votes were purged from the ballots with Crosscheck and other methods of suppression.
I'm not saying Hillary's camp didn't make strategic errors - but it was hardly the sole deciding factor, and the blame can't rest entirely on their shoulders when the GOP and the alt-Reich have spent years perfecting the current systems of voter suppression. That was half of how they gained control of the House in the first place - and now it's won them the White House.
And I'll say it again - fighting back against voter suppression needs to be a top priority for the Dems if they ever want to win another election.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent.""Language is power. Members of the American corporate news media played along and instead of speaking specifically about the actual beliefs, norms and values of the so-called alt-right, they treated it as just a difference of opinion, one located within a wide range of acceptable attitudes and beliefs in American politics...
Instead of calling attention to Bannon's white supremacist and white nationalist beliefs and affiliations, many of the most influential news outlets have deflected and chosen to describe him in far more agreeable terms.
Slate's Jeremy Stahl has compiled the following examples:
- The New York Times: "Trump's Choice of Stephen Bannon Is Nod to Anti-Washington Base"
- The New York Times: "New Strategist in White House a Provocateur From the Fringe"
- BBC: "The combative site serves up an anti-establishment agenda that critics accuse of xenophobia and misogyny."
- The New York Times: "A fierce chorus of critics denounced President-elect Donald J. Trump on Monday for appointing Stephen K. Bannon, a nationalist media mogul . . ."
- ABC: "Steve Bannon: Donald Trump's Controversial Senior Counselor and Alt-Right Hero"
- CBS: "Behind the scenes, Bannon is one of the most powerful people in the Trump's inner circle, but he's also one of the most controversial."
...Ultimately, the normalization of Donald Trump is a function of financial and material concerns. It is also a reflection of fear about being denied access to the Trump administration as well as a reminder of how the powerful all too often work with one another against the interests of the American people.
The right-wing news entertainment disinformation machine can argue that Trump (and other Republicans) has a "mandate" when in reality he lost the popular vote and is the least popular newly elected president in the last 20 years." [1]
That the middle class supported Trump is no surprise. The middle class buoyed the original fascist movements, not the poor. And the news refusing to actually inform rather than entertain certainly proved itself to be a problem this cycle. However, the Salon might be overestimating the effect a blunt, information campaign might have. The same author of both articles points out in "It's the Racism, Stupid" that Trump's voters weren't isolated persons in rural hamlets. Many were educated or middle class and from that alone one expects they'd no better. (Which isn't necessarily true. For one thing, civics is really badly taught in primary school—or was when i was growing up. I had to get through Public Administration in university and get introduced to law and accounting before I could start to see the logic behind many decisions).
The other issue is how much people do not like criticism. The whole convince others that they want to improve rather than pointing out their flaws message in "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is so popular because of its truth. Even the science concludes that contrary facts make people hold onto their opinions even more strongly.
So while not sugarcoating what the new administration is would deny its supporters a face saving narrative, like economic insecurity or anti-establishment empowerment, to cover their actions, it would not likely change minds. I would guess the long-term solution would be to get people to interact more. Distasteful or not seeing 60 millions support Trump means that interaction needs to happen if we're to keep a republic. And cities and the fad of diversity initiatives do not do that as well as one might think. (Schools are actually less integrated now than before, and Atlanta at least has clear racial boundaries in neighborhoods, not even getting into the suburbs). Exactly how to do this, I have no such plan unfortunately.
TL:DR A clear media would help, but would probably just turn off people who didn't want to face what they are. They would have to be among other people, not exactly like them, and they would have to have some mutual impact in their lives for a long-term solution. Look with century eyes... With our backs to the arch And the wreck of our kind We will stare straight ahead For the rest of our lives
Why Trump is tweeting about the Celebrity Apprentice
.
I take your Salon and raise you a The Atlantic
.
Furthermore, blaming whites for catching up with identity politics and not choose their own identity group over other concerns is a bit hypocritical. Democrats have expected that minority groups vote in solid blocs for presidential elections, while using demographic trends as gospel to tell rural whites that they are a minorty. Congratulations, rural whites now vote as an identity bloc, like a minority votes. Call it racist whites not known better if it makes you feel better. But they are still your compatriots, not wanting anything to do with them rather than convincing them is what got you there.
We've been over this
That specific group of whites rarely vote Democrat. If they ever bothered to vote at all, apparently. Not to mention that liberals have been throwing a bone for them for decades and they keep slapping it away. Also the fact that civil rights groups have saying the system is rigged for much longer and WWC wasn't gonna hear it.
So when Trump comes, offers no coherent suggestions other than blame the Mexicans and Muslims, and they suddenly feel like someone is listening to them, what else can you get from that other than racism?
Why should the Democrats bother trying to cater that hardly ever votes, and when they do vote, it's for the GOP, at the expense of minorities?
edited 6th Jan '17 7:00:27 AM by NoName999
The weird thing is that the rural white "voting bloc" consistently votes for a political party whose policies are slowly killing them.
Other minority voting blocs at least usually vote for the Democratic Party because the Democrats at least pay lip service in terms of making policies that help them. Your mileage may vary of course on how well they actually live up to said promises.
edited 6th Jan '17 7:01:25 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
![]()
Bull. All viewpoints are not equally deserving of consideration. There is no satisfactory middle ground between "a lot racist" and "not racist". There is no satisfactory middle ground between "false information" and "true information".
Democrats have been trying to help these folks for decades via social and economic policy, while Republicans have been screwing them over at every opportunity. Yet they still vote overwhelmingly Republican. Why? Identity politics. Fuck that noise.
edited 6th Jan '17 7:03:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Ain't it funny? The rural white "voting bloc" that's just "looking out for their own interests" will repeatedly screw their own interests six ways from Sunday if it means sticking it to minorities. But nah, there's no racism in play here whatsoever.
I mean, voting blocs all have equal moral validity, as we all know. Minority voters forming blocs because they want equal rights are totally equivalent to white voters forming blocs because they want to put immigrants in deportation camps. That's just voting towards their own interests.
I'm not really in the mood for another round of False Equivalency today, so I'll leave it at that for the time being.
Partially
'd.
edited 6th Jan '17 7:04:40 AM by RBluefish
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."But what interest or concern of theirs have they voted for in this election? Not economic improvement. Not Health care. Their concern in this election was sticking it to minorities. They didn't vote to improve their lot, like other "blocks" do, but to worsen the lot of others. The very thing they accuse minorities of. Because to them, society is a zero sum game.
In other news - Why Tom Perez is a Strong Competitor Against Keith Ellison in the Democratic Party Race.
A breakdown of what the DNC chair race symbolizes, what it shouldn't symbolize, and what both candidates bring to the table.
I'll say this - it seems like we've got two very good choices here. I'm personally inclined to hope for Perez, but I've got nothing against Ellison.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."
My main objection to Ellison — and admittedly it's a silly and rather irrational one — is that he's Sanders' preferred candidate.
I dunno. It just seems like being endorsed or supported by Sanders — or being one of his supporters — is like a kiss of death or something for political careers.
But other than that — yeah, they're both good for the job.
edited 6th Jan '17 7:34:15 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedI will admit that I had similar feelings, only with regard to his support of Sanders in the primary. As I've said before, I'm not much of a Sanders fan, and I'm not eager to see the party move in his direction. But it's still not a deal-breaker, even though I do want Perez.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."See, I remember Keith Ellison being a Muslim African American. My expectation - but it could well be wrong - is that he's a stronger person in terms of race relations than Sanders was.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanJesus, let's see if I can respond to all, sorry if I miss someone.
Wasn't the rust belt the democratic firewall because these were democratic voters? They voted for Obama a lot more than they voted for Hillary. didn't they?
They voted in spite of his exclusionary rhetoric, not because of it.
Because otherwise Trump.
Here we must see two things, those that hold liberal values and those who don't, for the former voting republican is a bad investment,
Obama got a lot of racist to vote in his behalf then. I don't believe that.
Precisely, fuck identarian noise.
There is racism, I contend that the voters who flipped fo Trump from Obama are not the racists involved here.
They don't have equivalent moral weight. But they sway elections anyway.
It was to vote for the candidate who didn't represent Status Quo, in spite of his rhetoric,
Stickin' it to minorities, putting them in deportation camps. I must accept that I am axiomatically very different from you all. Gotta go, but still thanks for engaging.
Last Minute Addition: Ellison FTW.
To vote against the Obama coalition is to vote against the guy who:
- Rescued the U.S. economy from the worst recession since the Great Depression.
- Gave 30 million Americans health insurance who didn't have it before.
- Oversaw seven years of steady job growth
.
- Oversaw the elimination of restrictions on gays serving in the military, plus many other civil rights victories.
- Did not involve us in any crazy, unfunded, imperialistic wars.
So... yeah. Really sucks. Needs change stat!
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I still think he'd be better off going with the baseball guy.
Disgusted, but not surprised