US Politics

fishfingers15 said:
Berbatrick, If race was a factor, don't you think the gap between Dem votes and the Trump votes will be higher? With his rhetoric about black people and immigrants, Trump should hover around LBJ. The fact is, unions may endorse a Democrat because everyone wants a pie of the party money, but if all union votes are in block, the gap will be much higher.

I'm too young to remember the exact platform Reagan ran, but Trump clearly ran with anti-union platforms and still gained so much vote mainly because of two points, promise of more job creation by cutting environment regulations and safeguarding American jobs by being anti-immigration. DACA and middle class are right now not compatible. Why is the Democratic platform muddled right now? They have to be pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-environment, pro-America, pro-jobs, pro-peace, pro-military etc etc
Click to expand...

For me, anti-immigration is tied to race. He ran a racist campaign. I think race was a factor - not the only one. I think there is a popular caricature of racist people, who voted for Trump motivated primarily by racism. I am sure there are many racist people. But I am not sure all Trump votes were motivated primarily by racism, especially the defining Obama-> Trump voters.

Anyway, maybe I wasn't clear with what I was trying to say.
The point I was trying to make with all that data was to explain why unions and poor whites no longer deliver such huge numbers for the Dems. I believe it is simple: the Dems decided to take them for granted.
Unions (as organisations), their members (as voters), and blue-collar workers (union or not), had hugely supported Dems, far above the level of non-union voters, based on their economic stances (FDR in the 30s -> LBJ in the 60s). This support had remained strong despite very powerful racist messages from the Republicans (1964, 1968). But it fell as union power continued decreasing. And both union power and the union-Dem relationship was badly damaged when Democratic prez Carter, with a Dem house and senate, did not bother lobbying for a new pro-union law. He also did many other pro-business things (will link when I find the article).
So, it seems that union members, whether they were individually racist or not, seemed to be ok with any Dem candidate who delivered on economic issues.

Now, it seems that the Democrats are taking latinos for granted - the fastest growing demographic in the country. Surely they would never go for the Republicans that have been so cruel to them? I wouldn't be so sure. The GOP has managed to fuse its populist social conservatism with elite-favouring economics. They will do everything they can if they sense more electoral advantages.


About the "muddled message": Why do the Dems *have* to be all those things? Because the people who vote for them - their lives or their priorities are reflected in those things. It would make no sense for you to vote for someone whose platform reflects nothing you value, no?

I don't think the Dem message needs to be muddled - I don't think Bernie's message was meddled, and I know that it was popular on a point-by-point basis and overall too.
It is a simple message. Since the 70s/80s ended New Deal-style programs, corporations have been benefiting at the expense of workers. Wages are stagnant while profits grow. The response is to reverse the transfer of wealth - higher taxes to fund a welfare state (healthcare and college), and to break the power of corporations (Citizens United and Wall St). He can add other things to this analysis (criminal justice reform being the main one), but the criticism is partially correct that he was focused on class and nothing else. Poling shows that this simple analysis is accepted by a majority.
With such an analysis, the tension between supporting criminal justice reform and trying to get votes from possibly-racist white voters is reduced. Same with immigration - you primarily blame corporations for exploiting workers, not immigrants for accepting low pay and bad conditions. I am not saying those contradictions vanish, but they can be overcome.
That is because in this message, the primary conflict is between the corporations and the workers, not between immigrants and natives. Will there be fear of immigrants taking jobs? Sure. Can the white workers *who hold those fears* still vote Dem? I think the union members from the 60s and 70s are a guide to that question: these people might vote Dem if they believe the economic message the Dems are offering.


2 small points:
Abut DACA specifically: DACA has a 87% support rating from the public, including majority support from Republican voters. There is no gain to be made by appealing to that 13%, and I don't think a progressive party should even try there.

And a small fyi: the unions donate to the Dems, not the other way around. That is supposed to give them access and influence (like the Kochs have inside the GOP), but it does not seem to be working out for them.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
For me, anti-immigration is tied to race. He ran a racist campaign. I think race was a factor - not the only one. I think there is a popular caricature of racist people, who voted for Trump motivated primarily by racism. I am sure there are many racist people. But I am not sure all Trump votes were motivated primarily by racism, especially the defining Obama-> Trump voters.

Anyway, maybe I wasn't clear with what I was trying to say.
The point I was trying to make with all that data was to explain why unions and poor whites no longer deliver such huge numbers for the Dems. I believe it is simple: the Dems decided to take them for granted.
Unions (as organisations), their members (as voters), and blue-collar workers (union or not), had hugely supported Dems, far above the level of non-union voters, based on their economic stances (FDR in the 30s -> LBJ in the 60s). This support had remained strong despite very powerful racist messages from the Republicans (1964, 1968). But it fell as union power continued decreasing. And both union power and the union-Dem relationship was badly damaged when Democratic prez Carter, with a Dem house and senate, did not bother lobbying for a new pro-union law. He also did many other pro-business things (will link when I find the article).
So, it seems that union members, whether they were individually racist or not, seemed to be ok with any Dem candidate who delivered on economic issues.

Now, it seems that the Democrats are taking latinos for granted - the fastest growing demographic in the country. Surely they would never go for the Republicans that have been so cruel to them? I wouldn't be so sure. The GOP has managed to fuse its populist social conservatism with elite-favouring economics. They will do everything they can if they sense more electoral advantages.


About the "muddled message": Why do the Dems *have* to be all those things? Because the people who vote for them - their lives or their priorities are reflected in those things. It would make no sense for you to vote for someone whose platform reflects nothing you value, no?

I don't think the Dem message needs to be muddled - I don't think Bernie's message was meddled, and I know that it was popular on a point-by-point basis and overall too.
It is a simple message. Since the 70s/80s ended New Deal-style programs, corporations have been benefiting at the expense of workers. Wages are stagnant while profits grow. The response is to reverse the transfer of wealth - higher taxes to fund a welfare state (healthcare and college), and to break the power of corporations (Citizens United and Wall St). He can add other things to this analysis (criminal justice reform being the main one), but the criticism is partially correct that he was focused on class and nothing else. Poling shows that this simple analysis is accepted by a majority.
With such an analysis, the tension between supporting criminal justice reform and trying to get votes from possibly-racist white voters is reduced. Same with immigration - you primarily blame corporations for exploiting workers, not immigrants for accepting low pay and bad conditions. I am not saying those contradictions vanish, but they can be overcome.
That is because in this message, the primary conflict is between the corporations and the workers, not between immigrants and natives. Will there be fear of immigrants taking jobs? Sure. Can the white workers *who hold those fears* still vote Dem? I think the union members from the 60s and 70s are a guide to that question: these people might vote Dem if they believe the economic message the Dems are offering.


2 small points:
Abut DACA specifically: DACA has a 87% support rating from the public, including majority support from Republican voters. There is no gain to be made by appealing to that 13%, and I don't think a progressive party should even try there.

And a small fyi: the unions donate to the Dems, not the other way around. That is supposed to give them access and influence (like the Kochs have inside the GOP), but it does not seem to be working out for them.
Click to expand...

I have only highlighted a couple of points on your posts and try to make sense out of it. Even if the Dems have taken Unions for granted, it's nothing like the other party which wants to kill all forms of unionization. So I'm not really sure if it's all down to problems with Democrats. Republican message of saving jobs by being strong on immigration makes sense to a workforce that's scared of losing jobs and insurance. I'm not informed enough to comment on the corporations vs workers, although it is a very interesting point and it is related to the argument about Amazon in some other thread.

Your other point about DACA having a 87% support is a mirage. If DACA and funding government are the choices, most will chose funding the government. It's not even a question. It's like the 90% of people support background checks. And I also have to question the entire 'Dems have abandoned hispanics' because of a 3 week spending bill with another shutdown looming large. They can't be playing 'identity politics' and 'abandoned hispanics' at the same time. It just don't make any sense.
 
One of the biggest gifts Bernie offered the Dems was to finally give them some clear messaging that voters could actually understand. Ever since they've been determined to muddy that message and return to running on a hundred different issues where they are better than Republicans despite how much it confuses voters. As soon as any issue isn't talked about, people are quick to leap in and ask pointed questions about whether the party is abandoning its principles. Drives me fecking crazy.
 
shabadu84 said:
This could work in the Dems favor if the right people deliver the right message clearly and repeatedly until Feb 8. Shutting the government down in and of itself isn't a result. Getting DACA done, getting CHIP refunded, those are actually policy wins. The likes of Schumer and Pelosi need to rally their troops to go out and put the feet of McConnell, Ryan, and Trump to the fire. They've agreed to end a minor weekend shutdown that more people are far more likely to support if the GOP do the same BS again after a very public light was shined on the issue. I don't know that Trump will want the negative press of looking like they've clearly forced another shutdown by refusing to negotiate. That's an improvement in the Dem position, along with the CHIP win...now they need to stick to their guns on Feb 8 or it will be worthless. Then you can start de-registering if you want.
Click to expand...

Democrats are piss poor at messaging. See their communication on the Affordable Care Act. They chose to allow Republicans to carry the narrative on healthcare. They chose to allow Republicans to lie daily to the American people about what the bill does. They chose to not defend their position regarding death panels and a government takeover of healthcare. At the end of the day, the Dems need more progressives and people with a voice in Congress who are willing to say it like it is and call out the GOP for their lies...immediately. Chuck and Nancy are the establishment and they are just as culpable as Mitch when it comes to fighting for the little guy. Say what you want about Alan Grayson but he's the kind of guy the Democrats need to push their message.
 
Courts Keep Thwarting North Carolina Republicans. So They’re Trying to Remake the Courts.
Republicans in the state legislature have unveiled a radical plan to transform the judiciary.

Courts have overturned 14 laws passed by the legislature since 2011, including redistricting maps for the House of Representatives and the state legislature that one federal court called “among the largest racial gerrymanders ever encountered by a federal court.” Sweeping voting restrictions passed by the legislature in 2013 suffered a similar fate, with a federal appeals court saying they targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.” The legislature’s Republican supermajority hasn’t fared any better in state courts, which have blocked GOP efforts to strip teachers of tenure and to prevent the state’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, from appointing a majority of commissioners on state and local boards of elections.

Now the legislature has embarked on an unprecedented plan to transform the state’s courts by gerrymandering judicial maps to elect more Republican judges, preventing Cooper from making key judicial appointments, and seeking to get rid of judicial elections altogether. Cooper calls it an attempt to “rig the system.”


in 2013, when the legislature ended public financing for judicial elections, ... requiring candidates to represent a political party ... legislature then canceled judicial primaries, giving incumbents (who were mostly Republicans) an advantage ... also eliminated seats on the court of appeals to prevent Cooper from appointing three new judges

Now the legislature is taking up a host of controversial new proposals in a special session, including redrawing judicial maps for the first time in roughly 50 years to put more Republicans on the bench...new districts “bear an uncanny resemblance” to the racially gerrymandered state legislative maps struck down in court, the analysis found...new districts “bear an uncanny resemblance” to the racially gerrymandered state legislative maps struck down in court, the analysis found...Some Republicans, like state Senate leader Phil Berger, favor a more radical solution: ending judicial elections altogether. Under this proposal, the legislature would nominate candidates for the bench, and the governor would have to choose from among them to fill new vacancies
Click to expand...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...licans-so-theyre-trying-to-remake-the-courts/
 
Schumer suffering a pretty big backlash. If the Dems screw up in 3 weeks time, then Schumer's job may be on the line.
 
Hope so.The sooner him and Pelosi take their donor money and leave the better. One thing i do agree with ,the swamp needs cleaning. But to Trump it's just another throw away slogan.
 
Last edited:
Il Prete Rosso said:
Democrats are piss poor at messaging. See their communication on the Affordable Care Act. They chose to allow Republicans to carry the narrative on healthcare. They chose to allow Republicans to lie daily to the American people about what the bill does. They chose to not defend their position regarding death panels and a government takeover of healthcare. At the end of the day, the Dems need more progressives and people with a voice in Congress who are willing to say it like it is and call out the GOP for their lies...immediately. Chuck and Nancy are the establishment and they are just as culpable as Mitch when it comes to fighting for the little guy. Say what you want about Alan Grayson but he's the kind of guy the Democrats need to push their message.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that's their problem. This unwillingness to call the other side out on their bullshit is incorrectly viewed as taking the high road when it's mostly just led to them being steamrolled time and again. I do think now that there's enough of a swell in momentum against Trump & Co that Schumer and Pelosi will ultimately have no choice but to do as the base wants. We'll find out soon enough whether there is any backbone at all in either side's party leaders - will McConnell/Ryan push a bipartisan bill through despite Trump's wishes and if not, will Chuck/Nancy put their foot down for once.
 
Repub 1 "Gee, putting that alleged child molester up as our candidate in the Senate special election was a mighty terrible decision."
Repub 2 "Yup, sure was."
Repub 1 "Still, we learned our lesson and we won't let that happen again."
Repub 2 "Yup, sure won't."

 
Kentonio said:
One of the biggest gifts Bernie offered the Dems was to finally give them some clear messaging that voters could actually understand. Ever since they've been determined to muddy that message and return to running on a hundred different issues where they are better than Republicans despite how much it confuses voters. As soon as any issue isn't talked about, people are quick to leap in and ask pointed questions about whether the party is abandoning its principles. Drives me fecking crazy.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think Bernie will be remembered as being the guy who brought social-democratic issues front and center into American politics. Prior to his campaign, many of these issues were considered fringe policies that only people in other countries entertained. Now its up to the younger generation to cough up a few electable politicians to move the agenda to the next phase.
 
Drifter said:
First black man elected to Statehouse from suburban Pittsburgh wins by 48 points

https://shareblue.com/austin-davis-...e-from-suburban-pittsburgh-wins-by-48-points/

Shows how unpopular and uninspiring Hillary really was.
Click to expand...
That's certainly one conclusion, albeit a stretch IMO

What about...
"Shows how successful the GOP smearing of Clinton really was"
"Shows how terrible of a job Trump/GOP have done since taking control"
"Shows how energized the Democratic base has become following the 2016 election"

And given this detail:
As James Lambert of Daily Kos Elections notes, he over-performed Hillary Clinton’s margin in the district by 30 points, and President Barack Obama’s margin by 12 points. Further, he notes, “So far, in 2018, Democrats running in special state legislative elections have outperformed 2016 by an average of 23%. (In 2017, the average was a 10% overperformance across 70 state and congressional races.) This is a BFD.”
Click to expand...

I think the latter two conclusions hold weight.
 
Sadly, it looks like we are going to be stuck in a situation where candidates aren't evaluated on their qualifications anymore, and solely on who nominates them.
 
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/house-republicans-want-return-hated-165106793.html < so if this bill passes, immigration into the States is basically dead.

Its funny, "Chain Migration" doesnt even work the way people seems to think it does, it takes actual years (5 minimum) to bring in anyone other than a Spouse or a Child.

Also the GOP have gone insane if this is anything to go by -
https://www.cato.org/blog/gop-bill-spends-more-border-patrol-5-years-it-has-spent-5-decades
safactnumbers.png
 
Last edited:
fishfingers15 said:
Al Gore said while it's not ideal, he is not that against the tariffs. I'm not well informed about this issue but it seems there are some good points to it.
Click to expand...

It’s a sanction designed to hurt China from what I’ve read.
 
fishfingers15 said:
I suppose it's done to promote US made products. Something that Bernie and Dems would also be in agreement.
Click to expand...

China dominate the market for crystalline silicon solar panel production, these sanctions are designed to allow US markets to compete. I’m not sure Bernie and the Dems would agree on this, these solar companies can still enjoy success and support thousands of people with steady jobs, it doesn’t matter if China benefit the most. It’s just Trump playing politics at the expense of the working class.

Imagine he did the same and it effected coal mines and lost tens of thousands of coal mining jobs, what would the reaction be then? It also happens to prop up his fossil fuel lobbiests...

This is why cheap green energy is such a challenge.
 
bucky said:
Read the whole thread. It doesn't help at all.
Click to expand...

Couldn‘t it work from an industrial policy pov if the time the domestic market is protected is used by companies for heavy investment in order to catch up in terms of competitiveness?

Edit: that obvs requires that this is even a possibility but with technology it could be plausible (no expert on solar economics).
 
Javi said:
Couldn‘t it work from an industrial policy pov if the time the domestic market is protected is used by companies for heavy investment in order to catch up in terms of competitiveness?

Edit: that obvs requires that this is even a possibility but with technology it could be plausible (no expert on solar economics).
Click to expand...



 
Pexbo said:
China dominate the market for crystalline silicon solar panel production, these sanctions are designed to allow US markets to compete. I’m not sure Bernie and the Dems would agree on this, these solar companies can still enjoy success and support thousands of people with steady jobs, it doesn’t matter if China benefit the most. It’s just Trump playing politics at the expense of the working class.

Imagine he did the same and it effected coal mines and lost tens of thousands of coal mining jobs, what would the reaction be then? It also happens to prop up his fossil fuel lobbiests...

This is why cheap green energy is such a challenge.
Click to expand...

Seems right up his alley. He's always been critical of free trade.
 
Javi said:
Couldn‘t it work from an industrial policy pov if the time the domestic market is protected is used by companies for heavy investment in order to catch up in terms of competitiveness?

Edit: that obvs requires that this is even a possibility but with technology it could be plausible (no expert on solar economics).
Click to expand...

Usually countries start with that idea, and end up with non-competitive and protected industries forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.