GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently November 22 18, 5:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 1:35 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 5770
Location: Chicago, IL
I get your points, they're all very good ones. I don't see why immigration has to be a hot-button. I'd like to see the Dems show some charts with immigration numbers and tell people "this is how small an issue this is. Let's talk instead about clean energy jobs and infrastructure jobs." And if diverted back to the issue I'd probably have a message of "it's just common sense that none of us wants to allow criminals to enter our country, especially illegally and without the oversight of law enforcement. I believe this, just like you do. I however don't think when we are fighting ongoing wars that do have a tangible impact on our security that we send troops to a border that already allows in so few illegal immigrants."

Something like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 2:37 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11212
Location: Austin
G. Keenan wrote:
The Democrats have left a total vacuum for him there to fill with fear and paranoia. It is totally possible to articulate an immigration platform that is simultaneously humane and forward-thinking, and maintains strong control over the borders, which every single person wants, including those suburbanites Dems are pinning their entire future on.

Winning back rural voters with immigration policy is a dead end strategy because immigration politics is fundamentally not about immigration policy. The strong borders to prove your bona fides -> comprehensive immigration reform was the Obama policy and the general thinking going back many years before that. There's a kind of sensible logic to it, but it's useless as politics. Opposition to immigration is highest in places with almost no immigrants and isn't impacted by concrete non-cruel policies. Ostentatious displays of cruelty to prove your seriousness on the issue might conceivably make a difference, but you'd be competing with the Trump level of cruelty and we shouldn't go anywhere down that road anyway because it is evil.

I don't really have any good ideas on how to win rural areas. Activating identities other than "white" certainly seems like the right one, but I'm increasing skeptical that electoral strategies and campaign messaging on their own will be especially effective to that end. The future is always uncertain, and events and how we respond to them will surely can change these things, but I guess I think non-electoral organizing and pro-democratic reforms for more proportional representation are more promising approaches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 2:38 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10242
Location: Lost in the Cloud
Arthur Dent wrote:
Activating identities other than "white" certainly seems like the right one, but I'm increasing skeptical that electoral strategies and campaign messaging on their own will be especially effective to that end. The future is always uncertain, and events and how we respond to them will surely can change these things, but I guess I think non-electoral organizing and pro-democratic reforms for more proportional representation are more promising approaches.


+++


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 3:02 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 20893
Location: Chicago
Arthur Dent wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
The Democrats have left a total vacuum for him there to fill with fear and paranoia. It is totally possible to articulate an immigration platform that is simultaneously humane and forward-thinking, and maintains strong control over the borders, which every single person wants, including those suburbanites Dems are pinning their entire future on.

Winning back rural voters with immigration policy is a dead end strategy because immigration politics is fundamentally not about immigration policy. The strong borders to prove your bona fides -> comprehensive immigration reform was the Obama policy and the general thinking going back many years before that. There's a kind of sensible logic to it, but it's useless as politics. Opposition to immigration is highest in places with almost no immigrants and isn't impacted by concrete non-cruel policies. Ostentatious displays of cruelty to prove your seriousness on the issue might conceivably make a difference, but you'd be competing with the Trump level of cruelty and we shouldn't go anywhere down that road anyway because it is evil.

I don't really have any good ideas on how to win rural areas. Activating identities other than "white" certainly seems like the right one, but I'm increasing skeptical that electoral strategies and campaign messaging on their own will be especially effective to that end. The future is always uncertain, and events and how we respond to them will surely can change these things, but I guess I think non-electoral organizing and pro-democratic reforms for more proportional representation are more promising approaches.


I'm not suggesting doing anything differently on border security from what the Obama admin was already doing. I'm talking about a PR strategy to undercut the GOP narrative that Dems are for open borders and MS 13 killing your daughters. Trump's strategy on this is pretty brilliant for activating his base. He does outrageous, performatively cruel things at the border (and in the interior), which by necessity draws a Democratic rebuke. He can then say to his base, look, I'm trying to be tough on criminals, having defined all immigrants as criminals, and these Dems just want to let them through no questions asked. Rather than engage in that ridiculous debate the only Dem response so far is silence.

What the Dems need to do on immigration is sell a different narrative of what immigration is all about. It's easy for everyone to have a welcoming posture on immigration when the prevailing narrative/zeitgeist is one of abundance, plenty of the good life for everyone. What Trump has done is seize upon the very real social inequality we have and construct a narrative of scarcity, of "American carnage," in which immigrants are taking limited resources from real Americans. It's incredibly effective. Right wing populists are using it all over Europe as well and it's working.

The other thing Dems need to do to reach rural areas is make rural life better by making rural healthcare better, rural education better, rural infrastructure better. They can message this at the national level, but probably not deliver it in a divided congress because the GOP will now become deficit hawks having lost the house. But they can deliver this at the state level by making it a priority in the states which they now control.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 3:35 pm 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10242
Location: Lost in the Cloud
G. Keenan wrote:
They can message this at the national level, but probably not deliver it in a divided congress because the GOP will now become deficit hawks having lost the house. But they can deliver this at the state level by making it a priority in the states which they now control.


This is a good point. There is truly no excuse for Democrats in trifecta states, and even more, at the city levels


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 5:48 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 22577
Location: St. Louis
meme
Nancy: America wants peace.

Me: Nancy, I want some [expletive] healthcare & 1000 nazi scalps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 7:25 pm 
Offline
http://tinyurl.com/2e4x5hy

Joined: April 15 06, 6:25 pm
Posts: 24797
Location: St. Louis
33anda3rd wrote:
Freed Roger wrote:
vinsanity wrote:

I think Pelosi is a good option simply because she's done the job in the past and done it quite well. Even positing that most speakers are disliked, she seems to have been the most successful of the last 20 years. I think she knows the machinations of DC and politics well enough to play the game. She may be good fodder to run against in 2020 but that could be countered with a good, charismatic candidate. Like a Julian Castro.

33anda3rd wrote:
I'm ok with Pelosi as speaker. She's experienced, she's got a lot done when Speaker in the past.
There's the issue of Trump and his minions trashing her and using her as a punching bag, and that can seem like a reason to stay away from Pelosi, but that is a double-edged sword. One of the takeaways from last night and the last two years is the momentum of women in politics. Last night we saw suburban educated females turn from Trump to the Dems per exit polls. Trashing a smart, successful grandmother might motivate rural red voters or some angry lonely guy in a cubicle masturbating to a poster of Yadier Molina, but it will also further alienate smart, successful mothers/grandmothers/daughters in the suburbs and cities.


Not sure if you guys were part of this:
I recall several GRBers that had debates on direction dems should take. From DNC party chair, and definition of liberalism, and neo liberalism, and other liberal infighting that, frankly, made mine eyes gloss over considering the position dems were/are in relative to GOP.

Am kind of surprised you guys are ok with status quo Pelosi being the face of the dem success these midterms, and chief negotiator /opposition/obstructionist to Trump GOP.

I've concurred, the demonization of her by the right is nonsense. And yep, whoever has the speaker role will have a target on them. It may not be a good career path for all politicians.

And help us out here in the Red states like MO. Momentum of the democrat female votes may be enough that Pelosi won't hurt things in places like Chicago, but will do little to help flip more seats in 2020. Defeating the Anti-Pelosi Dems message isn't going to help efforts to make MO at least somewhat purple anytime soon.

Pelosi continuing as speaker plays directly into Trump's tiny hands. The ex-military guy from MA makes more and more sense.
Whoever it is should have a solid district for re-election purposes, to withstand any fallout from the speaker role.


You bring up a lot of great points. I don't care too much who the Speaker is, I'm ok with Pelosi and I'm ok with (insert name of Democrat in Congress here). The alt-right/Trump/GOP focal point of the next election won't be Pelosi and the Dems. It will be whoever is running at the top of the Democrat's ticket for President. So I think that the next six months will be a lot of Trump bad-mouthing her, but then he will turn to the Democrats in the POTUS race as well as any responsible GOPer who runs in the primary against him--hopefully that will happen and it will be a Bernie-esque Republican capable of dinging the armor of Trump, who will certainly get through the primary.

As far as Missouri, I don't think it's about Pelosi. It's about turnout. There's no such thing as a blue state outside New England, there are only red states that have big enough blue cities to turn the state blue--take away about 8 CA counties and it's red, take away Chicago and IL is red, take away Denver and Boulder and CO is red, and so on. The population of MO is 6.1MM, give or take. St. Louis City + County is roughly 1.3 million, Jackson County is 700K and Boone County is another 180K. That's over a third of the state, around Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis. Those three areas can turn the state. Get them engaged, energized and turning out in big numbers and Missouri goes closer to purple, regardless of who the Speaker is.


I certainly agree with your overall point, but historically when the turnout is strong in MO, it favors the GOP which is sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 7:55 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 22577
Location: St. Louis
planet planet wrote:
I certainly agree with your overall point, but historically when the turnout is strong in MO, it favors the GOP which is sad.



Missouri is such an odd state. We voted in almost all GOP. Then almost all the propositions and amendment votes have been won by "left of center" side lately (-beat back Right To Work, tax increases for parks now the zoo, while saying no to regressive gas tax, Medical marijuana, minimum wage.)

New thread for this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 10:28 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: June 26 06, 8:54 pm
Posts: 10716
Location: In the Village
G. Keenan wrote:
I'm not suggesting doing anything differently on border security from what the Obama admin was already doing. I'm talking about a PR strategy to undercut the GOP narrative that Dems are for open borders and MS 13 killing your daughters. Trump's strategy on this is pretty brilliant for activating his base. He does outrageous, performatively cruel things at the border (and in the interior), which by necessity draws a Democratic rebuke. He can then say to his base, look, I'm trying to be tough on criminals, having defined all immigrants as criminals, and these Dems just want to let them through no questions asked. Rather than engage in that ridiculous debate the only Dem response so far is silence.

Ugh, Obama's border policies were terrible and cruel, and you can see how effective they were at countering Trump's narrative.

Quote:
The other thing Dems need to do to reach rural areas is make rural life better by making rural healthcare better, rural education better, rural infrastructure better. They can message this at the national level, but probably not deliver it in a divided congress because the GOP will now become deficit hawks having lost the house. But they can deliver this at the state level by making it a priority in the states which they now control.

This is nice and all, but a line from George Wallace comes to mind. It starts "I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened." There's another sentence after that, which I won't repeat.

You're not going to win with the white trash in rural America. Behind the blue wave in the House that's the second story of this election. Well, the white working class can go [expletive] itself. They've made their decision, and if they want to be left behind, then let's at least respect that weird proclivity. It's clear that their political influence will diminish over time anyway. Go after the educated masses in the cities and suburbs, which are growing. It's a pain to do this, because America's political system of geographical subdivisions has an inherent bias for rural areas. But chasing after people who have decided -- I won't say "think" -- Donald Trump has any solutions for the 21st century is a fool's errand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 9:34 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 5770
Location: Chicago, IL
Arthur Dent wrote:
Winning back rural voters with immigration policy is a dead end strategy because immigration politics is fundamentally not about immigration policy. The strong borders to prove your bona fides -> comprehensive immigration reform was the Obama policy and the general thinking going back many years before that. There's a kind of sensible logic to it, but it's useless as politics. Opposition to immigration is highest in places with almost no immigrants and isn't impacted by concrete non-cruel policies. Ostentatious displays of cruelty to prove your seriousness on the issue might conceivably make a difference, but you'd be competing with the Trump level of cruelty and we shouldn't go anywhere down that road anyway because it is evil.


Very well said. I have a crush on this paragraph.

G. Keenan wrote:
The other thing Dems need to do to reach rural areas is make rural life better by making rural healthcare better, rural education better, rural infrastructure better.


How do you make rural education better? I grew up rural, got a GREAT public education where the classrooms had everything we needed and there were no distractions taking us away from learning. The poorest kids in town had access to the same education as the doctors' kids. That education, of course, in Central Illinois, was funded by tax dollars from Chicago, where the state's tax base is, and where the schools are underfunded, the teachers and students don't have the tools they need to function well, and there are distractions everywhere in the kids' lives that prevent them from learning.

Any shortcomings in rural education don't come from problems with the institutions of government or education. They come from problems with the institutions of ignorance and religion. They come from a mindset where deeply rural, right-wing, fundamentalist Americans want their kids to get an education only to the extent that kid learns to read and do math so they can get a piece of paper from a school so they can get a job and make money. Or they don't give a hoot if their kids go to college they just want them to get a job and stay close to home and have grandkids. To fix rural education, rural citizens have to change, it's not something government can fix.

greenback wrote:
You're not going to win with the white trash in rural America. Behind the blue wave in the House that's the second story of this election. Well, the white working class can go [expletive] itself. They've made their decision, and if they want to be left behind, then let's at least respect that weird proclivity. It's clear that their political influence will diminish over time anyway. Go after the educated masses in the cities and suburbs, which are growing. It's a pain to do this, because America's political system of geographical subdivisions has an inherent bias for rural areas. But chasing after people who have decided -- I won't say "think" -- Donald Trump has any solutions for the 21st century is a fool's errand.


I also have a crush on this paragraph.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group