GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently February 16 19, 10:06 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 7 18, 9:02 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 18724
Location: Low A Minors
My take on AOC is that the candidate does not matter as much if you have a grass roots movement. Democrats like to go for people with a ton of money to try to buy the office (Pritzker, Hubbell, etc) or they go for someone with massive charisma (Beto, Obama) or big name recognition (why names like Oprah are thrown around). Sometimes just having one of those things is enough to win because Republican candidates often suck, too. Plus, building a movement is hard work! It's much easier to skip that step if you can. And if you can skip that step, then you don't have to make any promises to those pesky constituents, either.

But when a candidate has grass roots behind them, then money, charisma, etc, do not matter as much. All you need is a candidate that is half competent and not corrupt. That is what you are seeing at least to some extent in AOC and Bernie, and to a lesser extent here in Iowa, Cathy Glasson. AOC was clueless and dirt poor and had zero name recognition when she started. All that was overcome because she is part of a movement. Bernie and Glasson are not particularly charismatic or brainy or rich, either, but they did well in spite of those weaknesses, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 7 18, 10:13 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: June 26 06, 8:54 pm
Posts: 10790
Location: Following AOC on Twitter
pioneer98 wrote:
I am not surprised that Abrams and Beto lost. Those are bright red states, and they made a very good showing. Gillum is the most disappointing one since polls had him up by like 2%. Sadly the polls were wrong. And he also barely lost.

This is a minor point in the thread, but Georgia is not a bright red state any more. There's a lot of work to do to overcome Kemp's suppression campaign, but that's still much easier than the problem in Texas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 10:00 am 
Offline
darjeeling sipping elite
User avatar

Joined: October 17 06, 11:19 am
Posts: 35815
Location: Huis Clos
MAGA wrote:
Her general lack of knowledge is heavily documented. Just google Ocasio clueless. Is stating obvious ideological talking points the criteria for being a good candidate? Maybe it is.

It’s not a knock on her. Politics don’t draw our best. Only the most marketable and conniving.



I haven’t seen you say this about Republicans- and nearly every [expletive] one of them is clueless except about how to suck the wealthy teat. Weird.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 10:16 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21070
Location: Chicago
lukethedrifter wrote:
MAGA wrote:
Her general lack of knowledge is heavily documented. Just google Ocasio clueless. Is stating obvious ideological talking points the criteria for being a good candidate? Maybe it is.

It’s not a knock on her. Politics don’t draw our best. Only the most marketable and conniving.



I haven’t seen you say this about Republicans- and nearly every [expletive] one of them is clueless except about how to suck the wealthy teat. Weird.


Trump himself doesn't know what room he's in half the time. He drifts in and out of reality in front of our eyes, knows nothing whatsoever about anything other than how to tap into people's cultural resentments. Meanwhile, the "serious" Republicans in Congress just added $1.4 trillion to the deficit with absolutely no way to pay for it.

But Ocasio is the clueless one. Right. Keep on telling yourself that, MAGA crowd. The kitchen table issues she is talking about affect everyone, even rednecks. The people of Utah, Nebraska, and Idaho just voted to expand Medicaid and benefit more fully from the ACA. Guess they aren't that afraid of Obama's death panels after all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 10:36 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 23748
I actually do think AOC would be a good speaker after a few terms. She's most eloquent on the nuts and bolts of political organizing, forming coalitions, and does argue well for those things she's knowledgable about. The Democrats will probably have to have moved left for her to become speaker, but that's fine. I haven't seen that she or anyone further to the left are unwilling to negotiate, she's just less willing to start from the middle. It's pretty much what Trump does in his clumsy, offensive way, and it works to some extent. Probably would work better for him if he didn't insist on insulting people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 10:53 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 18724
Location: Low A Minors
greenback44 wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
I am not surprised that Abrams and Beto lost. Those are bright red states, and they made a very good showing. Gillum is the most disappointing one since polls had him up by like 2%. Sadly the polls were wrong. And he also barely lost.

This is a minor point in the thread, but Georgia is not a bright red state any more. There's a lot of work to do to overcome Kemp's suppression campaign, but that's still much easier than the problem in Texas.



Georgia is still pretty dang red

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ca ... rgia-blue/
Quote:
Can Stacey Abrams, the Democratic nominee for governor in Georgia, win in November?

After the former Georgia House minority leader’s primary win on Tuesday, Democrats nationally are excited about the prospect of her becoming the first black woman elected governor in U.S. history. But Georgia is still a red state, and Republicans control all of the major statewide offices, like in much of the South. Abrams is going to be the underdog, but just how much of an underdog?

Wait a second, you might be thinking, Hillary Clinton lost Georgia by only 5 percentage points in 2016. And Georgia has been getting bluer. Is Abrams’s climb really that steep? Yes, it is. Georgia is one of the most “inelastic” states in the nation — its electorate is composed mostly of solid Democrats and solid Republicans, with very few persuadable voters. The result is that Democrats have a tendency to get close in the Peach State, but they have a very hard time getting over the hump to 50 percent plus one. That matters because, according to Georgia law, candidates can’t win an election with only a plurality–they must get over 50 percent of the vote.

Quote:
The reason Democrats have trouble getting out of the mid-40s is relatively simple: Exit polls suggest that Democrats are consistently getting less than 25 percent of Georgia’s white voters. And while Georgia has grown more diverse, a majority of its residents (53 percent) are still non-Hispanic white.

So while I don’t want to diminish the challenges of a black woman being elected governor anywhere in America, particularly in the South, Abrams’s main barrier to winning may simply be being a Democrat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 11:52 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21070
Location: Chicago
pioneer98 wrote:
Quote:
The reason Democrats have trouble getting out of the mid-40s is relatively simple: Exit polls suggest that Democrats are consistently getting less than 25 percent of Georgia’s white voters. And while Georgia has grown more diverse, a majority of its residents (53 percent) are still non-Hispanic white.

So while I don’t want to diminish the challenges of a black woman being elected governor anywhere in America, particularly in the South, Abrams’s main barrier to winning may simply be being a Democrat.


Democrats need a strategy for reaching rural voters. I think they need to calibrate their immigration message to be both very strong on border security, humane for asylum seekers, and reform the temporary worker visa program to help out farm owners. Somehow, they need to undercut the power of Trump's immigration message in a way that diminishes his ability to sow fear about immigrants in rural voters' minds. Doing this would also help shore up recent gains in the suburbs and collar counties. Basically everyone, even the most liberal person you can find, even immigrants themselves who just got here yesterday, want strong borders. I don't expect any kind of legislation to ever make it out of Congress because having comprehensive immigration reform continue to be an unresolved issue benefits the GOP. It is a wedge they can perpetually drive between rural whites and everyone else.

The Dems may not win the Senate again in our lifetimes if they cannot make gains in rural areas. They have a tough tightrope to walk, appealing to uber progressive urban areas without overly alienating rural whites who don't consider themselves racist or xenophobic, but who can't see a place for themselves in the Democratic party as it is portrayed in the media.

Just today is a good example. Bernie Sanders goes out and makes a perfectly reasonable statement about the need to focus on working class kitchen table issues without alienating white voters by avoiding certain kinds of rhetorical appeals, and liberal Twitter is all over him for it. It's tough though, because it is not the Democratic party that does this, rather it is progressive voices primarily on social media for whom nobody but a first people's trans candidate can have authenticity. Just let people be who they are and let their policies speak for themselves.

The Democrats really do have a problem with white voters. They can either figure out a messaging strategy to detoxify the Democratic brand among this enormous group of people, or not retake the Senate for the next couple of decades.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 12:18 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 23748
G. Keenan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
Quote:
The reason Democrats have trouble getting out of the mid-40s is relatively simple: Exit polls suggest that Democrats are consistently getting less than 25 percent of Georgia’s white voters. And while Georgia has grown more diverse, a majority of its residents (53 percent) are still non-Hispanic white.

So while I don’t want to diminish the challenges of a black woman being elected governor anywhere in America, particularly in the South, Abrams’s main barrier to winning may simply be being a Democrat.


Democrats need a strategy for reaching rural voters. I think they need to calibrate their immigration message to be both very strong on border security, humane for asylum seekers, and reform the temporary worker visa program to help out farm owners. Somehow, they need to undercut the power of Trump's immigration message in a way that diminishes his ability to sow fear about immigrants in rural voters' minds. Doing this would also help shore up recent gains in the suburbs and collar counties. Basically everyone, even the most liberal person you can find, even immigrants themselves who just got here yesterday, want strong borders. I don't expect any kind of legislation to ever make it out of Congress because having comprehensive immigration reform continue to be an unresolved issue benefits the GOP. It is a wedge they can perpetually drive between rural whites and everyone else.

The Dems may not win the Senate again in our lifetimes if they cannot make gains in rural areas. They have a tough tightrope to walk, appealing to uber progressive urban areas without overly alienating rural whites who don't consider themselves racist or xenophobic, but who can't see a place for themselves in the Democratic party as it is portrayed in the media.

Just today is a good example. Bernie Sanders goes out and makes a perfectly reasonable statement about the need to focus on working class kitchen table issues without alienating white voters by avoiding certain kinds of rhetorical appeals, and liberal Twitter is all over him for it. It's tough though, because it is not the Democratic party that does this, rather it is progressive voices primarily on social media for whom nobody but a first people's trans candidate can have authenticity. Just let people be who they are and let their policies speak for themselves.

The Democrats really do have a problem with white voters. They can either figure out a messaging strategy to detoxify the Democratic brand among this enormous group of people, or not retake the Senate for the next couple of decades.


I think there has to be some definitive plan for making legal immigration easier. Trump and the GOP have not proposed one thing in that direction, to my knowledge. And then, outside of background checks and whatever vetting can be done, make the guest worker process easier. Let people come and go, just lay out a better plan for documenting them and keeping track of them. Relieve the pressure on the walls by making the doors work better, basically. Then for those that are here now, propose amnesty and be unapologetic about it, but explain the benefits and why it's easier than any other alternative.

As far as white voters, someone has to explicitly, vocally, repeatedly tie the concerns of white rural workers to those of the poor and of minority workers. Public infrastructure feels like a solution to so much of this just sitting there. Shame Republicans who get in the way of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 12:35 pm 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 6113
Location: Chicago, IL
Here's the Georgia results for Trump-Clinton

Same map for Kemp-Abrams this week.

They look a LOT alike. ~100K drop for the GOP candidate, ~88K drop for the Libertarian, and the Dem gained ~33K votes. The state went from +5.1 Trump to +1.7 Kemp, a reduction of 2/3 in the margin, but notably with no big changes in the geography or distribution of red and blue.

Abrams got more votes in both Fulton and DeKalb than Hillary, and a bigger share. She lost by a little over 60K votes. She got 72.2% of the vote in Fulton Co (Atlanta) but only a little over 1/3 of the population there voted--Fulton County is home to ~1.1MM.

The greater Atlanta area is over half the population of Georgia. If they turn out another 170K voters to get to 50% participation, Abrams wins. She won Fulton and every county that abuts Fulton save one, a small one.

This is where states like this are to be turned, IMO. In a state that has a city that has our 10th biggest economy where there are plenty of educated urbanites and suburbanites, the Dems don't need to placate the pro-gun anti-immigrant rural voters, they need to better engage those urbanites and suburbanites and get them to the polls. Those deep south Georgia states with less than 10K voters are not going to swing the election for Dems. Turn Echols County, where 1100 people vote, on a message of "hey immigration is bad and guns are great and we understand your needs" and you lose more than that 1100 in Fulton County just on the people who go "this candidate sucks, I'll stay home or vote for a third party." Those are deep red voters and there are not enough of them to matter in Georgia. Placating those rural voters with a message that deflates the enthusiasm of the city and suburbs--the places responsible for Abrams cutting 2/3 off Trump's margin--would be a fatal error.

Edit to elaborate...

Those rural areas have swung red as there has been two things, I think. 1. a downturn in organized labor, and 2. generations being removed from the Democrats.

Re 1. Labor was always pro-Dem. But that Labor is now unemployment and lack of hope, and these voters don't tie themselves to unions, they tie themselves to nationalism.

Re 2. If grandpa was a southern Dixiecrat, and dad was a southern Dixiecrat, so were you. Now, dad is a pro-MAGA anti-immigrant pro-gun anti-abortion GOPer and so are you.

Jobs is one way to talk to that crowd, certainly. A Dem candidate wanting their vote would need to speak, with specifics and a plan, on how they would provide jobs via infrastructure work and other. They'd have to show rural Georgians how clean energy means employment and a house and a car in the garage. But, again, there are not a lot of votes there and they can't start speaking to point 2, the nationalism and the racism, without alienating the people in the city and suburbs, where there is so much more to gain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 8 18, 1:28 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21070
Location: Chicago
33anda3rd wrote:
Here's the Georgia results for Trump-Clinton

Same map for Kemp-Abrams this week.

They look a LOT alike. ~100K drop for the GOP candidate, ~88K drop for the Libertarian, and the Dem gained ~33K votes. The state went from +5.1 Trump to +1.7 Kemp, a reduction of 2/3 in the margin, but notably with no big changes in the geography or distribution of red and blue.

Abrams got more votes in both Fulton and DeKalb than Hillary, and a bigger share. She lost by a little over 60K votes. She got 72.2% of the vote in Fulton Co (Atlanta) but only a little over 1/3 of the population there voted--Fulton County is home to ~1.1MM.

The greater Atlanta area is over half the population of Georgia. If they turn out another 170K voters to get to 50% participation, Abrams wins. She won Fulton and every county that abuts Fulton save one, a small one.

This is where states like this are to be turned, IMO. In a state that has a city that has our 10th biggest economy where there are plenty of educated urbanites and suburbanites, the Dems don't need to placate the pro-gun anti-immigrant rural voters, they need to better engage those urbanites and suburbanites and get them to the polls. Those deep south Georgia states with less than 10K voters are not going to swing the election for Dems. Turn Echols County, where 1100 people vote, on a message of "hey immigration is bad and guns are great and we understand your needs" and you lose more than that 1100 in Fulton County just on the people who go "this candidate sucks, I'll stay home or vote for a third party." Those are deep red voters and there are not enough of them to matter in Georgia. Placating those rural voters with a message that deflates the enthusiasm of the city and suburbs--the places responsible for Abrams cutting 2/3 off Trump's margin--would be a fatal error.

Edit to elaborate...

Those rural areas have swung red as there has been two things, I think. 1. a downturn in organized labor, and 2. generations being removed from the Democrats.

Re 1. Labor was always pro-Dem. But that Labor is now unemployment and lack of hope, and these voters don't tie themselves to unions, they tie themselves to nationalism.

Re 2. If grandpa was a southern Dixiecrat, and dad was a southern Dixiecrat, so were you. Now, dad is a pro-MAGA anti-immigrant pro-gun anti-abortion GOPer and so are you.

Jobs is one way to talk to that crowd, certainly. A Dem candidate wanting their vote would need to speak, with specifics and a plan, on how they would provide jobs via infrastructure work and other. They'd have to show rural Georgians how clean energy means employment and a house and a car in the garage. But, again, there are not a lot of votes there and they can't start speaking to point 2, the nationalism and the racism, without alienating the people in the city and suburbs, where there is so much more to gain.


I don't disagree, but the immigration issue is low hanging fruit that Democrats are just leaving there for Republicans. The message would not need to be, "hey immigration is bad and guns are great and we understand your needs" to pick off some of the fruit. What exactly is the current Dem message on immigration? I follow this stuff as closely as anyone and I can't really articulate it. Rural people are not inherently anti-immigrant. What they are is anti-seeing the quality of rural life decline and Trump has been phenomenally successful at blaming immigrants and big city liberals for that. 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. Just as the Midwestern industrial states that Trump won can go back to Dems, the suburban districts the Dems just flipped can go back to Republican once a non-Trump candidate comes along.

Dems can hope that with Demographics and never ending herculean get out the vote drives they can swamp rural areas with urban and suburban votes, but that doesn't apply everywhere. Plenty of states do not have such urban areas and they still get 2 Senators. The Republicans have proved that all you need is a 2 vote majority in the Senate and you can control the entire judiciary and executive branch personnel overnight, or the lack thereof.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group