GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently February 16 19, 9:33 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 10:27 am 
Offline
just can't quit you.
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Posts: 23224
Location: Lost
So, a change in culture is needed. Interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 11:17 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 18724
Location: Low A Minors
greenback44 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.


The problem is that this will leave entire states behind. I mean, I'm just about ready to say [expletive] Iowa and move out of this hellscape but there is still the US Senate and the electoral college, which will screw us forever if we can't win in rural areas. And gerrymandering rural white voters into subruban and urban areas will hold back states that are bluer than mine. Again, 538 said gerrymandering cost Democrats 10 to 20 more seats. Imagine what kind of wave that would have been. Now imagine if gerrymandering were done in Democrats *favor*.

The thing is, Democrats don't have to "win" the rural areas. They just can't perform so badly there that the rural areas cancel out the cities. I mean, if Democrats could perform well enough to consistently only lose that Steve King district by 3% like they did this time, they *should* be able to win statewide elections in a place like Iowa pretty consistently, you'd think.

This was a pretty good article about this subject from earlier this year:
https://newrepublic.com/article/147556/ ... and-fix-it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 11:20 am 
Offline
Don't tone police me bro!
User avatar

Joined: July 1 06, 7:24 pm
Posts: 10351
Location: Lost in the Cloud
Schlich wrote:
the reason she is a 'meme' among magas and the alt-right is because they have little else in their arsenal to neutralize her and her obviously threatening candidacy other than take her out of context and go hardy har har le pepe frog when she stumbles in an interview or whatever tf they do. its kinda sad.

She's a first term congressman that was a [expletive] bartender last year. of course she doesnt know all of the ins and outs of the israeli palestine conflict. It's her job now to learn, and i have no doubt she'll do so quickly and intelligently


this panel is the kind of [expletive] that MAGA is talking about when he says that AOC is a 'meme'



It's pathetic


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 11:39 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: December 10 06, 6:41 pm
Posts: 4224
Location: Baseball Heaven.
There's sensible ways for the left to win the immigration battle. 25 billion for a wall that can be conquered by 20 ft. ladder isn't one of them. Announce you're increasing pay and benefits for ICE employees as well as hiring more agents (which is cost neutral since they can't fill current openings) or actually communicate with them and see what they want improved.

If the left says we want better pay/benefits, more agents, and work directly that's far better than spending 25 billion on a wall, keeping kids in cages away from families, sending 15000 troops away from their families around the holidays for unarmed families unlikely to get the border for the small price of 200 million. With that immigration plan, could they argue with it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 1:12 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21070
Location: Chicago
pioneer98 wrote:
The thing is, Democrats don't have to "win" the rural areas. They just can't perform so badly there that the rural areas cancel out the cities. I mean, if Democrats could perform well enough to consistently only lose that Steve King district by 3% like they did this time, they *should* be able to win statewide elections in a place like Iowa pretty consistently, you'd think.


This is what I'm trying to say. It's easy to sneer at rural people as stupid racist hicks who can be waited out in a demographic war of attrition, but how long have we been hearing that now? How well did that strategy work out in 2016? US govt. has two very conservative features in the Senate and the Electoral College that give these geographic areas disproportionate power. How will liberals overcome that? A constitutional convention? Maybe Puerto Rico a state? Adding Supreme Court justices? Good luck with all that.

Liberals don't need to win these areas, they just need to cut 4 or 5 percentage points off the GOP stranglehold in those areas to make the Senate much more competitive. Successful ballot referenda like minimum wage hikes, Medicaid expansion, legalized marijuana that pass in these deep red states tell us that the population is not totally hostile to "big government" progressivism.

I totally agree with AD that the immigration debate is not really about immigration. Immigration is being used symbolically by Trump to tell these people that life as they know it is in jeopardy, and they believe him. If Democrats simply allow him, or whoever comes after him, to demagogue on this issue for fear of alienating their base they are leaving roughly half the country vulnerable to authoritarianism. Desperate people will do desperate things.

We are lucky that Trump has such a repellant personality to suburban voters. If he didn't, we might have seen Republicans hold the House this week. What happens if a Victor Orban comes along after Trump and Democrats have still 100% abandoned any pretense of appealing to rural voters? Democrats have just pulled off the greatest mobilization of young, urban, and suburban voters in mid-term history and lost ground in the Senate to these bygone hicks. We are hoping that an 85 year old woman who just broke 3 ribs can hang on another 3 to 8 years so that the Supreme Court is not overwhelmingly conservative for the rest of our lifetimes.

We can dismiss these people as a dying breed, but anti-immigrant sentiment has brought about Brexit, took down Angela Merkel, taken France to the brink, and may well lead Italy out of the EU. This is a real phenomenon around which Democrats have crafted no coherent message. I think it is an awfully big gamble for them to assume that the growing Hispanic vote is going to be their savior. The Hispanic electorate is much more culturally conservative, and more heterogenous, than the optimistic liberal narrative would have us believe. There is no guarantee that this is a massive well of liberals for Dems to tap into.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 2:43 pm 
Online
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 6113
Location: Chicago, IL
G. Keenan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
The thing is, Democrats don't have to "win" the rural areas. They just can't perform so badly there that the rural areas cancel out the cities. I mean, if Democrats could perform well enough to consistently only lose that Steve King district by 3% like they did this time, they *should* be able to win statewide elections in a place like Iowa pretty consistently, you'd think.


This is what I'm trying to say. It's easy to sneer at rural people as stupid racist hicks who can be waited out in a demographic war of attrition, but how long have we been hearing that now? How well did that strategy work out in 2016? US govt. has two very conservative features in the Senate and the Electoral College that give these geographic areas disproportionate power. How will liberals overcome that? A constitutional convention? Maybe Puerto Rico a state? Adding Supreme Court justices? Good luck with all that.


A couple by-the-numbers ideas.

First, Trump won a LOT of suburban votes in 2016, not just the racist hicks in deep red states went his way. We saw him get his ass kicked this week when that suburban trend turned on him. 2018 Midterms, in a nutshell: suburbs and women turn on Trump.

By the 2010 Census, the US population is:
71.2% urbanized areas (up 2.9% from 2000)
9.5% urban clusters (down 1.2% from 2000)
19.3% rural (down 1.7% from 2000)

From 2000 to 2010 our population grew by 22 million people. In that span, our urban population grew by the same 22 million people. Rural America is literally dying off to the tune of almost 10% over a 10-year span.

If you only make up 1/5 of the population, and every 10 years you lose a point and a half of your %, you can be waited out in a few decades on a national level. Hence we see Dems overwhelmingly win popular votes (Hillary, the Congressional races this week, the Senate races this week, the Governor races this week.) To the points of the EC and the Senate, here are states in the US that are markedly below the 71.2% national rate of urbanization (everyone under 2/3 urban):
Alabama 59%
Arkansas 56.2%
Iowa 64%
Kentucky 58.4%
Maine 38.7%
Mississippi 49.4%
Montana 55.9%
New Hampshire 60.3%
North Dakota 59.9%
South Dakota 56.7%
Vermont 38.9%
West Virginia 48.7%
Wyoming 64.8%

That's 26 Senators, 6 of whom are blue--VT, NH, 1 in ME and 1 now in WV. So it's basically 20 slam dunks for the GOP from rural areas.

The states we see as traditionally red states where the urbanized areas, cities and 'burbs, make up 2/3 or more of the state are (with # of GOP senators in ( ) ):
Texas (2)
North Carolina (2)
South Carolina (2)
Utah (2)
Tennessee (2)
Oklahoma (2)
Nebraska (2)
Missouri (2)
Louisiana (2)
Kansas (2)
Indiana (2)
Idaho (2)
Georgia (2)
Florida (1, with an undecided election)
Arizona (1, with an undecided election)
Alaska (2)

There are 32 Senators in there. The Dems need to pick off like 7-8 those. If they do the GOP cannot control the Senate, the map and math fail them. These 32 seats in the second group are where opportunity exists and are the only seats the Dems might end up with from this group are in races headed toward recounts or very late results thanks in part to this semi-Blue Wave of suburban and female rejection of the POTUS and GOP. These are the seats to go for. How? By the DNC raising a metric [expletive] ton of money and putting it into huge well-oiled machines in Phoenix in AZ, Miami/Tampa/St Pete/Jacksonville in FL, Indianapolis/Gary in IN, and so on. Get Obama and Mrs Obama and Oprah and Will Ferrell in those cities now. Have Ryan Gosling appear at a voter engagement event in a white-leaning Atlanta suburb. Start opening offices, start recruiting volunteers, start community engagement programs, start town hall meetings, start talking to the people in these areas about the things that are important. In the places where the local leadership is tired old party people who don't get anything done, replace them where you can. Get voters registered. Get same-day voter registration measures on the ballot in every one of these states where it's possible by getting petitions going now. Rally the people who can support you now, get them invested both emotionally and with their time and sweat. That's it. Do that, win the cities and suburbs by bigger margins via massive turnout and a good message for those people and their needs (educated suburbanites don't tend to fear immigrants but do fear guns) and you can forget about pandering to the racist rural redneck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 3:19 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21070
Location: Chicago
All good stuff, but a lot of bad [expletive] can happen in the course of a couple decades while Democrats wait for these population shifts to reach a tipping point. Further, Dems won the suburbs these midterms because Trump is a turn off to most people with a collage education. Don't underestimate the latent amount of racism and xenophobia that lurks even in the hearts of educated white liberals. There are plenty of academic studies that show this. Racism in America is in the groundwater. Trump is crass. A more urbane authoritarian populist may be able to sway these white suburbanites back, especially if the election coincides with a recession, and there will be another recession some day.

Again, my point is just that the Dems need to be contest everything. Somebody smarter than me who gets paid to do this stuff needs to figure out a long-term strategy to pull the rug out from under Trump's immigration bait and switch. It doesn't seem impossible to put together a rhetorical strategy that can cut into the space he occupies in these rural voters' minds.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 3:25 pm 
Online
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 6113
Location: Chicago, IL
I agree with you, GK. I do want to clarify, I'm not advocating waiting for rural America to die as a strategy. I'm advocating a urban/suburban strategy because rural America already is dying and there are not enough votes there for it to make a difference. I'm also not advocating an anti-rural platform, but a platform that's good for everyone, including rural Americans, that will help them even when they don't vote for it.

I don't believe, though, that you have to contest the rurals. How do you cater a message to them on immigration, an issue that should mean absolutely zero to them, that doesn't simultaneously alienate educated suburban women? In this exercise, for me, it's a given that rural America generally is people who are uneducated, fearful, racist, xenophobic. How do you create a message to them that makes them feel good that doesn't turn off people already a lot more likely to vote for you, even when "a lot more likely" is 48% instead of 2%?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 3:43 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21070
Location: Chicago
33anda3rd wrote:
I agree with you, GK. I do want to clarify, I'm not advocating waiting for rural America to die as a strategy. I'm advocating a urban/suburban strategy because rural America already is dying and there are not enough votes there for it to make a difference. I'm also not advocating an anti-rural platform, but a platform that's good for everyone, including rural Americans, that will help them even when they don't vote for it.

I don't believe, though, that you have to contest the rurals. How do you cater a message to them on immigration, an issue that should mean absolutely zero to them, that doesn't simultaneously alienate educated suburban women? In this exercise, for me, it's a given that rural America generally is people who are uneducated, fearful, racist, xenophobic. How do you create a message to them that makes them feel good that doesn't turn off people already a lot more likely to vote for you, even when "a lot more likely" is 48% instead of 2%?


It's a tall order, to be sure. Recruiting really great local candidates is a start. Pushing a progressive, worker-friendly agenda at the national and state levels is part of the equation. A slate of legislation towards comprehensive immigration reform so the Dems can legitimately claim to be addressing people's concerns is another part of it. Rural people, particularly in the agricultural sector, are not total strangers to immigrants. There are reasonable people out there who know and like immigrants, and in fact need them to operate their businesses. Go after those people. Yeah, we're never going to get through to people with white nationalist sympathies. Forget them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Nancy Pelosi
PostPosted: November 9 18, 3:49 pm 
Offline
just can't quit you.
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Posts: 23224
Location: Lost
G. Keenan wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
I agree with you, GK. I do want to clarify, I'm not advocating waiting for rural America to die as a strategy. I'm advocating a urban/suburban strategy because rural America already is dying and there are not enough votes there for it to make a difference. I'm also not advocating an anti-rural platform, but a platform that's good for everyone, including rural Americans, that will help them even when they don't vote for it.

I don't believe, though, that you have to contest the rurals. How do you cater a message to them on immigration, an issue that should mean absolutely zero to them, that doesn't simultaneously alienate educated suburban women? In this exercise, for me, it's a given that rural America generally is people who are uneducated, fearful, racist, xenophobic. How do you create a message to them that makes them feel good that doesn't turn off people already a lot more likely to vote for you, even when "a lot more likely" is 48% instead of 2%?


It's a tall order, to be sure. Recruiting really great local candidates is a start. Pushing a progressive, worker-friendly agenda at the national and state levels is part of the equation. A slate of legislation towards comprehensive immigration reform so the Dems can legitimately claim to be addressing people's concerns is another part of it. Rural people, particularly in the agricultural sector, are not total strangers to immigrants. There are reasonable people out there who know and like immigrants, and in fact need them to operate their businesses. Go after those people. Yeah, we're never going to get through to people with white nationalist sympathies. Forget them.


I have been saying this all along, but nobody will listen. Stop lumping all Republicans in with the idiot White Nationalist's.

If you look at the measures that passed - you can see a pattern.

Rural voters are going to vote for things that help them and their families, better health care options, and minimum wage hikes help them directly. Candidates who they think want to take their guns, their religious freedoms, and their hard earned money away will get voted down. It isn't all about racism.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 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