GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently August 22 19, 3:12 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 8:41 am 
Offline
Single A Minor League Player

Joined: June 28 19, 10:00 pm
Posts: 8
There's also a big difference between class politics and aggrieved white guy politics. I've never seen a good argument for ignoring or downplaying class just because some [expletive] might be attracted. Should you ignore or hand wave prejudiced views just because someone is working class? Absolutely not. That doesn't mean you can't have class politics along with identity politics. It's called intersectionality, and it's a hugely important part of modern leftist politics. Ignoring class will just leave off an important part of the equation, just like leaving off identity would. You can acknowledge the ways that working class people are getting screwed, including white men who are working class, without directly appealing to racism. In fact, if you can point those people to their actual problems, like Wall Street, you can use that to make them realize that immigrants and minorities aren't the problem at all. Getting people who aren't racist, converting whichever ones who are but will actually listen, and appealing to nonvoters are how you build a bigger base and flip states and districts that aren't traditionally democrat. You can do all of that without leaving behind minorities or appealing to white people and saying that race doesn't matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 8:46 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7229
Location: Chicago, IL
Thrill, it's so sexy how you know me better than I know me. Purr.

I think you overstate the importance of attracting non-voters. In most things in life--sales, politics, etc.--you have to as they say "fish where the fish are."

There is an inflection point, Obama proved it, where the calculus changes. Where you shift from, and this is admittedly oversimplified,
(Value Of Turning Off People Who Vote) X (How Many You Turn Off) > (Value Of New Voters) X (How Many New Voters You Draw)
to
(Value Of Turning Off People Who Vote) X (How Many You Turn Off) < (Value Of New Voters) X (How Many New Voters You Draw)

That line lies in identity politics more often than not. Black voter turnout for Obama. Aggrieved white guy turnout for Trump. He proved it too, he showed that you don't need to toe the line of racial resentment, and the value of drawing out those southern and midwestern aggrieved white dudes in full force could win, thanks to the flaws in the EC.

Where's the values above on Sanders? Be honest: how many voters come in for him, and how many go away because "Socialst Bernie who wants to tax even the middle class to pay for Medicare for all while he takes away your comprehensive union healthcare. Socialist Bernie who wants to open up the borders and give healthcare and welfare to illegals." What is the electoral cost of that in the calculus? It's big, there's no getting around that. Warren at least is a capitalist at heart and wants structural change to capitalism, so Trump can't as easily throw the socialist tag on her.

There's 3 the blocs that are:
1.
Base--both GOP and Dem, who vote with party always. This is like 60-70% of the electorate.

2.
The independents who lean left or right in cities and suburbs, who sway every election in states like OH, PA, WI, MI as well as other states like FL, AZ, NV, VA. This is like 28-38% of the electorate nationwide and state-by-state in those swing states.

3.
There's identity politics voters who go "oh, finally, someone like me!" and stay home if not, and hard-core all-the-way left or right socialist/anarchist and more alt-right than alt-right/anarchist. This is like 2% of the electorate.

Do you go after the 28-38% in the burbs who you can rely more on to go vote, or do you hope that you inspire 1-3% of non-voters to vote? Think of it in terms of something analogous and non-political in your life, were you can do something that has a 1 in 3 chance of working or a 1 in 25 chance of working. Which is sensible to take more often than not? Sure, if you're like "I'm gonna move to New York and try to be an actor" instead of go to state school and become an accountant, you sometimes gotta follow that dream. But


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 8:57 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7229
Location: Chicago, IL
IronPenguin wrote:
There's also a big difference between class politics and aggrieved white guy politics. I've never seen a good argument for ignoring or downplaying class just because some [expletive] might be attracted. Should you ignore or hand wave prejudiced views just because someone is working class? Absolutely not. That doesn't mean you can't have class politics along with identity politics. It's called intersectionality, and it's a hugely important part of modern leftist politics. Ignoring class will just leave off an important part of the equation, just like leaving off identity would. You can acknowledge the ways that working class people are getting screwed, including white men who are working class, without directly appealing to racism. In fact, if you can point those people to their actual problems, like Wall Street, you can use that to make them realize that immigrants and minorities aren't the problem at all. Getting people who aren't racist, converting whichever ones who are but will actually listen, and appealing to nonvoters are how you build a bigger base and flip states and districts that aren't traditionally democrat. You can do all of that without leaving behind minorities or appealing to white people and saying that race doesn't matter.


Wall Street is not entirely the devil and is not peoples' actual problem. They hold our mortgages, our 401(k), our savings, our checking accounts, they provide the ATMs where we get bank service and stuff like Venmo for sending the dog-walker twenty bucks. They provide a lot of service to a lot of citizens.

So let's point people to the actual problems. The GOP who deregulates Wall Street joyfully. People like the Koch Bros whose money is a cancer to our democracy because of their efforts to gain more political favor for those deregulations and for tax policy that kills the middle class. Wall Street is not the problem, a system that allows greed and fails to sufficiently regulate Wall Street is the problem. GOP tax codes are the problem, any system of trickle-down economics is going to rob from you and me and give to the Koch Bros and Bezos and such. Bezos is not the problem, a system in which any semblance of Teddy Rooseveltian trust-busting has completely disappeared is the problem. Sure, it's morally reprehensible for Bezos to hold as much wealth as he does while people are hungry, but it's more morally reprehensible for us to have a government hell-bent on giving him more at the expense of the hungry.

Our politics, if we "hire" the right people, can fix Wall Street and corporatist monopolies via regulation. "The One Percent" is like 3 million people in a nation of 327 million. We can certainly elect leaders with that kind of numbers advantage who will fix and maintain Wall Street so our financial system doesn't crumble--every developed nation has one, even Canada and France where they have free medicine--and tax the rich, and end citizens united, and help the poor and needy without demonizing and tearing apart banks. And that's what's in Sanders' message--it's not the problem of bad government that has allowed for this over the last century, it's on the natural greed of a very small % of our population. But it's not Wall Street. Sanders is wrong. It's the beltway that enables the worst instincts in a tiny percentage of us to impact the lives of the overwhelming majority. There will be greed in people, there will be those folks who go full Gordon Gekko, it's just up to the beltway to keep us safe from that natural thing. There will always be killings but they should keep us save by banning most guns. It's analogous. Our elected officials can protect us from the worst elements among us.


Last edited by 33anda3rd on August 14 19, 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 8:59 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28382
Location: extremely online
What absolute gibberish. That post is representative of everything that's wrong with status quo democrat politics. What we do isn't working but we can never fix it because they don't actually want to change anything. Let's make epic memes about Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell until this planet is completely uninhabitable. Let's bathe in our new media echo chamber because our lives aren't actually that bad yet. Screw the people who's lives actually are because to reach them, we'd have to actually do something rather than talk about doing things.

That post, btw, is the lib version of saying the quiet parts out loud. Like Ken Cucinelli saying the statue of liberty poem was specifically only for white europeans is for conservatives. What the great progressive 33 is saying in the posts above is that he doesn't actually give a [expletive] about doing anything meaningful to combat poverty and climate change but he definitely still wants you to admire his progressive bona fides.


Last edited by thrill on August 14 19, 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 8:59 am 
Offline
"I could totally eat a person if it were a life/death situation"
User avatar

Joined: August 5 08, 11:24 am
Posts: 23878
Location: Thinking of the Children
Swirls wrote:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/trumps-state-by-state-approval-ratings-should-scare-him.html

Quote:
Trump’s State-by-State Approval Ratings Should Scare the MAGA Out of Him

There has been a lot of discussion in political circles about Donald Trump’s job-approval ratings, what they portend, and Trump’s Electoral College strategy for 2020, which doesn’t necessarily require a popular-vote plurality. But in the end, of course, the conjunction of the Electoral College with Trump’s state-by-state popularity is where the deal will go down.

The online polling firm Civiqs has published a new set of state-by-state job-approval ratings for Trump as of August 11, and it shows how the president’s overall standing (a 43 percent approval rating nationally, which happens to match the current RealClearPolitics polling average) might translate into electorate votes. It’s not a pretty picture for the president, to put it mildly.

Civiqs shows the president’s net approval ratios being underwater (i.e., negative) in 10 states he carried in 2016: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. If that were to represent how the 2020 elections turn out, Trump would have a booming 119 electoral votes. And it’s not as though he’s on a knife’s edge between victory and defeat in all these Trump 2016 states where he’s doing poorly: He’s underwater by 12 points in Pennsylvania, 11 in Michigan, and nine in Arizona, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. And there’s virtually no indication that states that narrowly went for Clinton in 2016 are trending in Trump’s direction: His approval ratios are minus 18 in Colorado, minus 15 in Minnesota, minus 12 in Nevada, and minus 27 in New Hampshire.


Image

There may be hope for us yet after all.

I'm kind of wary of projections and pollsters after the 2016 election. Not saying trump will win, but the general sentiment was landslide in Hillary's favor in 2016 iirc. I do know a guy got a bet in on trump day of the election at +500 or thereabouts which is a pretty massive underdog. So, really a question more than a statement, how sure are people that the polls are rerpresentative of how voting will come in and/or how sure is everyone that there aren't darker, more cynical, forces at work....like the forces that get people like putin elected at 98% or whatever?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:11 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7229
Location: Chicago, IL
thrill wrote:
What absolute gibberish. That post is representative of everything that's wrong with status quo democrat politics. What we do isn't working but we can never fix it because they don't actually want to change anything. Let's make epic memes about Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell until this planet is completely uninhabitable. Let's bathe in our new media echo chamber because our lives aren't actually that bad yet. Screw the people who's lives actually are because to reach them, we'd have to actually do something rather than talk about doing things.


Yup, that's me. Status quo Democrat. Just put my check in the mail to Biden HQ. Really hope we can maintain a deregulated financial system and stuff.

What's gibberish is your unflagging inability to objectively and practically view the landscape and to instead demand that the politics of outsiders is the way into systemic change. It's not. Things don't happen overnight, there's always the push/pull, and it's the great big bloc of moderate voters who can go either way with the political tide that determines POTUS elections more often that not. In 2016 they went Trump and in 2018 they clapped back on him. They are where 2020 will be won. Bringing along new voters is great, and base-building for the future is great, but the most important thing is not [expletive] this election in the butt by putting our eggs in the basket least likely to generate a return.

I hope you're enjoying your new-found sweeping progressive reform in IL, provided by Chicago and suburban-Chicago supporters of our billionaire governor who a lot of IL progressives insisted was a terrible candidate because he was a billionaire and a moderate. This is what that map looks like:

Image

If we [expletive] around and worried how to turn out-of-work ex-Cat employees in East Peoria into Blue Voter we would have [expletive] the whole thing. The suburbs and the city gave us change. That's where it will come from in 2020.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:26 am 
Offline
Single A Minor League Player

Joined: June 28 19, 10:00 pm
Posts: 8
33anda3rd wrote:

Wall Street is not entirely the devil and is not peoples' actual problem. They hold our mortgages, our 401(k), our savings, our checking accounts, they provide the ATMs where we get bank service and stuff like Venmo for sending the dog-walker twenty bucks. They provide a lot of service to a lot of citizens.

So let's point people to the actual problems. The GOP who deregulates Wall Street joyfully. People like the Koch Bros whose money is a cancer to our democracy because of their efforts to gain more political favor for those deregulations and for tax policy that kills the middle class. Wall Street is not the problem, a system that allows greed and fails to sufficiently regulate Wall Street is the problem. GOP tax codes are the problem, any system of trickle-down economics is going to rob from you and me and give to the Koch Bros and Bezos and such. Bezos is not the problem, a system in which any semblance of Teddy Rooseveltian trust-busting has completely disappeared is the problem. Sure, it's morally reprehensible for Bezos to hold as much wealth as he does while people are hungry, but it's more morally reprehensible for us to have a government hell-bent on giving him more at the expense of the hungry.

Our politics, if we "hire" the right people, can fix Wall Street and corporatist monopolies via regulation. "The One Percent" is like 3 million people in a nation of 327 million. We can certainly elect leaders with that kind of numbers advantage who will fix and maintain Wall Street so our financial system doesn't crumble--every developed nation has one, even Canada and France where they have free medicine--and tax the rich, and end citizens united, and help the poor and needy without demonizing and tearing apart banks. And that's what's in Sanders' message--it's not the problem of bad government that has allowed for this over the last century, it's on the natural greed of a very small % of our population. But it's not Wall Street. Sanders is wrong. It's the beltway that enables the worst instincts in a tiny percentage of us to impact the lives of the overwhelming majority. There will be greed in people, there will be those folks who go full Gordon Gekko, it's just up to the beltway to keep us safe from that natural thing. There will always be killings but they should keep us save by banning most guns. It's analogous. Our elected officials can protect us from the worst elements among us.


The problem with all of this is that it assumes our current capitalist system is good and just a case of mismanagement. Corporations are making more money than ever, and the workers are more productive while getting less. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Companies are only concerned about profits and give zero [expletive] about workers. All those criticisms you listed are regulatory problems that are inherent to finance and capitalism in general. All regulations do is slightly mitigate an inherent flaw. After all, when people are reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet, what does it matter if their lives are negatively impacted? Hell, what does climate change matter? That's way down the line, long term to companies means 5 years. In the current system, they have zero incentive to care.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:34 am 
Offline
MLB.TV Customer Support
User avatar

Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Posts: 8224
Location: Indianapolis
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
I'm kind of wary of projections and pollsters after the 2016 election. Not saying trump will win, but the general sentiment was landslide in Hillary's favor in 2016 iirc. I do know a guy got a bet in on trump day of the election at +500 or thereabouts which is a pretty massive underdog. So, really a question more than a statement, how sure are people that the polls are rerpresentative of how voting will come in and/or how sure is everyone that there aren't darker, more cynical, forces at work....like the forces that get people like putin elected at 98% or whatever?

I think the projections and polls were a little misinterpreted in 2016 but that may be apologetics. The day of or before election day 538 ran an article on what a Trump win would look like, and it's how it played out. The thing was the slim lead Clinton held in PA, OH, MI, WI wasn't like four individual leads. She would probably win them all or lose them all based on demographics and they had Trump at about a 1/6 chance and the emails definitely had an effect in those states.

So I think polls and projections are still worth looking at.

I have no sureness there's not darker forces at work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:42 am 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 27094
vinsanity wrote:
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:
I'm kind of wary of projections and pollsters after the 2016 election. Not saying trump will win, but the general sentiment was landslide in Hillary's favor in 2016 iirc. I do know a guy got a bet in on trump day of the election at +500 or thereabouts which is a pretty massive underdog. So, really a question more than a statement, how sure are people that the polls are rerpresentative of how voting will come in and/or how sure is everyone that there aren't darker, more cynical, forces at work....like the forces that get people like putin elected at 98% or whatever?

I think the projections and polls were a little misinterpreted in 2016 but that may be apologetics. The day of or before election day 538 ran an article on what a Trump win would look like, and it's how it played out. The thing was the slim lead Clinton held in PA, OH, MI, WI wasn't like four individual leads. She would probably win them all or lose them all based on demographics and they had Trump at about a 1/6 chance and the emails definitely had an effect in those states.

So I think polls and projections are still worth looking at.

I have no sureness there's not darker forces at work.


The polls were still basically right too. What polls do not tell you though is turnout. The turnout in 2016 was much different than 2012 and 2008. Trump energized certain demographics that may not have voted in the past to get out there and vote for him. Hillary didn't get the same demographics to the polls that swept Obama to big victories in '08 and '12.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:50 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7229
Location: Chicago, IL
IronPenguin wrote:
The problem with all of this is that it assumes our current capitalist system is good and just a case of mismanagement. Corporations are making more money than ever, and the workers are more productive while getting less. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Companies are only concerned about profits and give zero [expletive] about workers. All those criticisms you listed are regulatory problems that are inherent to finance and capitalism in general. All regulations do is slightly mitigate an inherent flaw. After all, when people are reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet, what does it matter if their lives are negatively impacted? Hell, what does climate change matter? That's way down the line, long term to companies means 5 years. In the current system, they have zero incentive to care.


We built an entire middle class out of organized labor and growing corporations in a capitalist society for a very long time.

We let too much BS slide with supply-side economics that chiseled away at it, starting in the 60s, ramping way up in the 80s (marginal tax rate was 70% in 1980 and 28% by 1989, that is criminal) and continuing today. A well-regulated system can produce widespread prosperity.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 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