PDA

View Full Version : Why working class whites vote the way they do.



Gerarddm
11-29-2015, 08:35 PM
This will have some people's teeth grinding...

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/29/the_truth_about_the_white_working_class_why_its_re ally_allergic_to_voting_for_democrats/

David G
11-29-2015, 08:50 PM
So... racism.

It's that simple.

Of course... turnout comes into play when one looks at electoral success. And gerrymandering. And disinformation campaigns.

So those who argue that Republicans have been winning local/state elections because 'the people' are fed up with the positions of Democrats are wrong. And the more informed voters - and voters - become... the more likely they'll vote for Democrats. And the more folks buy into the False Equivalence narrative (there's ain't a plugged nickel's worth of difference between the two parties), the more likely they'll skip voting.

CWSmith
11-29-2015, 08:51 PM
It's no more complicated than "I've worked too hard for what I have to let someone else get it."

Too Little Time
11-29-2015, 09:04 PM
This will have some people's teeth grinding...

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/29/the_truth_about_the_white_working_class_why_its_re ally_allergic_to_voting_for_democrats/

Last week I heard that Democrats who are on welfare begin to vote Republican when their situation improves and they no longer get welfare. There was also something about a subgroup of Democrats who are voting less.

But it does not matter much. Both parties do me well. And the poor and minorities poorly.

pipefitter
11-29-2015, 09:08 PM
Working class white people voted for Obama twice. Most of which, are pretty scarce when it comes to MSM photo ops and buying tickets to professional wrestling events.

Does this mean that most participants here are not white, working class? That says a lot.

S.V. Airlie
11-29-2015, 09:10 PM
Yup, in this county which has a majority of Republicans, a huge number are on welfare but continue voting for republicans. So, go figure. Blows your theory out of the water. This is fact not something I heard at the beauty parlor. Not surprised you were suckered in.

Reynard38
11-29-2015, 09:26 PM
What exactly is "working class" anyway? Most people I know work, except those that are retired.

L.W. Baxter
11-29-2015, 09:32 PM
I think this is a misuse of the term "racism".

It's fair at this point to call it identity politics. It's not racist for black people to vote for black candidates, etc. It's just human nature, and it takes special circumstances to overcome it.

David G
11-30-2015, 12:09 AM
What exactly is "working class" anyway? Most people I know work, except those that are retired.

From the article --

working class whites — defined as non-Hispanic whites without a college degree, although there are extensive debates as to the best way to define “working class”...

As an example of one of the variations mentioned... I regard myself as somewhat working class. But I did both undergraduate & graduate work in economics. And i own the business. But I work with my hands. Do manual labor - building and repairing boats, furniture, cabinetry and more. Get dirty. Don't wear a tie... or khakis... or shined shoes. So... yeah... kinda. As they said - definitions vary.

David G
11-30-2015, 12:19 AM
I think this is a misuse of the term "racism".

It's fair at this point to call it identity politics. It's not racist for black people to vote for black candidates, etc. It's just human nature, and it takes special circumstances to overcome it.

I think you could reasonably make that argument. But when it comes to this specific question... I think you'd fail. Racism has simply not gone away. I think it might have been fading at one point. But certain groups saw it as advantageous to bring it back. The deliberate politics of division, and creation of 'dog-whistle' words, and false narratives demonizing people of color (eg. the 'welfare queen), have made it racist. Our next hope for it fading is generational... but it hasn't happened yet, it seems.

L.W. Baxter
11-30-2015, 12:26 AM
I think you could reasonably make that argument. But when it comes to this specific question... I think you'd fail. Racism has simply not gone away. I think it might have been fading at one point. But certain groups saw it as advantageous to bring it back. The deliberate politics of division, and creation of 'dog-whistle' words, and false narratives demonizing people of color (eg. the 'welfare queen), have made it racist. Our next hope for it fading is generational... but it hasn't happened yet, it seems.

You can tell me I'd "fail" , but you can't tell me how.

What I'm saying is that not every bias against the "other" rises to the level of racism. I'm completely un-surprised that white people are tending to form a voting block. Every minority group does the same, and the demographers tell us that "whites" are headed towards minority status...though will maintain a potential plurality for a few generations yet.

David G
11-30-2015, 12:34 AM
You can tell me I'd "fail" , but you can't tell me how.

What I'm saying is that not every bias against the "other" rises to the level of racism. I'm completely un-surprised that white people are tending to form a voting block. Every minority group does the same, and the demographers tell us that "whites" are headed towards minority status...though will maintain a potential plurality for a few generations yet.

But I think you may be right about the psychology... even if the numbers don't yet justify it.

And what I'm saying is that it goes betond 'identity politics'. Because of our racial history, and the fact that institutional racism has existed for so long, it's not simply a new identity group forming (union members, gays, anti-abortion folks). Instead it's that underlying racism being tapped into. Easy enough to to bye the sorts of manipulators at work. AND... the sense that things are slipping away from them (including numerical superiority) makes working class whites easy to manipulate in that way.

I think LBJ had it right when he said, "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket".

Or... as Lee Atwater put it, in his 1981 interview with Albert Lamis -- You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****r, n*****r, n*****r." By 1968 you can't say "n*****r"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****r, n*****r."

oznabrag
11-30-2015, 02:42 AM
But I think you may be right about the psychology... even if the numbers don't yet justify it.

And what I'm saying is that it goes betond 'identity politics'. Because of our racial history, and the fact that institutional racism has existed for so long, it's not simply a new identity group forming (union members, gays, anti-abortion folks). Instead it's that underlying racism being tapped into. Easy enough to to bye the sorts of manipulators at work. AND... the sense that things are slipping away from them (including numerical superiority) makes working class whites easy to manipulate in that way.

I think LBJ had it right when he said, "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket".

Or... as Lee Atwater put it, in his 1981 interview with Albert Lamis -- You start out in 1954 by saying, "XXXXX." By 1968 you can't say "XXXX"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "XXXX."

You've been banned for this before, bud.

Better edit.

Glen Longino
11-30-2015, 03:06 AM
You've been banned for this before, bud.

Better edit.

Yep, thanks for looking out for that wild-eyed Humanitarian.
It does little good to be chained to the wall in Hotel Scot!

skuthorp
11-30-2015, 03:16 AM
I fail to see how you can be banned for a direct historical quote, double quoted in fact, and especially considering the subject, it's history, and Atwater's part in it.

Reynard38
11-30-2015, 07:08 AM
From the article --

working class whites — defined as non-Hispanic whites without a college degree, although there are extensive debates as to the best way to define “working class”...

As an example of one of the variations mentioned... I regard myself as somewhat working class. But I did both undergraduate & graduate work in economics. And i own the business. But I work with my hands. Do manual labor - building and repairing boats, furniture, cabinetry and more. Get dirty. Don't wear a tie... or khakis... or shined shoes. So... yeah... kinda. As they said - definitions vary.

Always seemed an odd term to me. Certainly politicos use it to pidgeon hole people. Divide and conquer, and get folks to vote against thier own interests.

Same with my profession. I do work with my hands (and feet). I have to wear a tie, and a hat, and need to shine my shoes (thanks for reminding me :) ). Also belong to a union.

Hard to put a label on it. Maybe that's part of the attraction.

Dave Wright
11-30-2015, 12:16 PM
I fail to see how you can be banned for a direct historical quote, double quoted in fact, and especially considering the subject, it's history, and Atwater's part in it.

Plus a million, it was purely informational and there was no intent to insult, defame, or denigrate. I would hope that if there was a banning that the most frequently posters here would come up with a way to impact the management. Could be a nice little practice exercise in how to influence.

oznabrag
11-30-2015, 12:29 PM
I fail to see how you can be banned for a direct historical quote, double quoted in fact, and especially considering the subject, it's history, and Atwater's part in it.

You, too?

Yet it is so.

L.W. Baxter
11-30-2015, 12:36 PM
The forum belongs to Woodenboat Magazine, and I don't think they want that kind of language repeated regardless of context.

Its unnecessary, and repugnant in polite conversation. But, whatever.

David G
11-30-2015, 12:44 PM
Edited. Sheesh...

Do y'all REALLY think Scot is so puerile and simplistic as to object, let alone ban one for, a direct historical quote which was absolutely germane - in fact key - to the discussion? I don't. I give him more credit than that. Of course... I've been disappointed before.

Dave Wright
11-30-2015, 12:58 PM
The forum belongs to Woodenboat Magazine, and I don't think they want that kind of language repeated regardless of context.

Its unnecessary, and repugnant in polite conversation. But, whatever.

I wonder if it is unnecessary? I would argue that context is everything.

The forum belongs to Woodenboat so you have to wonder what if anything they get out of running it. It could be argued that the participants actually have more control than the management. Innumerable threads are posted here bewailing that political and social changes don't occur because of lack of action by various groups of people. Yet the group of participants here profess helplessness in influencing a simple social forum. I don't get it.:confused:

oznabrag
11-30-2015, 01:10 PM
Edited. Sheesh...

Do y'all REALLY think Scot is so puerile and simplistic as to object, let alone ban one for, a direct historical quote which was absolutely germane - in fact key - to the discussion? I don't. I give him more credit than that. Of course... I've been disappointed before.

Well, your OWN EXPERIENCE may be enlightening there, and the only time Keith W has ever lost posts, it was for that very quote.

Just trying to help you stay out of trouble.

Chip-skiff
11-30-2015, 01:11 PM
I fail to see how you can be banned for a direct historical quote, double quoted in fact, and especially considering the subject, it's history, and Atwater's part in it.

I'd guess there's some sort of thou-shalt-not global search on the Forum that highlights certain words, with banning a nearly automatic response.

One could likely be banned for quoting Mark Twain or Chaucer.

S.V. Airlie
11-30-2015, 01:14 PM
Chip yup, people now are rewriting Twain to make it politically correct.

Rum_Pirate
11-30-2015, 01:19 PM
It's no more complicated than "I've worked too hard for what I have to let someone else get it."

If you don't and follow the alternative to the n'th degree you get communism.

I agree with the "I've worked too hard for what I have to let someone else get it." statement, but realise that some has to go to municipal works e.g. roads etc etc. We all contribute and all share the use of these assets.
I don't see why if I have worked hard that others should get it.
I would prefer that I decide whom gets what I have earned. IE I am against Inheritance Tax.
I believe that I should be able to leave/give what I worked for to whomsoever I want, e.g. my family..

oznabrag
11-30-2015, 01:24 PM
If you don't and follow the alternative to the n'th degree you get communism.

I agree with the "I've worked too hard for what I have to let someone else get it." statement, but realise that some has to go to municipal works e.g. roads etc etc. We all contribute and all share the use of these assets.
I don't see why if I have worked hard that others should get it.
I would prefer that I decide whom gets what I have earned. IE I am against Inheritance Tax.
I believe that I should be able to leave/give what I worked for to whomsoever I want, e.g. my family..

Inheritance is the biggest single factor in wealth inequality.

By a LOT.

Daniel Noyes
11-30-2015, 01:43 PM
Yup, in this county which has a majority of Republicans, a huge number are on welfare but continue voting for republicans. So, go figure. Blows your theory out of the water. This is fact not something I heard at the beauty parlor. Not surprised you were suckered in.

They hate welfare and are well aware that welfare benefits the rich not them (contrary to the Democrat propaganda) they want to get off welfare and Republicans offer them that hope... rather than more of the same thing...

fits the theory perfectly, cant Democrats see that???

Rum_Pirate
11-30-2015, 01:53 PM
Inheritance is the biggest single factor in wealth inequality.

By a LOT.


So do you consider that Inheritance tax should be 100% and it goes into the Public Treasury?

Dave Wright
11-30-2015, 01:57 PM
If you don't and follow the alternative to the n'th degree you get communism.

I agree with the "I've worked too hard for what I have to let someone else get it." statement, but realise that some has to go to municipal works e.g. roads etc etc. We all contribute and all share the use of these assets.
I don't see why if I have worked hard that others should get it.
I would prefer that I decide whom gets what I have earned. IE I am against Inheritance Tax.
I believe that I should be able to leave/give what I worked for to whomsoever I want, e.g. my family..

The problem with your philosophy Rummy, is that it enables you to give assets to potentially profligate heirs who simply have never worked for "it."

Yet all of your life you have remonstrated against those lazy bastards who have not worked for "it."

An inheritance tax is a nice, gentle way of insuring that your overiding principles are followed, even by you. Don't you agree that everyone should stick to their principles??

oznabrag
11-30-2015, 01:58 PM
So do you consider that Inheritance tax should be 100% and it goes into the Public Treasury?

No, I do not.

S.V. Airlie
11-30-2015, 02:16 PM
They hate welfare and are well aware that welfare benefits the rich not them (contrary to the Democrat propaganda) they want to get off welfare and Republicans offer them that hope... rather than more of the same thing...

fits the theory perfectly, cant Democrats see that???There is a local family here on welfare and are republicans (vote that way always) The grandmother is upset that her grandchild is turning six and no eligible to receive welfare at current amounts and she's fit to be tied. She keeps asking her unwed daughter to have another child (with her present boyfriend has just gotten out of jail and also gets checks) to keep the welfare checks coming in. I mean, how sick is that? That is HER HOPE! I get this from her other grandmother who actually takes care of this child but, not legally so, take this example for what it's worth. I suspect if I dig, I'll hear other examples.

Rum_Pirate
11-30-2015, 02:45 PM
The problem with your philosophy Rummy, is that it enables you to give assets to potentially profligate heirs who simply have never worked for "it."

Yet all of your life you have remonstrated against those lazy bastards who have not worked for "it."

An inheritance tax is a nice, gentle way of insuring that your overiding principles are followed, even by you. Don't you agree that everyone should stick to their principles??


Disagree. I work to better my family's status.

The amount that I will leave to my children would not be enough to allow them to be part of the 'idle rich'.

They will still have to work BUT with my (inheritance) help they will start a little higher on the ladder.
Or like me, inherit a small sum later (hopefully much later) in life to provide them with an indulgence that they may not have been able to otherwise afford.

You are right, I would not want the proceeds from my endeavours (that I have paid tax on throughout my life) to be given to 'those lazy bastards who have not worked for it.' " Why should it?

If one manages to build up a big company in one's lifetime, when one dies it goes to the Government? That is BS!

But if so, then families will not be able to build on what their forefathers built, but would have to start from scratch, thus family endeavours would only get to a certain size (i.e. one generation) before being taken over by the Government.

If society, via Government, takes away all of an inheritance then what is the point of working hard after one earns enough to be comfortable?

Rum_Pirate
11-30-2015, 02:46 PM
So do you consider that Inheritance tax should be 100% and it goes into the Public Treasury?


No, I do not.


So in your view how much (what percentage/amount) should?

Dave Wright
11-30-2015, 03:12 PM
Disagree. I work to better my family's status.

If society, via Government, takes away all of an inheritance then what is the point of working hard after one earns enough to be comfortable?

No one said take away "all." I would be satisfied with a simple system - an exclusionary amount with a flat tax rate on the balance. With perhaps policy to insure that a viable business with substantial employment beyond family members doesn't have to be liquidated to satisfy a tax bill.

John of Phoenix
11-30-2015, 03:50 PM
The federal estate tax exemption—that's the amount an individual can leave to heirs without having to pay federal estate tax—will be $5.43 million in 2015, up from $5.34 million for 2014. That's another $90,000 that can be passed on tax-free. The top federal estate tax rate is 40%.
www.forbes.com/.../irs-announces-2015-estate-and-gift-tax-limits/ (http://www.forbes.com/.../irs-announces-2015-estate-and-gift-tax-limits/)

That means $5,430,000 can be left to heirs without a penny paid in taxes. Not enough?

John of Phoenix
11-30-2015, 03:55 PM
No one said take away "all." I would be satisfied with a simple system - an exclusionary amount with a flat tax rate on the balance. With perhaps policy to insure that a viable business with substantial employment beyond family members doesn't have to be liquidated to satisfy a tax bill.That "policy", known as life insurance, would be purchased by the corporation if the owners intend to have the business continue.

Dave Wright
11-30-2015, 04:08 PM
The problem is that the exclusionary amount has gone from $675,000 to $5.43 million in just 15 years while the rate on the balance above the exclusion has dropped from 55% to 40%

So while all other costs are rising the inheritance tax is falling. It's hard to sell this policy, but it has come about.

Too Little Time
11-30-2015, 04:59 PM
No one said take away "all." I would be satisfied with a simple system - an exclusionary amount with a flat tax rate on the balance. With perhaps policy to insure that a viable business with substantial employment beyond family members doesn't have to be liquidated to satisfy a tax bill.

I don't know what you mean by liquidation. Most businesses are worth more as businesses rather than selling off the assets. When someone dies, the most likely of the two results is that the business is sold and continues on.

But there are a lot of smart people like Sam Walton. He gave each of his 4 kids 20% of his businesses when his businesses were small and his kids were young. Saved a lot on taxes when he died. Then there is the fellow who put a lot of stock from his start up into a Roth IRA. After it went public his Roth was worth billions. That passes on without estate of income taxes.

When you talk about estates, remember that $10 million in after tax inheritance produces an expected return of $1 million each year forever.

Dan McCosh
11-30-2015, 05:08 PM
I don't know what you mean by liquidation. Most businesses are worth more as businesses rather than selling off the assets. When someone dies, the most likely of the two results is that the business is sold and continues on.

But there are a lot of smart people like Sam Walton. He gave each of his 4 kids 20% of his businesses when his businesses were small and his kids were young. Saved a lot on taxes when he died. Then there is the fellow who put a lot of stock from his start up into a Roth IRA. After it went public his Roth was worth billions. That passes on without estate of income taxes.

When you talk about estates, remember that $1 million in after tax inheritance produces an expected return of $1 million each year forever. Could you pass on the tip on the investment that generates 100% return annually forever?

Breakaway
11-30-2015, 05:10 PM
Could you pass on the tip on the investment that generates 100% return annually forever?

Yes, please do. I'll cut you in for a piece of that return, no problem.

Kevin

Too Little Time
11-30-2015, 06:24 PM
Could you pass on the tip on the investment that generates 100% return annually forever?


Yes, please do. I'll cut you in for a piece of that return, no problem.

Kevin

I was going to go back and change the first number to $10 million and I simply forgot.

McMike
11-30-2015, 06:44 PM
I don't need a survey. I work with many, many, working class white people. Racism is rampant even here in the "liberal" Northeast.

David G
11-30-2015, 11:53 PM
Well, your OWN EXPERIENCE may be enlightening there, and the only time Keith W has ever lost posts, it was for that very quote.

Just trying to help you stay out of trouble.

And I appreciate your efforts.

bobbys
12-01-2015, 12:47 AM
From the article --

working class whites — defined as non-Hispanic whites without a college degree, although there are extensive debates as to the best way to define “working class”...

As an example of one of the variations mentioned... I regard myself as somewhat working class. But I did both undergraduate & graduate work in economics. And i own the business. But I work with my hands. Do manual labor - building and repairing boats, furniture, cabinetry and more. Get dirty. Don't wear a tie... or khakis... or shined shoes. So... yeah... kinda. As they said - definitions vary.
.

Working class hero untill one needs to brag about their college degrees. Over those working class tradesmen without . Any..

LOL.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 01:34 AM
.

Working class hero untill one needs to brag about their college degrees. Over those working class tradesmen without . Any..

LOL.

I don't have any.

Got a problem with that?

ShagRock
12-01-2015, 02:32 AM
I don't have any. Got a problem with that?

So all you got is brag.

C. Ross
12-01-2015, 03:06 AM
And the more informed voters - and voters - become... the more likely they'll vote for Democrats.

Actually not true. Pew Research has performed the "What the Public Knows" survey for many years, and Republicans answer more questions correctly than Democrats and year after year. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/28/what-the-public-knows-in-pictures-words-maps-and-graphs/republicans-more-likely-to-know-route-of-keystone-partisan-balance-of-senate/

Friends to my left often comment loudly about the ignorance and stupidity of Republican voters (often specifically southern white Christian men). Keith posted an article a couple of weeks ago saying that the Democrats need only wait for demographics to deliver inevitable victory, as this group is a shrinking percentage of the vote. Maybe so, but I always find it curious that few Democrats seem interested in appealing to these voters.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 10:05 AM
Actually not true. Pew Research has performed the "What the Public Knows" survey for many years, and Republicans answer more questions correctly than Democrats and year after year. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/28/what-the-public-knows-in-pictures-words-maps-and-graphs/republicans-more-likely-to-know-route-of-keystone-partisan-balance-of-senate/

Friends to my left often comment loudly about the ignorance and stupidity of Republican voters (often specifically southern white Christian men). Keith posted an article a couple of weeks ago saying that the Democrats need only wait for demographics to deliver inevitable victory, as this group is a shrinking percentage of the vote. Maybe so, but I always find it curious that few Democrats seem interested in appealing to these voters.

I could not possibly agree with you more. What is UP with that?

Is it the Lee Atwater butt-hurt?

Whatever it is, it comes off as prissy, little, holier-than-thou, regionalist bigots judging Southern, white males as not being WORTHY of voting for Hillary.

WTF ever happened to POLITICS, fer Chrissakes?

Osborne Russell
12-01-2015, 02:16 PM
Actually not true. Pew Research has performed the "What the Public Knows" survey for many years, and Republicans answer more questions correctly than Democrats and year after year. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/28/what-the-public-knows-in-pictures-words-maps-and-graphs/republicans-more-likely-to-know-route-of-keystone-partisan-balance-of-senate/

Those are current events questions, heavily weighted toward identifying personalities. The tribal mentality runs in that direction.


Friends to my left often comment loudly about the ignorance and stupidity of Republican voters (often specifically southern white Christian men). Keith posted an article a couple of weeks ago saying that the Democrats need only wait for demographics to deliver inevitable victory, as this group is a shrinking percentage of the vote. Maybe so, but I always find it curious that few Democrats seem interested in appealing to these voters.

Is there a duty to be rational? To what ought this appeal be directed? What can be said to be people that like Donald Trump?

Too Little Time
12-01-2015, 05:06 PM
Could you pass on the tip on the investment that generates 100% return annually forever?


Yes, please do. I'll cut you in for a piece of that return, no problem.


I was going to go back and change the first number to $10 million and I simply forgot.

While I did make that mistake, there are a lot of investments that return 100% forever.

Investments in oneself often return that much. My wife quit her job and started our business because she realized that her employer was not going to pay her what she was worth. I am sure that it took a few years before the change was in the black economically, but it clearly is now. She makes at least $100K more each year than had she kept her job. And it cost much less than $100K to start our business. A college degree certainly makes more than 100% compared to the cost of quitting after 4 years.

Of course, each of these has limited potential - you can only invest so much in yourself. And you can only work so many hours.

But there are a lot of people who make money with little to no investment of their own money. The guys who run mutual finds get 1% of your money. The guys who run hedge funds get 2% of your money plus part of the profits. Guys who put together oil/gas deals get 5% of the profits with little to no investment.

If I had several million dollars and wanted to make a lot of money, I could come up with plans that returned 100% on my investment.

Keith Wilson
12-01-2015, 05:29 PM
So how would Democrats appeal to older white southern evangelical Christian men?


. . . the only time Keith W has ever lost posts, it was for that very quote.It was indeed. I thought it was kind of odd, since I was quoting Mr. Atwater, and that particular word was important in context - but not my call. One can always write 'n****r', I suppose.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 06:21 PM
So how would Democrats appeal to older white southern evangelical Christian men?

It was indeed. I thought it was kind of odd, since I was quoting Mr. Atwater, and that particular word was important in context - but not my call. One can always write 'n****r', I suppose.

Screw those idiots!

They're dying off, and there aren't that many of them to begin with.

The voter the Democratic Party wants to court in the South is proud of his home, and is deeply in love with it.

His blood boils when some pantywaist Yankee twit calls him a racist. He works with black people, and respects them. He may have had a crush on that black cheerleader in high school. He ain't gonna vote Democratic, because the Democratic Party seems to go out of its way to alienate everybody in the South who ISN'T black.

One of the principal problems the Democratic Party has in the South, is that damned Lee Atwater.

He helped the dwindling, failing, amoral, rotten, racist bastards to retain and regain their grip on society, and a whole lot of apathy set in.

People who weathered the 60s and had tentative hope that those monsters could be swept aside were overwhelmed by the Southern Strategy, and they feel as though they're beaten.

What the hell ever happened to DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS, for Pete's sake ???

Aren't they supposed to rally people behind a cause, or something?

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2015, 06:23 PM
Oh really! Are you talking about Cruz? Sounds like it. The man born in Canada?

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 06:26 PM
Oh really! Are you talking about Cruz? Sounds like it. The man born in Canada?

Are you arguing with Phillip Allen?

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2015, 06:29 PM
Only if you wrote your post above. Also, Phillip has a tendency to write one liners especially as he can't write any more.

And I'm sure Cruz loves Texas, they voted him into office. One doesn't hate the people or the state that does that.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 06:30 PM
Only if you wrote your post above. Also, Phillip has a tendency to write one liners especially as he can't write any more.

And I'm sure Cruz loves Texas, they voted him into office. One doesn't hate the people or the state that does that.

Go argue with Phillip.

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2015, 06:31 PM
Not worth that, sorry.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 06:36 PM
Screw those idiots!

They're dying off, and there aren't that many of them to begin with.

The voter the Democratic Party wants to court in the South is proud of his home, and is deeply in love with it.

His blood boils when some pantywaist Yankee twit calls him a racist. He works with black people, and respects them. He may have had a crush on that black cheerleader in high school. He ain't gonna vote Democratic, because the Democratic Party seems to go out of its way to alienate everybody in the South who ISN'T black.

One of the principal problems the Democratic Party has in the South, is that damned Lee Atwater.

He helped the dwindling, failing, amoral, rotten, racist bastards to retain and regain their grip on society, and a whole lot of apathy set in.

People who weathered the 60s and had tentative hope that those monsters could be swept aside were overwhelmed by the Southern Strategy, and they feel as though they're beaten.

What the hell ever happened to DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS, for Pete's sake ???

Aren't they supposed to rally people behind a cause, or something?

I would add, Keith, that it would be a mistake to target 'white' Southerners of any sex.

In my opinion, the South is a whole lot closer to being post-racial than many other parts of the country, despite the actions of some highly visible idiots.

All that is required is a leader to make the great majority stand up and be counted.

Bill could do that.

Hilly? Not so much.

C. Ross
12-01-2015, 06:50 PM
Whatever it is, it comes off as prissy, little, holier-than-thou, regionalist bigots judging Southern, white males as not being WORTHY of voting for Hillary.

WTF ever happened to POLITICS, fer Chrissakes?

Bam. On the money. You're on a roll with the last couple of posts, my friend.


Those are current events questions, heavily weighted toward identifying personalities. The tribal mentality runs in that direction.

Well, let's see. Unfortunately you insulted the wrong tribe by getting it EXACTLY backward. Democrats are in fact better than Republicans at identifying personalities!

Who is Elizabeth Warren? Pope Francis is from ... Argentina? Who is Malala? Is that Martin Luther King Jr.? On all these, Democratic voters know more than Republicans.

Route of the Keystone XL pipeline, where is Guantanamo located, current Senate party composition, need to indicate insurance coverage on taxes, U.S. recently re-established relationships with ... Cuba, number of SCOTUS judges that are women, leader of North Korea. On all these, edge to Republicans.


Is there a duty to be rational? To what ought this appeal be directed? What can be said to be people that like Donald Trump?

Rationality sticks out awkwardly in politics. I don't advise it. But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters. I just don't get it.

My Facebook feed is two-thirds full of people hee-hawing at dumb as a sack of hammers white male crackers. I'm pretty much convinced that the habitual cut and pasters of "Occupy Democrats" crap on Facebook do so because they got serious self-esteem issues and desperately need someone to sneer at because their lives ain't so purty either. Or, maybe I just have the wrong kind of friends.

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2015, 06:53 PM
Probably because beating their heads is more productive.

David G
12-01-2015, 07:28 PM
Actually not true. Pew Research has performed the "What the Public Knows" survey for many years, and Republicans answer more questions correctly than Democrats and year after year. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/28/what-the-public-knows-in-pictures-words-maps-and-graphs/republicans-more-likely-to-know-route-of-keystone-partisan-balance-of-senate/

Friends to my left often comment loudly about the ignorance and stupidity of Republican voters (often specifically southern white Christian men). Keith posted an article a couple of weeks ago saying that the Democrats need only wait for demographics to deliver inevitable victory, as this group is a shrinking percentage of the vote. Maybe so, but I always find it curious that few Democrats seem interested in appealing to these voters.

Have to disagree on several points.

1. I always find it curious that few Democrats seem interested in appealing to these voters. Not sure where you got the notion. This Democrat certainly isn't - but more importantly... I've never seen any sort of serious advocacy for doing so - beyond this one Salon article. And it's more of an academic exercise than a strategic white paper. It assumes that the Democrats would be better off if we could peel off some of those voters. That's true, as far as it goes. And it would be a service to the nation to veer away from the disastrous Republican policies of the last few decades (though some might not agree <G>). But what is the likelihood of managing such a thing? What sort of resources would it take? Would those resources be better spent elsewhere? I imagine those questions have been asked. And the truth of Keith's demographic data has been factored in. And - barring some sort of sea-change which would open a door of opportunity - the determination has been not to bother.

I'd call this sophistry. A straw man... a red herring.

2. Republicans answer more questions correctly. I'm not sure the Pew study you link to says what you'd like it to say. Twelve questions. Republicans are correct on about 69%. Dems on about 66%. A differential of 3.3333% A very frail 'win'. In fact - at first glance - I see no stated moe... but this is probably within.

3. "What the Public Knows". I would question the questions. Perhaps the astute folks at Pew have crafted a poll by which such general question such as the location of Guantanamo can stand in for more germane questions such as knowledge of how Guantanamo came into existence, subsequent proposals for dismantling it, and why it still exists. But... based on what I know of statistics, and on the other - similarly general - questions in The Dozen... I'd think not. And that's probably because they were likely not trying to measure the same things that at issue here.

Perhaps some better evidence is called for?

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2015, 07:35 PM
This comes down to how and why something happens which is different than relying on rote for example. When I was a lot younger, I could list all the US presidents in order. Now, in many cases, I can say why and in what circumstances how they were president when they were. Just an example!

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2015, 08:07 PM
Every year I visit a guy, Republican because we grew up together. Every time I visit, it's just a stream of vendictives, hate, bigotry etc. out of his mouth. He lives alone now, his wife has after 20 years finally left him. I visit for 5 min. and not much more. He doesn't read any books, hasn't for years. He's glued himself to FOX news. He hasn't left the town in 60 years. When I see him so briefly, I don't say a word to contradict him. Not sense even trying.

As a side bar, in the 20 years he was married, she was someone's secretary. He made it clear to her that she never couldn't use his bank accounts and she had to live on HER salary. She had to even pay for the food both ate. In 20 years, for ONE anniversary, her husband treated her to dinner at a PizzaHut. That was it.

Canoez
12-01-2015, 08:10 PM
For all of the discussion here, it all sums up to two words : Wedge Issues.

David G
12-01-2015, 08:17 PM
For all of the discussion here, it all sums up to two words : Wedge Issues.

Yes. Republican strategic success. Civic catastrophe.

And they keep the wedges firmly embedded by spreading false narrative thru outlets like Fox, Breitbart, Hannity, Rush, et.al.

For more... I heartily recommend this book. Written by a long-time Republican staffer Mike Lofgren. Quite hard on Democrats. Even harder on Republicans --

The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted



http://www.amazon.com/The-Party-Over-Republicans-Democrats/dp/0143124218

C. Ross
12-01-2015, 09:07 PM
Have to disagree on several points.

1. I always find it curious that few Democrats seem interested in appealing to these voters. This Democrat certainly isn't ... I'd call this sophistry. A straw man... a red herring.

No, I just find it curious when any political party writes off a segment of the population entirely. Oznabrag describes much better than I could why southern white men could very easily be Democratic voters. I'm equally dumbfounded why Republican candidates seem determined to alienate Hispanic voters who could very easily be solid conservative voters based on their strong cultural values around thrift, hard work, family and religion. The Republicans COMPLETELY missed an opportunity for a Southern Strategy Part 2 had they strongly courted the Hispanic vote circa 1990. Whatever tissue of opportunity they had was completely shredded by The Donald.

As for myself, I remain center-right but find myself completely without a party. People like me could have been coopted by the left but the numbers say we haven't been. Personally, I believe this is because the left transmuted from aspirational to smug in less than one generation.

They used to preach at me with gauzy helium-filled idealism, which was inspirational if impractical. On their worst days they were cloying but well-intentioned.

Now lefty memes and slogans no longer seek redemption of the Great Unwashed like me. At first I thought the multiple daily messages that People On The Right Are Stupid And Evil So There was an effort to achieve repentance through shame, which of course is a losing proposition. Now I see the steady drone from Stewart, Maher, Huffington Post, Occupy Democrats and Think Progress as Naming the Enemy and Reassuring The Chosen. Why so much self-soothing? This steady need for inward reinforcement seems odd from people who used to be so outwardly focused.

Among Democrats only Obama really saw the vision of post-partisanship. I bought it. Unfortunately he was insufficiently seasoned and tough-minded in pursuing it, and immediately squandered his franchise by leaving a leadership vacuum to be filled by weak and self-serving Congressional leaders as he sought to float untouched above the fray. Truly a historic shame. So the only refuge for the left is "it's not our fault, the right is racist and doesn't play fair". Seems like an awfully weak hand to deal oneself.



2. Republicans answer more questions correctly. I'm not sure the Pew study you link to says what you'd like it to say. Twelve questions. Republicans are correct on about 69%. Dems on about 66%. A differential of 3.3333% A very frail 'win'. In fact - at first glance - I see no stated moe... but this is probably within.

Pew has been doing the survey for years, and it always ends up the same. They ask simple knowledge questions about important current issues and Republicans always answer more questions more correctly than Democrats. Go ahead, look it up.

You want it to be a tie? OK. If so, at least it refutes your statement that: "And the more informed voters - and voters - become... the more likely they'll vote for Democrats. " But then again, see above.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 09:12 PM
Bam. On the money. You're on a roll with the last couple of posts, my friend.


Thanks, Cris. That means a lot.



Rationality sticks out awkwardly in politics. I don't advise it. But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters. I just don't get it.

My Facebook feed is two-thirds full of people hee-hawing at dumb as a sack of hammers white male crackers. I'm pretty much convinced that the habitual cut and pasters of "Occupy Democrats" crap on Facebook do so because they got serious self-esteem issues and desperately need someone to sneer at because their lives ain't so purty either. Or, maybe I just have the wrong kind of friends.

I don't get it, either.

Dumb-as-a-sack-of-hammers white, male 'crackers'?

Feeling like dishing out the regionalist bigotry, today? Does this spring from your desperate need to sneer at someone in a pitiful attempt to feel better about yourself, or do you just take those 'crackers' (now THERE'S an ugly, racist sorta word) do you simply take them for granted as your whipping boys?

Did no one ever teach you to accept those different from yourself?

Do you realize that this is EXACTLY what I was talking about?

Why would anyone vote for someone who regards him that way?




Have to disagree on several points.

1. I always find it curious that few Democrats seem interested in appealing to these voters. Not sure where you got the notion. This Democrat certainly isn't - but more importantly... I've never seen any sort of serious advocacy for doing so - beyond this one Salon article. . . .

Well lah ti dah.

Just so long as you ignore the South, Atwater keeps winning.

C. Ross
12-01-2015, 09:20 PM
Dumb-as-a-sack-of-hammers white, male 'crackers'?

Feeling like dishing out the regionalist bigotry, today?.

Absolutely not. Apologies if I've offended, I was merely citing the kinds of language I find offensive.

S.V. Airlie
12-01-2015, 09:24 PM
Absolutely not. Apologies if I've offended, I was merely citing the kinds of language I find offensive. In a way, I agree with you. What should I call those rallying behind Trump. Brilliant! People tend to perceive what others say and respond accordingly to their actions. Human nature. I don't think it varies much on locale.

David G
12-01-2015, 09:35 PM
Thanks, Cris. That means a lot.




I don't get it, either.

Dumb-as-a-sack-of-hammers white, male 'crackers'?

Feeling like dishing out the regionalist bigotry, today? Does this spring from your desperate need to sneer at someone in a pitiful attempt to feel better about yourself, or do you just take those 'crackers' (now THERE'S an ugly, racist sorta word) do you simply take them for granted as your whipping boys?

Did no one ever teach you to accept those different from yourself?

Do you realize that this is EXACTLY what I was talking about?

Why would anyone vote for someone who regards him that way?





Well lah ti dah.

Just so long as you ignore the South, Atwater keeps winning.

Didja read the rest of what I wrote? Risk/reward? It has taken the R's decades to build up the level of dumbassery we see displayed by the 'low-information voter' - in the South and elsewhere. And esp. in the South because of the racial baggage/resentment. I just don't think the D's believe that it would be a good use of resources, with a high likelihood of success, to attempt to reverse things at this point. I believe they've thrown up their hands, and settled for riding with the 'demographic' narrative. It's not like we're talking about courting the swing-voter sorts that Cris represents (though I agree with him that they SHOULD be doing outreach to all those folks the R's have left behind with their rush toward ideological purity).

But I could be wrong... or the D's could be wrong. Show us. Here's how it works. Show some signs. Organize. Build a bit of momentum. I can say without hesitation you will get support. At this point... it doesn't seem to be moving in that direction. Just taking Texas, for example. Was the administration of Ann Richards the dawn of increasing rationality in the governor's office? How much impact does Jim Hightower have there these days? Has anyone similar been elected to replace Henry Gonzales? Would you consider Kinky Friedman influential... or marginalized?

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 09:35 PM
Absolutely not. Apologies if I've offended, I was merely citing the kinds of language I find offensive.

Understood.

Daniel Noyes
12-01-2015, 09:42 PM
wow, ok ...interesting discussion...

just to add my 2 cents.
I don't think I have heard the acusation of Racism used in my 40 years as much as I have in the past 9-12 months by Democrats on FaceBook. A couple years ago such an accusation would have gotten my attention, concern and a sincere response... today it's just another nasty name, so commonly and cheaply used that it has to be ignored.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 09:44 PM
Didja read the rest of what I wrote? Risk/reward? It has taken the R's decades to build up the level of dumbassery we see displayed by the 'low-information voter' - in the South and elsewhere. And esp. in the South because of the racial baggage/resentment. I just don't think the D's believe that it would be a good use of resources, with a high likelihood of success, to attempt to reverse things at this point. I believe they've thrown up their hands, and settled for riding with the 'demographic' narrative. It's not like we're talking about courting the swing-voter sorts that Cris represents (though I agree with him that they SHOULD be doing outreach to all those folks the R's have left behind with their rush toward ideological purity).

But I could be wrong... or the D's could be wrong. Show us. Here's how it works. Show some signs. Organize. Build a bit of momentum. I can say without hesitation you will get support.

You people are stuck in 1968.

The number of hard-core bigots in the South is small, but powerful. But small.

Give their followers and the people they oppress something to get behind, and the entire, raving mass of them will shriek and scurry away to hide.

Furthermore, I am not a politician, so I'm not going to be out there' organizing'.

I'm not sure there ARE any Democratic politicians in the US who haven't already served two terms as President!

David G
12-01-2015, 09:48 PM
You people are stuck in 1968.

The number of hard-core bigots in the South is small, but powerful. But small.

Give their followers and the people they oppress something to get behind, and the entire, raving mass of them will shriek and scurry away to hide.

Furthermore, I am not a politician, so I'm not going to be out there' organizing'.

I'm not sure there ARE any Democratic politicians in the US who haven't already served two terms as President!

Maybe YOU are not an organizer. But you are not the only one in the state who could do what I suggest. I suspect many already are. Right now. Today. You can support them - morally, vocally, financially, spiritually. When they gain some traction, as you seem to think is highly possible, I'll be quite happy to hear about it.

Keith Wilson
12-01-2015, 09:51 PM
Among Democrats only Obama really saw the vision of post-partisanship. I bought it. Unfortunately he was insufficiently seasoned and tough-minded in pursuing it, and immediately squandered his franchise by leaving a leadership vacuum to be filled by weak and self-serving Congressional leaders as he sought to float untouched above the fray.Or possibly he really believed what he was saying about post-partisanship and working together. That's not the norm for a politician, but it occasionally happens. I can see how such a man would take a long time to realize that the Republicans had settled on 'F**k Obama, and the country be damned!' as their central strategy.

C. Ross
12-01-2015, 10:05 PM
Or possibly he really believed what he was saying about post-partisanship and working together. That's not the norm for a politician, but it occasionally happens. I can see how such a man would take a long time to realize that the Republicans had settled on 'F**k Obama, and the country be damned!' as their central strategy.

Oh I think President Obama still believes it. So do I.

But my friends who work in politics were privately appalled at how detached Obama was, how overreaching his agenda was from a legislative strategy perspective. Remember he took on health care, environmental reform, immigration reform and financial market reform - in his first nine months! One can argue he needed to take on all the financial matters but the choice to push health care, immigration and the environment simultaneously was like opening a war on three fronts simultaneously. Foolish, and beyond the grasp of Reid and Pelosi.

His reluctance and eventual refusal to fight back against republican intransigence was his monumental mistake. He didn't realize he needed to CREATE post-partisanship, not merely claim it.

Keith Wilson
12-01-2015, 10:12 PM
I don't think 'refusal' is correct. I'd guess he thought they couldn't possibly that intransigent and cynical, and by the time he'd figured it out, it was too late. Where's Lyndon Johnson when we need him, eh?

Of course, you say he overreached, and our dedicated Sanderites say he was a timid tool of the corporate oligarchy.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 10:15 PM
Oh I think President Obama still believes it. So do I.

But my friends who work in politics were privately appalled at how detached Obama was, how overreaching his agenda was from a legislative strategy perspective. Remember he took on health care, environmental reform, immigration reform and financial market reform - in his first nine months! One can argue he needed to take on all the financial matters but the choice to push health care, immigration and the environment simultaneously was like opening a war on three fronts simultaneously. Foolish, and beyond the grasp of Reid and Pelosi.

His reluctance and eventual refusal to fight back against republican intransigence was his monumental mistake. He didn't realize he needed to CREATE post-partisanship, not merely claim it.

So, where are the *&^&$%#$ politicians, anymore?

I mean demagogues are a dime a dozen, though you'd have to pay the whole ten cents for Trump, statesmen are all but extinct. . . we need decent, if not extraordinary, politicians, and we can't seem to come up with any.

Bill Clinton is arguably the best living politician in the US, right now, and he has shot his wad, so to speak.

Obama may well be second, but again, he has done all he can do. I suppose he could get elected to the Senate or something, and there's the delicious prospect that he could become a Supreme, but for all intents and purposes, he's done.

Hilly isn't even on the map. If she becomes President, it'll be because her husband is a political genius.

This should in no way be construed as a slight on her ability to BE President, just her ability to BECOME President.


So, where are the *&^&$%#$ politicians, anymore?

Yeah! Where's LBJ, when you need him?


I don't think 'refusal' is correct. I'd guess he thought they couldn't possibly that intransigent and cynical, and by the time he'd figured it out, it was too late. Where's Lyndon Johnson when we need him, eh?

Of course, you say he overreached, and our dedicated Sanderites say he was a timid tool of the corporate oligarchy.

David G
12-01-2015, 10:17 PM
I don't think 'refusal' is correct. I'd guess he thought they couldn't possibly that intransigent and cynical, and by the time he'd figured it out, it was too late. Where's Lyndon Johnson when we need him, eh?

Of course, you say he overreached, and our dedicated Sanderites say he was a timid tool of the corporate oligarchy.

I had trouble believing it for a long while. I still am astonished when I think of the level of venality and cynicism.

Boater14
12-01-2015, 10:52 PM
The south post racial......that's ridiculous. The notion that Obama could creat post partisanship is also. Anyone ever yell you lie at a White president? If a dem senator had said his mission was to make Ike a one term president LBJ would have strangled him. You guys need a long sit down with the newspaper.

oznabrag
12-01-2015, 11:01 PM
The south post racial......that's ridiculous. The notion that Obama could creat post partisanship is also. Anyone ever yell you lie at a White president? If a dem senator had said his mission was to make Ike a one term president LBJ would have strangled him. You guys need a long sit down with the newspaper.

Says the guy from New Jersey.

Oh, and the cardinal points of the compass should be capitalized, even if you're referring to a region of the country occupied by dumb-as-a-sack-of-hammers white, male 'crackers'.

Gerarddm
12-01-2015, 11:03 PM
You know, when Howard Dean was DNC chair he resolutely pursued a 50-state policy, unwilling to concede any state, no matter how regressive it was. I thought it was a good idea, but it was a long game strategy. I doubt very much that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the current DNC chair, is of the same mindset.

Bernie Sanders has been spending some effort in the past two months to make the kind of trans-party economic/culture-based arguments that you'd think anybody with a semblance of smarts would respond to. The jury is decidedly out, but at least he is making the effort.

David G
12-01-2015, 11:19 PM
Another book thought. I haven't read it, but it's on order, and I look forward to it. A couple of respected think-tank types. One liberal, one conservative, diagnose the current condition of our governance, and suggest steps for improvement --

It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465074731/ref=dra_a_cs_mr_hn_xx_P1250_1000?tag=dradisplay-20&ascsubtag=a79d5306a3c20fba2ad326160ba5e533_S

hokiefan
12-01-2015, 11:39 PM
The south post racial......that's ridiculous. The notion that Obama could creat post partisanship is also. Anyone ever yell you lie at a White president? If a dem senator had said his mission was to make Ike a one term president LBJ would have strangled him. You guys need a long sit down with the newspaper.

I'll tell you this much. The deep south where I lived and worked for 27 years is radically closer to post-racial than central Illinois. They aren't even in the same book, much less the same page. The tiny village where I'm living now is extremely racist place. I've heard the N word here as much in the last 18 months as I did the entire 27 years spread between Savannah, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida. So no, its not ridiculous to say the south is getting closer to post-racial. The minority that is left if loud and ugly, but they are dwindling every day. When kids couple up without thinking about it, things are getting better. Still work to do, but its getting better.

Cheers,

Bobby

C. Ross
12-01-2015, 11:40 PM
I don't think 'refusal' is correct. I'd guess he thought they couldn't possibly that intransigent and cynical, and by the time he'd figured it out, it was too late. Where's Lyndon Johnson when we need him, eh?

Of course, you say he overreached, and our dedicated Sanderites say he was a timid tool of the corporate oligarchy.

Of course the Sanderistas are wrong, but both could be true. President Obama didn't overreach in his first term in terms of "too liberal" he overreached in terms of "bit off more than he could chew". And somehow thought that he could propose ideas opposed by Republicans, and not either broker a deal with them or play power politics and roll over them with his mandate. The guy just refused to enter the fight.


Wheres Lyndon Johnson when we need him? Precisely the point. Obama failed to lead.

David G
12-02-2015, 12:55 AM
Of course the Sanderistas are wrong, but both could be true. President Obama didn't overreach in his first term in terms of "too liberal" he overreached in terms of "bit off more than he could chew". And somehow thought that he could propose ideas opposed by Republicans, and not either broker a deal with them or play power politics and roll over them with his mandate. The guy just refused to enter the fight.


Wheres Lyndon Johnson when we need him? Precisely the point. Obama failed to lead.

You keep saying that. And there's some validity to it. Some. The reason I was slow to support Obama leading up to his first term was my concern about his relative youth and inexperience.

But there's only some, and you're making too much of it.

What you really are saying is that he failed to exhibit the sort of extraordinary legislative and log-rolling savvy of one of the best in generations... LBJ. You seem disinclined to credit the efforts he did make... and more importantly... the historic level of ideologically driven obstructionism adopted as policy the 'the loyal opposition'. So tell us - which president of the last 50 years or so do you reckon would have managed to overcome that sort of 'damn the interests of the country, we're gonna sink this uppity punk' approach to governance? And still accomplish even a modest legislative agenda. Or ANY legislative agenda? Shouldn't take you long to compile THAT list.

C. Ross
12-02-2015, 07:34 AM
In the last 50 years? All of them except Carter and Obama.

I held my breath and voted for Obama. Twice. So I say these things out of disappointment not glee.

My case that he could have achieved more is to compare his domestic policy with his foreign policy. In January 2009 there were only two issues. Save the economy, and get out of two unpopular wars.

Obama is bloodied but unbowed on foreign policy, having pretty well threaded the needle between the left and right. With the exception of some ridiculous side shows like Benghazi, which are intended only to hobble Clinton's future ambitions, he's taken positions opposed by Republicans but has avoided obstruction. His foreign policy team, notably his Secretaries of State and Defense, were all except Gates seasoned former legislators and at Defense, Republicans.

His domestic agenda has had a different fate. President Obama's domestic agenda was over ambitious and the individuals (not team) who led it were not cohesive or competent. And it's been well-chronicled how much the President refused to engage in the craft of deal making with his opponents, failing both to bring leaders to the White House or to establish a competent legislative office.

oznabrag
12-02-2015, 08:08 AM
In the last 50 years? All of them except Carter and Obama.

I held my breath and voted for Obama. Twice. So I say these things out of disappointment not glee.

My case that he could have achieved more is to compare his domestic policy with his foreign policy. In January 2009 there were only two issues. Save the economy, and get out of two unpopular wars.

Obama is bloodied but unbowed on foreign policy, having pretty well threaded the needle between the left and right. With the exception of some ridiculous side shows like Benghazi, which are intended only to hobble Clinton's future ambitions, he's taken positions opposed by Republicans but has avoided obstruction. His foreign policy team, notably his Secretaries of State and Defense, were all except Gates seasoned former legislators and at Defense, Republicans.

His domestic agenda has had a different fate. President Obama's domestic agenda was over ambitious and the individuals (not team) who led it were not cohesive or competent. And it's been well-chronicled how much the President refused to engage in the craft of deal making with his opponents, failing both to bring leaders to the White House or to establish a competent legislative office.

Cris, I would like to apologize for having failed to recognize your use of irony/sarcasm last night.

You are likely unaware of the depth of offensiveness carried by the term 'cracker', and the hackles were standing already.

That said, I have had time to reconsider your position on O'Bama's 'intransigence'.

While it is true that he 'refused to engage in the craft of deal making with his opponents', it is also true that they announced their intention to do exactly that when he took office.

O'Bama is a chess player.

Faced with their obstreperous intractability, clearly rooted in racism, he may have made the right move.

I think it may be that he has forced the demonically-possessed faction of the Republican Party (which now comprises the vast majority of their elected representatives) out into the open, where everyone can see who they REALLY are.

The proof will be in the 2016 elections.

Boater14
12-02-2015, 10:17 AM
The guy from New Jersey grew up in the 50's watching kids put upon by dogs, soldiered three years with guys who used n****r like it was nothing and lived in SW Va for five years. The guy who yelled you lie at the black president used doing so to break fundraising levels. I'll grant you it's getting better. They finally found out who killed the three civil rights workers after 50 years even though everyone in town knew he did it. Post racial does no apply to America. The cops kill a kid with a toy, smoothed a guy selling cigarettes and somehow managed to take the PP shooter alive.

oznabrag
12-02-2015, 10:24 AM
I would add, Keith, that it would be a mistake to target 'white' Southerners of any sex.

In my opinion, the South is a whole lot closer to being post-racial than many other parts of the country, despite the actions of some highly visible idiots.

All that is required is a leader to make the great majority stand up and be counted.

Bill could do that.

Hilly? Not so much.


The guy from New Jersey grew up in the 50's watching kids put upon by dogs, soldiered three years with guys who used n****r like it was nothing and lived in SW Va for five years. The guy who yelled you lie at the black president used doing so to break fundraising levels. I'll grant you it's getting better. They finally found out who killed the three civil rights workers after 50 years even though everyone in town knew he did it. Post racial does no apply to America. The cops kill a kid with a toy, smoothed a guy selling cigarettes and somehow managed to take the PP shooter alive.

Try again.

This time read first.

Thanks.

C. Ross
12-02-2015, 11:06 AM
Cris, I would like to apologize for having failed to recognize your use of irony/sarcasm last night.

You are likely unaware of the depth of offensiveness carried by the term 'cracker', and the hackles were standing already.

Ive never lived in the South except 3 1/2 years in DC which doesn't really count. That said, I'm seriously offended by the hate aimed at Southerners, usually white, usually Christian, from people who are allegedly "progressive". I was quoting the kind of invective I hear daily. I'm seriously sorry I did satire poorly.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2015, 04:05 PM
Well, let's see. Unfortunately you insulted the wrong tribe by getting it EXACTLY backward. Democrats are in fact better than Republicans at identifying personalities!

Who is Elizabeth Warren? Pope Francis is from ... Argentina? Who is Malala? Is that Martin Luther King Jr.? On all these, Democratic voters know more than Republicans.

True, as to these personalities. Two Nobel Prize winners, the Pope, and a potential candidate of their own party. There are no Reds of that stature, except of course they have plenty of candidates.



Route of the Keystone XL pipeline, where is Guantanamo located, current Senate party composition, need to indicate insurance coverage on taxes, U.S. recently re-established relationships with ... Cuba, number of SCOTUS judges that are women, leader of North Korea. On all these, edge to Republicans.

Well, you got me there.


Rationality sticks out awkwardly in politics. I don't advise it.

Self-government means acting in furtherance of the longest and broadest common interest, which requires the informed, long view.


But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters. I just don't get it.

Certain white male voters.

Like I said, it's a question of what to appeal to. Not whom. They want a government that is an expression of a religious, ethnic identity, that controls the world (makes it "safe") and provides endless growth with no regulation and no taxes. They're ignorant, bigoted and seriously deluded.


My Facebook feed is two-thirds full of people hee-hawing at dumb as a sack of hammers white male crackers. I'm pretty much convinced that the habitual cut and pasters of "Occupy Democrats" crap on Facebook do so because they got serious self-esteem issues and desperately need someone to sneer at because their lives ain't so purty either. Or, maybe I just have the wrong kind of friends.

The bulk of liberals are lazy cowards, which they attempt to mask with gentility and good taste. As if! They have their ignorance and bigotries too. Chief among which is the idea that the historical conditions that allows their aloofness are not historical conditions at all, but a matter of their effortless good sense and good taste.

oznabrag
12-03-2015, 05:08 PM
Ive never lived in the South except 3 1/2 years in DC which doesn't really count. That said, I'm seriously offended by the hate aimed at Southerners, usually white, usually Christian, from people who are allegedly "progressive". I was quoting the kind of invective I hear daily. I'm seriously sorry I did satire poorly.

Thanks, Cris.

You are definitely invited to the barbecue.



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by C. Ross

Well, let's see. Unfortunately you insulted the wrong tribe by getting it EXACTLY backward. Democrats are in fact better than Republicans at identifying personalities!

Who is Elizabeth Warren? Pope Francis is from ... Argentina? Who is Malala? Is that Martin Luther King Jr.? On all these, Democratic voters know more than Republicans.


True, as to these personalities. Two Nobel Prize winners, the Pope, and a potential candidate of their own party. There are no Reds of that stature, except of course they have plenty of candidates.



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by C. Ross

Route of the Keystone XL pipeline, where is Guantanamo located, current Senate party composition, need to indicate insurance coverage on taxes, U.S. recently re-established relationships with ... Cuba, number of SCOTUS judges that are women, leader of North Korea. On all these, edge to Republicans.





Well, you got me there.


http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by C. Ross
Rationality sticks out awkwardly in politics. I don't advise it.





Self-government means acting in furtherance of the longest and broadest common interest, which requires the informed, long view.



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by C. Ross
But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters. I just don't get it.





Certain white male voters.

Like I said, it's a question of what to appeal to. Not whom. They want a government that is an expression of a religious, ethnic identity, that controls the world (makes it "safe") and provides endless growth with no regulation and no taxes. They're ignorant, bigoted and seriously deluded.


http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by C. Ross

My Facebook feed is two-thirds full of people hee-hawing at dumb as a sack of hammers white male crackers. I'm pretty much convinced that the habitual cut and pasters of "Occupy Democrats" crap on Facebook do so because they got serious self-esteem issues and desperately need someone to sneer at because their lives ain't so purty either. Or, maybe I just have the wrong kind of friends.





The bulk of liberals are lazy cowards, which they attempt to mask with gentility and good taste. As if! They have their ignorance and bigotries too. Chief among which is the idea that the historical conditions that allows their aloofness are not historical conditions at all, but a matter of their effortless good sense and good taste.


Your utter failure to grasp that the bulk of Southerners are not lazy cowards is pretty astonishing.

Furthermore, 'what' doesn't vote, while 'whom' can vote.

This is important.

I'm not sure you understand this, but if only three people vote for President, and two of them vote Trump, he's 'what' will be elected.

Your statement that "Self-government means acting in furtherance of the longest and broadest common interest, which requires the informed, long view." is unabashed prattle, sir. The idea that 'self-government' conforms to your high-and-mighty, self-righteous proclamation is no more than hubristic noise, and I am astonished that such a normally cogent mind has issued forth with it.

Self government is messy, inefficient, short-sighted and ugly, and it tends to benefit those members of society who actually vote, but I'll grant you that it's better than any alternative I am aware of.

Further still, Mr. Russell, your dogged insistence that those "Certain white male voters" who "want a government that is an expression of a religious, ethnic identity, that controls the world (makes it "safe") and provides endless growth with no regulation and no taxes" represent in any way the vast, overwhelming, unstoppable majority of Southerners only serves to illustrate your own profound ignorance, bigotry and delusion.

Examination of one simple set of facts should be enough to dispel your benighted stupor:

Voter turnout in Mississippi for the recent mid-term was less than 30%.

Fewer than 2/3 of Mississippians are registered to vote.

This means that fewer than 20% of Mississippians actually voted, and so maybe 12% of Mississippians sent Thad Cochran back to the Senate.

Thad is actually a relatively sane Republican who has served Mississippi well for a long time. He survived a T-Party challenge and ran against a rather lackluster Democratic opponent, but the simple fact of the matter is that, if about 60,000 people had simply showed up to vote the other way, there would be another Democratic Senator in Washington this term.

60,000.

5 people out of every hundred.

Your glib dismissal of the South as being populated by mindless, greedy, theocratic fascists is infuriating, sir, and I can only conclude your opinion is based in willful ignorance.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2015, 10:00 PM
Your utter failure to grasp that the bulk of Southerners are not lazy cowards is pretty astonishing.

Dude, keep your shirt on, I wasn't talking about southerners. I took Mr. Ross to be speaking much more broadly. What he said was:


But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters. I just don't get it.

White male voters could be me and you. The Democrats appeal to us, right? So Mr. Ross must have been talking about someone else. The Democrats don't appeal to some other white males, right? They don't appeal to Red Males, is the way I took it. No "southern" involved.


Your statement that "Self-government means acting in furtherance of the longest and broadest common interest, which requires the informed, long view." is unabashed prattle, sir. The idea that 'self-government' conforms to your high-and-mighty, self-righteous proclamation is no more than hubristic noise, and I am astonished that such a normally cogent mind has issued forth with it.

The whole idea is the harmonizing of interests as broadly as possible, because that's what makes a country that is strong based on the strength of its people, because they aren't climbing up each other's back all the time. Everybody's on the same page, because they respect facts, they respect reason, and they know what's at stake. That's the aspiration. Strength from unity, with as much freedom as we can afford.


Self government is messy, inefficient, short-sighted and ugly, and it tends to benefit those members of society who actually vote, but I'll grant you that it's better than any alternative I am aware of.

The theory of self-government presumes that everyone votes. If they don't, they reject the theory.


Further still, Mr. Russell, your dogged insistence that those "Certain white male voters" who "want a government that is an expression of a religious, ethnic identity, that controls the world (makes it "safe") and provides endless growth with no regulation and no taxes" represent in any way the vast, overwhelming, unstoppable majority of Southerners only serves to illustrate your own profound ignorance, bigotry and delusion.

You're the one putting "southern" in there, not me. I'm talking about Reds, who are everywhere.

oznabrag
12-04-2015, 10:03 AM
Screw those idiots!

They're dying off, and there aren't that many of them to begin with.

The voter the Democratic Party wants to court in the South is proud of his home, and is deeply in love with it.

His blood boils when some pantywaist Yankee twit calls him a racist. He works with black people, and respects them. He may have had a crush on that black cheerleader in high school. He ain't gonna vote Democratic, because the Democratic Party seems to go out of its way to alienate everybody in the South who ISN'T black.

One of the principal problems the Democratic Party has in the South, is that damned Lee Atwater.

He helped the dwindling, failing, amoral, rotten, racist bastards to retain and regain their grip on society, and a whole lot of apathy set in.

People who weathered the 60s and had tentative hope that those monsters could be swept aside were overwhelmed by the Southern Strategy, and they feel as though they're beaten.

What the hell ever happened to DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS, for Pete's sake ???

Aren't they supposed to rally people behind a cause, or something?


I would add, Keith, that it would be a mistake to target 'white' Southerners of any sex.

In my opinion, the South is a whole lot closer to being post-racial than many other parts of the country, despite the actions of some highly visible idiots.

All that is required is a leader to make the great majority stand up and be counted.

Bill could do that.

Hilly? Not so much.


Bam. On the money. You're on a roll with the last couple of posts, my friend.



Well, let's see. Unfortunately you insulted the wrong tribe by getting it EXACTLY backward. Democrats are in fact better than Republicans at identifying personalities!

Who is Elizabeth Warren? Pope Francis is from ... Argentina? Who is Malala? Is that Martin Luther King Jr.? On all these, Democratic voters know more than Republicans.

Route of the Keystone XL pipeline, where is Guantanamo located, current Senate party composition, need to indicate insurance coverage on taxes, U.S. recently re-established relationships with ... Cuba, number of SCOTUS judges that are women, leader of North Korea. On all these, edge to Republicans.



Rationality sticks out awkwardly in politics. I don't advise it. But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters. I just don't get it.

My Facebook feed is two-thirds full of people hee-hawing at dumb as a sack of hammers white male crackers. I'm pretty much convinced that the habitual cut and pasters of "Occupy Democrats" crap on Facebook do so because they got serious self-esteem issues and desperately need someone to sneer at because their lives ain't so purty either. Or, maybe I just have the wrong kind of friends.


Just so long as you ignore the South, Atwater keeps winning.



Absolutely not. Apologies if I've offended, I was merely citing the kinds of language I find offensive.







http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by oznabrag

Your utter failure to grasp that the bulk of Southerners are not lazy cowards is pretty astonishing.
Dude, keep your shirt on, I wasn't talking about southerners. I took Mr. Ross to be speaking much more broadly. What he said was:


But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters. I just don't get it.

White male voters could be me and you. The Democrats appeal to us, right? So Mr. Ross must have been talking about someone else. The Democrats don't appeal to some other white males, right? They don't appeal to Red Males, is the way I took it. No "southern" involved.




http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by oznabrag

Your statement that "Self-government means acting in furtherance of the longest and broadest common interest, which requires the informed, long view." is unabashed prattle, sir. The idea that 'self-government' conforms to your high-and-mighty, self-righteous proclamation is no more than hubristic noise, and I am astonished that such a normally cogent mind has issued forth with it.





The whole idea is the harmonizing of interests as broadly as possible, because that's what makes a country that is strong based on the strength of its people, because they aren't climbing up each other's back all the time. Everybody's on the same page, because they respect facts, they respect reason, and they know what's at stake. That's the aspiration. Strength from unity, with as much freedom as we can afford.



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by oznabrag

Self government is messy, inefficient, short-sighted and ugly, and it tends to benefit those members of society who actually vote, but I'll grant you that it's better than any alternative I am aware of.





The theory of self-government presumes that everyone votes. If they don't, they reject the theory.



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by oznabrag

Further still, Mr. Russell, your dogged insistence that those "Certain white male voters" who "want a government that is an expression of a religious, ethnic identity, that controls the world (makes it "safe") and provides endless growth with no regulation and no taxes" represent in any way the vast, overwhelming, unstoppable majority of Southerners only serves to illustrate your own profound ignorance, bigotry and delusion

You're the one putting "southern" in there, not me. I'm talking about Reds, who are everywhere.

Well, Cris and I were talking about Southerners when you stuck your oar in.

You may want to reconsider your position on non-voters 'rejecting the theory of self-governance'.

It's nothing more than high-falutin' hogwash, after all.

It may be OK in some ivory tower somewhere, but down in the nits and grits of politics you might as well be mumbling Hamlet's soliloquy in Portugese.

Backwards.

I would wager that the percentage of people who don't vote in the US who 'reject the theory of self-governance' is vanishingly small.

The percentage who believe that self-governance is a myth is probably fairly substantial.

The percentage who simply don't think it's important to their lives is probably significant as well, but those who 'reject the theory' are almost non-existent.

In sum, what you are ignoring is politics.

In recent decades, the Republicans have played better politics on most levels, and Democrats have managed to win the presidency a few times.

Democrats are MUCH better at government as you describe it:


The whole idea is the harmonizing of interests as broadly as possible, because that's what makes a country that is strong based on the strength of its people, because they aren't climbing up each other's back all the time. Everybody's on the same page, because they respect facts, they respect reason, and they know what's at stake. That's the aspiration. Strength from unity, with as much freedom as we can afford.


They are better at government, but they are exceptionally lousy at winning the popular support they need to gain the offices they need to do that superior job of governance.

Exceptionally lousy.

ESPECIALLY in the South.

12% of Mississippians control politics in Mississippi.

Chew on that for a few minutes, and you'll have to spit it out.

If the Democratic Party could register about 5% of the population, whom they knew they could count on to show up and vote Democratic, the state would turn blue.

THAT is POLITICS.

Too Little Time
12-04-2015, 10:23 AM
Self-government means acting in furtherance of the longest and broadest common interest, which requires the informed, long view.

A very strange view.

Osborne Russell
12-04-2015, 03:14 PM
The thread title says "white working class"; the first post says "white southern evangelical Christian men". You say "southern", Cris says "white".

What person is the safest bet to be a modern Republican?

1. Someone with all the characteristics, i.e. white working class southern evangelical Christian men.

2. Someone with one fewer of these characteristics, for example white working class western evangelical Christian men.

3. Etc.

If you just say "white", as Cris did, it means the largest possible group, including but not limited to southerners.

Assuming we are talking about the same basic type, I agree strongly with this:


I'm pretty much convinced that the habitual cut and pasters of "Occupy Democrats" crap on Facebook do so because they got serious self-esteem issues and desperately need someone to sneer at because their lives ain't so purty either.

They take cheap shots because that's all they've got; and it's counter-productive, to put it mildly. But this is a different proposition:


But like oznabrag, I am continually surprised when Democrats choose not to appeal to white male voters.

Now it's starting to sound like Tea Party -- war on whites and all that. Only on white males, true. Don't know why "white males" should be the only qualifier; that's for him to say. At any rate, no other qualification of working class, southern, evangelical, etc. Just flat out, no appeal to white male voters.

You and he seem to agree that the Democratic Party makes no appeal to white male voters. That means, presumably, that the people not appealed to are white male Republicans or unaffiliated. Literally, it means they're not even appealing to white male Democrats.

My question is, what appeal is not being made to whom? And further, what appeal can be made to people that are anti-rational? That applies to everyone, even liberals. There's no implication of "southern" at all. Anti-rational Reds are everywhere.

Osborne Russell
12-04-2015, 03:25 PM
A very strange view.

It is to secure these rights that governments are instituted. What's better, acting in furtherance of self-interest at the expense of the common interest? Such a society is doomed. History was full of examples of failed republics and democracies when the constitution was written, which is why it was written, and why these examples are treated in depth in the Federalist Papers. Since then many more republics have fallen.

Strength is the priority in a hostile world. The most common and strongest common interest. There must be unity in order for there to be strength. The more unity, the more strength. Not strange at all.

How is that unity brought about and maintained, is the question.

"A republic, if you can keep it." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Keith Wilson
12-04-2015, 03:33 PM
Hey, I'm as white and male as they come, and the way things have been going, I may never vote Republican again as long as I live.

The most important divisions may not be about white males at all, but between the religious and nonreligious - or more accurately, between evangelical Christians and everybody else, and possibly between white southerners and everybody else.

oznabrag
12-04-2015, 04:23 PM
Hey, I'm as white and male as they come, and the way things have been going, I may never vote Republican again as long as I live.

The most important divisions may not be about white males at all, but between the religious and nonreligious - or more accurately, between evangelical Christians and everybody else, and possibly between white southerners and everybody else.

Once again, 12% of the population of Mississippi sent Thad Cochran back to the Senate.

Even if all those voters were white males, another 17% of the population who were also white males did not vote for Cochran.

The problem is not limited to white, Southern males, and every time some white, Northern, liberal says that it IS so limited, Atwater gets another glass of iced water down there in the pit of Hell where he so rightly belongs.

My advice is to broaden your perspective, comprehend that Atwater shoved the Democratic Party's head right up its own backside, and come to grips with the fact that the Democratic Party has not been able to do any effective politicking ever since.

What was supposed to be a great tidal wave of progressive victory initiated by the gains of the Civil Rights movement has been turned into a shuffling, hang-dog, mumbling of I-told-you-sos and a pathetic sell-out to the corporate polluters.

Is this the best you can do, Keith? Blame Southern White males for the failure of the Democratic Party even to maintain, much less guide this country to success?

Keith Wilson
12-04-2015, 05:07 PM
The problem is not limited to white, Southern males, I never said it was.

What exactly would that 'effective politicking' look like? How do you think the Democrats should appeal to those parts of the population who now vote largely Republican - white evangelicals, white southerners, whites without a college degree, white men in general?

Osborne Russell
12-04-2015, 05:19 PM
The problem is not limited to white, Southern males . . .

Who said it was?

C. Ross
12-04-2015, 05:57 PM
You and he seem to agree that the Democratic Party makes no appeal to white male voters. That means, presumably, that the people not appealed to are white male Republicans or unaffiliated. Literally, it means they're not even appealing to white male Democrats.

My question is, what appeal is not being made to whom? And further, what appeal can be made to people that are anti-rational? That applies to everyone, even liberals. There's no implication of "southern" at all. Anti-rational Reds are everywhere.

Now were on it. I think it is true that the Democratic Party as an organization and candidates in general do not have a strong message for white men - northern, southern, Democrats, unaffiliated, or Republican. It's as if they've written them off, as Republicans have written off Hispanics.

Here's a story on Democratic ex-Congressman Barney Frank's take on it:


Those recent cases reminded Frank of the old analysis point that the only way Republicans, with their royalist economic policies, could be competitive with the national electorate was by appealing to social issues — God, guns and gays, as the saying goes. In fact, he said, among white men, the only subgroups among which Democrats win a majority of the vote are gays and Jews. But Frank rejects that old “three Gs” analysis point (except on the guns part, he said) and offered an unexpected analysis.


White working-class males have been losing ground economically since the end of the post-World War II boom. This is at least partly result of the domination of the government — and especially the Republican Party — by the wealthy. But, Frank believes, this white, male, blue-collar population blames the Democrats for the decline in their fortunes because Democrats are seen as the “party of government,” and those workers blame the party of government for not figuring out some way to help end their long slide from prosperity.


If you think the government isn’t helping you, it makes a certain rough sense to blame the “party of government” for your troubles, Frank suggested. But in reality, the Dems have seldom really controlled all branches of the government in recent decades. Frank believes that these blue-collar males blame the Democrats for a great many sins committed by the Republicans.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/04/barney-frank-why-white-men-don-t-vote-democrats

Keith Wilson
12-04-2015, 06:07 PM
I think it is true that the Democratic Party as an organization and candidates in general do not have a strong message for white men -Again, what would that look like? The idea that the basis of the white working class's turn to the Republicans is economic is paradoxical at best.

It's one of the supreme ironies of recent history that conservative blue-collar men tend to be very anti-union.

oznabrag
12-04-2015, 06:24 PM
Now were on it. I think it is true that the Democratic Party as an organization and candidates in general do not have a strong message for white men - northern, southern, Democrats, unaffiliated, or Republican. It's as if they've written them off, as Republicans have written off Hispanics.

Here's a story on Democratic ex-Congressman Barney Frank's take on it:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/04/barney-frank-why-white-men-don-t-vote-democrats

Yup.

Another thing. Y'all may have heard the Red shills bloviating about the 'elitists'.

There is a DEFINITE subtext that these white males are not good enough to vote Democratic.

That is NOT a winning strategy with ANY demographic.

oznabrag
12-04-2015, 06:27 PM
Again, what would that look like? The idea that the basis of the white working class's turn to the Republicans is economic is paradoxical at best.

It's one of the supreme ironies of recent history that conservative blue-collar men tend to be very anti-union.

Again, reason is not a powerful tool for winning elections.

Reason is an EXCELLENT tool for governance, but it sucks at gaining office.

THERE is your paradox.

Osborne Russell
12-04-2015, 06:50 PM
Makes a lot more sense when you put it like that, Cris. There is no appeal to the white male per se. But why should there be? When did white males become an interest group? Competitors for social status and government favor? Aggrieved and disdained? Personally, I would be very suspicious of an appeal to me as a white male per se. So how could I put together such an appeal and direct it to some other white male? Even if I could figure out what to say, I don't know I'd have the chutzpah, for want of a better word.

Too Little Time
12-04-2015, 06:50 PM
Now were on it. I think it is true that the Democratic Party as an organization and candidates in general do not have a strong message for white men - northern, southern, Democrats, unaffiliated, or Republican. It's as if they've written them off, as Republicans have written off Hispanics.

Here's a story on Democratic ex-Congressman Barney Frank's take on it:

Those recent cases reminded Frank of the old analysis point that the only way Republicans, with their royalist economic policies, could be competitive with the national electorate was by appealing to social issues — God, guns and gays, as the saying goes. In fact, he said, among white men, the only subgroups among which Democrats win a majority of the vote are gays and Jews. But Frank rejects that old “three Gs” analysis point (except on the guns part, he said) and offered an unexpected analysis.


We might take note of claims that the economy (rich old white guys) does better under Democrats than Republicans. That leaves the Republicans to offer a better social program and they have a social program. Currently, the Democrats offer little in the way of a social program.


If I was a Republican, I would beat up the Democrats on the basis that the poor should have gotten free health care out of the ACA. But that does not appear to be necessary.


I would vote Democrat, but that would hurt the poor. I am in a dilemma.

John Smith
12-04-2015, 06:56 PM
Did I miss the part where he explained why people making minimum wage vote for candidates who won't raise it? Or why women vote for candidates who would deny them equal pay?

PeterSibley
12-05-2015, 12:17 AM
A fascinating thread, the US political arena is so very different to ours !

oznabrag
12-05-2015, 11:13 AM
We might take note of claims that the economy (rich old white guys) does better under Democrats than Republicans. That leaves the Republicans to offer a better social program and they have a social program. Currently, the Democrats offer little in the way of a social program.


If I was a Republican, I would beat up the Democrats on the basis that the poor should have gotten free health care out of the ACA. But that does not appear to be necessary.


I would vote Democrat, but that would hurt the poor. I am in a dilemma.

And then you would be forcibly ejected from whatever office you held because you'd be regarded as nothing more than a danged communist.

oznabrag
12-05-2015, 12:27 PM
I never said it was.

What exactly would that 'effective politicking' look like? How do you think the Democrats should appeal to those parts of the population who now vote largely Republican - white evangelicals, white southerners, whites without a college degree, white men in general?


Who said it was?

Why do either of you feel it necessary to differentiate between the types of white males?

The simple, straightforward truth of the matter is that when Atwater jiggered the status quo, the effects spread all over the country.

These idiots may not have been actually born in the South, but they still get called 'crackers' and rednecks. The pejorative epithets remain the same, and Atwater empowered them.

Not only that, and this is where he really wins, Democrats now feel empowered to use those epithets whenever they refer to god-fearing, rural, less-educated, gun-owning white folks.

Every time a Democrat does that, Atwater wins again.

Those people know that they are being despised and ostracized by the Democratic Party, simply by virtue of the accident of having been born rural, white and Christian.

Odds are that because of this, they will NEVER vote Democratic, and the brutal, pragmatic truth of the matter is that until there is no more rural society, Atwater will continue to win.

Paradoxically, the Democratic Party needs desperately to learn to love its neighbors.

Keith Wilson
12-05-2015, 01:06 PM
Why do either of you feel it necessary to differentiate between the types of white males?Because we're discussing voting patterns, and different groups of white males vote differently.

I have some ideas about what you said, but no time now. Later.

oznabrag
12-05-2015, 04:12 PM
I never said it was.

What exactly would that 'effective politicking' look like? How do you think the Democrats should appeal to those parts of the population who now vote largely Republican - white evangelicals, white southerners, whites without a college degree, white men in general?


Because we're discussing voting patterns, and different groups of white males vote differently.

I have some ideas about what you said, but no time now. Later.

Maybe you can clear up this contradiction.

While you're at the pondering of things, you might tell me where the lower case 'd' got lost in the Democratic Party.

Keith Wilson
12-05-2015, 04:50 PM
Normally Democratic is the US political party, while democratic describes the government of a democracy.

oznabrag
12-05-2015, 04:54 PM
I was thinking along the lines of this:

pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all.

skuthorp
12-05-2015, 05:33 PM
Makes a lot more sense when you put it like that, Cris. There is no appeal to the white male per se. But why should there be? When did white males become an interest group? Competitors for social status and government favor? Aggrieved and disdained? Personally, I would be very suspicious of an appeal to me as a white male per se. So how could I put together such an appeal and direct it to some other white male? Even if I could figure out what to say, I don't know I'd have the chutzpah, for want of a better word.
Could it be that said 'white males', or conservative ones at least are at such risk of becoming a minority group that they now need special attention?:cool:

Osborne Russell
12-07-2015, 09:47 AM
Why do either of you feel it necessary to differentiate between the types of white males?

I wish to be differentiated from Dick Cheney and Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore, as they equally wish to be differentiated from me.


Every time a Democrat does that, Atwater wins again.

Those people know that they are being despised and ostracized by the Democratic Party, simply by virtue of the accident of having been born rural, white and Christian.

That's a strong argument from the point of view of strategic expediency, which is important.

But factually, the same accident happened to William Faulkner, Jimmy Carter and Mose Allison. It's not the rural, white and Christian -- or southern -- it's the ignorant bigotry.

Was Jimmy Carter not a Democratic appeal to the people to whom you refer? Why was it rejected?

Osborne Russell
12-07-2015, 09:50 AM
Could it be that said 'white males', or conservative ones at least are at such risk of becoming a minority group that they now need special attention?:cool:

That's what they say. The rationale of Jim Crow, sometimes explicit, was that, without it, they were F ed. The end of Jim Crow cut them loose from the Democratic Party, and the Republicans have snapped them up.

I hasten to add that Jim Crow was a nationwide phenomenon.

John Smith
12-07-2015, 10:00 AM
I think it's no so complex. It's the old thing about fooling people.

People will vote for a lie they like over a truth they don't like. They are also not prone to looking for specifics. Case in point currently is Trump's plans to ship out 11 million illegals. Of all those who seem to like this idea, I've heard none ask how it would be done and what it would cost.

Howard Dean commented that pulling Saddam out of the spider hole would not, at that point, change anything. He was correct, but it was a truth the voters did not want to accept.

Some things are overly complex for voters to follow. Drivers licenses for undocumented workers is an example. If you are on the road and another vehicle runs into you, you are better off if that driver has a license than if he does not. It seems pretty well established that businesses hire illegals. No doubt some end up driving the company truck. If that truck hits you, I think you're better off if the driver has a license, because there is then likely insurance, and if the company does not have insurance, you can still make a claim against the company. If the driver is not licensed, the situation gets more complex. My point here is that not all issues can be condensed to a bumper sticker.

oznabrag
12-07-2015, 11:18 AM
Bump for Keith.

oznabrag
12-07-2015, 10:18 PM
Because we're discussing voting patterns, and different groups of white males vote differently.

I have some ideas about what you said, but no time now. Later.

. . .

Keith Wilson
12-07-2015, 11:09 PM
Sorry, getting too late tonight. I'll have to think about it some more.

oznabrag
12-07-2015, 11:17 PM
Sorry, getting too late tonight. I'll have to think about it some more.

Thank you, Keith.

I'm sure you are aware that I value your opinion.

Keith Wilson
12-07-2015, 11:20 PM
Likewise.