More Republican Party Fracturing

[Osborne Russell]

. . . there is a growing body of evidence that he is losing more support from independent swing voters . . . The fracture line seems to be mostly developing along the issue of 'mindlessly loyal to tRump' or 'not'.

These so-called independent swing voters were and remain mindless. They made this fiasco possible. Where, in the "growing body of evidence", is there evidence that their views have changed in any respect other than, "Trump is damaged, we need a new Trump to vote for"?

If that's a fracture, it isn't worth much.

[Garret]

These so-called independent swing voters were and remain mindless. They made this fiasco possible. Where, in the "growing body of evidence", is there evidence that their views have changed in any respect other than, "Trump is damaged, we need a new Trump to vote for"?

If that's a fracture, it isn't worth much.

I talked to one the other day. Yes he voted for Trump, but said there was no way he could vote for Clinton. I asked why & he (a rural Vermonter) said "She could care less about rural America & I couldn't vote for someone who feels that way". This far from mindless man went on to say that he would've voted for Bernie in the election & did in the primary.

Of course this is anecdotal, but yet another example (I've talked to dozens) of a person who the DNC lumps with the Bernie Bros - but is in fact a "Won't vote for most Dems" voter and is not a "faithless" Dem.

Thinking of these people as "mindless" is a big mistake.

[George Jung]

I suspect the 'mindless' label comes from those folks who, 'unable' to vote for HRC, then voted for TFG who has absolutely no interest in them or their concerns. But at least it wasn't for Hillary.

That is mindless.

[Garret]

I suspect the 'mindless' label comes from those folks who, 'unable' to vote for HRC, then voted for TFG who has absolutely no interest in them or their concerns. But at least it wasn't for Hillary.

That is mindless.

First time - I don't think so. Second? Maybe so - but remember that these folks believe HRC had no interest in them or their concerns. I disagree, but will say that she had very little interest in them.

[Tom Montgomery]

.
Speaking of Republican Party fracturing, I think a Republican legislator warning that Republican legislation becoming law would result in Fascism applies.

[Peerie Maa]

I talked to one the other day. Yes he voted for Trump, but said there was no way he could vote for Clinton. I asked why & he (a rural Vermonter) said "She could care less about rural America & I couldn't vote for someone who feels that way". This far from mindless man went on to say that he would've voted for Bernie in the election & did in the primary.

Of course this is anecdotal, but yet another example (I've talked to dozens) of a person who the DNC lumps with the Bernie Bros - but is in fact a "Won't vote for most Dems" voter and is not a "faithless" Dem.

Thinking of these people as "mindless" is a big mistake.

Just self-centered and naive.
To think that a POTUS of a nation with so many people, living in such a diverse ecology and society, can consider their specific needs is naive.
They are incapable of considering the big picture.
For the smaller picture relating to their county or state, they have local politicians to ignore their opinions and needs.

[Garret]

Just self-centered and naive.
To think that a POTUS of a nation with so many people, living in such a diverse ecology and society, can consider their specific needs is naive.
They are incapable of considering the big picture.
For the smaller picture relating to their county or state, they have local politicians to ignore their opinions and needs.

So - a US president should ignore rural citizens? I don't think so.

[elf]

Perrie's not saying anything about ignore. He's addressing self-centered.

If, finally, a drove of disengaged prospective voters whose motivation is, for instance, the Dobbs decision, does come out and vote against any candidate which promotes pro-life positions, that will be an example of a similar posture to your Vermont "far from mindless" voter.

The number of citizens generally informed about the larger picture is about as large as the number of politicians with the same concern.

Few of either sees beyind their own personal concerns.

[skuthorp]

What's this I hear about an extended arm salute?………………………………
Beau
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOSS6vKcBFg

[sandtown]

. . . said "She could care less about rural America & I couldn't vote for someone who feels that way". This far from mindless man . . .

What is your evidence that HRC did not care about rural America ??

That statement is indeed mindless unless your rural gent, or you, can provide a scintilla of proof for the assertion.

In actuality, that meme is just another facet of the Reich Wing decades long media assault on her.

That being said, I supported Bernie too and have done for a good long while.

[Garret]

What is your evidence that HRC did not care about rural America ??

That statement is indeed mindless unless your rural gent, or you, can provide a scintilla of proof for the assertion.

In actuality, that meme is just another facet of the Reich Wing decades long media assault on her.

That being said, I supported Bernie too and have done for a good long while.

Evidence? We're in court now? Anyway - Exhibit A is the 2016 Electoral College results. Take a look at how well she did in rural areas.

ETA: I voted for Bernie in the primary & HRC in the election. I am not one of the "faithless" ones. I am merely trying to get Dems to pull their heads out of the sand & realize that many Dem candidates are not reaching out to voters that - even though smaller in total #s - have an effect on who is elected due to the Electoral College. No - not debating the EC here - that's for a different thread - but the EC is reality and the 2016 election showed that one ignores it at one's peril.

[L.W. Baxter]

"she could care less for rural america".

funny. she did just fine with rural americans....of color. black women voted for hrc at a rate of 97%. curiously, she whipped bernie with rural people of color, too. how curious.

has nothing to do with actually "caring" for rural america. has to do with carrying the banner, or not. bernie carries the banner by proxy, as an effective gadfly of the opposition party. the idea that rural, independent voters actually support bernie's ideology is risible. they love his mission, and his unelectability.

[John Smith]

What is your evidence that HRC did not care about rural America ??

That statement is indeed mindless unless your rural gent, or you, can provide a scintilla of proof for the assertion.

In actuality, that meme is just another facet of the Reich Wing decades long media assault on her.

That being said, I supported Bernie too and have done for a good long while.

Our local high school is handicap accessible, including an elevator. I'm sure many are. HRC's early work is responsible for that.

She tried to get us a better healthcare system. GOP scorned her for her efforts. They made a big deal of her developing her proposal behind closed doors, in spite of the FACT that it would have to have full debate in both chambers before becoming law. These same people had NO PROBLEM with Dick Cheney molding an energy policy behind closed doors that would NOT have to be debated in either chamber.

[Osborne Russell]

I talked to one the other day. Yes he voted for Trump, but said there was no way he could vote for Clinton. I asked why & he (a rural Vermonter) said "She could care less about rural America & I couldn't vote for someone who feels that way". This far from mindless man went on to say that he would've voted for Bernie in the election & did in the primary.

Of course this is anecdotal, but yet another example (I've talked to dozens) of a person who the DNC lumps with the Bernie Bros - but is in fact a "Won't vote for most Dems" voter and is not a "faithless" Dem.

Thinking of these people as "mindless" is a big mistake.

1. "She could care less about rural America" is something he chooses to believe, on what evidence?
2. He knew who Trump was, the threat he represented.
3. What in the blessed world made him think Trump cared about rural America?

The same evidence was before him as before us all. He chose an over-arching falsehood to integrate it into his world view ("She could care less about rural America"). The fact that he would jump from there to Bernie Bro means one or the other position -- or both -- was mindlessness.

He may very well be a good guy but that isn't nearly enough.

[Osborne Russell]

Evidence? We're in court now?

Something much more important: citizenship; and beyond that, the condition and nature of man. I know it sounds pretentious. Deal with it if you're able.

ETA: I voted for Bernie in the primary & HRC in the election. I am not one of the "faithless" ones. I am merely trying to get Dems to pull their heads out of the sand & realize that many Dem candidates are not reaching out to voters that - even though smaller in total #s - have an effect on who is elected due to the Electoral College.

Unquestionably true. But how shall they reach out? With empty promises? Stroking? This is the 21st century; sheltering in the rustic is irresponsible; as ever. For myself, I long for shelter in the dream of the rustic; and for that very reason, I am pre-occupied with that which is destroying it, destroying my fondest hopes, the dream of peace, here in "the New World", the "virgin"; and I am not alone in this. To call the threat "the Democrats" is simplistic, to put it kindly.

The idea of sheltering in the rustic is not new. Not. Repeat: not. But the mere hope of it will not do.

Diocletian was Emperor of Rome. He could do whatever he wanted, right? Wrong. He knew it. He retired to his country estate in Dalmatia, now Croatia -- where he was born and raised. Because The Empire was F ing up so badly, The Empire begged him to return to office, to be Emperor of Rome again; he declined. His reply to the envoys:

"If you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your Emperor, he wouldn't dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed."

-- Diocletian

"Excuse me, Ranger, how far is it from here to Los Angeles?"

"Not nearly far enough, Ma'am."

-- Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire (1968)

Tell your neighbor to get hip to his very own heritage. Rusticism cannot exist without wilderness. Rusticism without wilderness doesn't mean anything. Trump is a very F ing long way from any of this, and so are you.

In wilderness is the preservation of the world.

-- H.D. Thoreau, Walking (1851)

I see young men, my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, cattle, and farming tools; for these are more easily acquired than got rid of. Better if they had been born in the open pasture and suckled by a wolf, that they might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in. Who made them serfs of the soil? Why should they eat their sixty acres, when man is condemned to eat only his peck of dirt? Why should they begin digging their graves as soon as they are born? They have got to live a man's life, pushing all these things before them, and get on as well as they can. How many a poor immortal soul have I met well-nigh crushed and smothered under its load, creeping down the road of life, pushing before it a barn seventy-five feet by forty, its Augean stables never cleansed, and one hundred acres of land, tillage, mowing, pasture, and woodlot! The portionless, who struggle with no such unnecessary inherited encumbrances, find it labor enough to subdue and cultivate a few cubic feet of flesh. But men labor under a mistake. The better part of the man is soon plowed into the soil for compost. By a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are employed, as it says in an old book, laying up treasures which moth and rust will corrupt and thieves break through and steal. It is a fool's life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before.

(emphasis added)

https://www.thoreau-online.org/walden-page2.html

To rest all of this on Donald Trump, because he cares for the rural people, is mindless. I must say.

[Keith Wilson]

Sorry, although the current political divide in the US can be approximated very well as rural-urban, it has very, very little to do with 'resting in the rustic' or whether Hillary Clinton cared about rural folks, much less Diocletian. It also long predates Trump.

I'd say it has far more to do with cultural reaction, white evangelical Christianity, and the racial-cultural tribalism of a shrinking segment of the population.

[L.W. Baxter]

Sorry, although the current political divide in the US can be approximated very well as rural-urban, it has very, very little to do with 'resting in the rustic' or whether Hillary Clinton cared about rural folks, much less Diocletian. It also long predates Trump.

I'd say it has far more to do with cultural reaction, white evangelical Christianity, and the racial-cultural tribalism of a shrinking segment of the population.

i suppose once in a while i should just go ahead and agree with keith 100%.

[Garret]

OK - I thought I'd try to point out how some folks that are not here perceive things. I was not saying they were right or wrong - just repeating what they've said.

I get that folks want to ignore people who disagree with them, but that's what loses elections. Just keep believing these folks are all idiots & that the Dem machine can do no wrong. Only problem with that head in the sand attitude is that it'll mean more people like Trump, Desantis et al get elected.

[stromborg]

I'm still trying to figure out why a born with a silver spoon in his mouth wealthy Manhattan native would be considered a better representative of "rural America" than a woman from an upper middle class family raised in the suburbs of Chicago.

[David G]

I'm still trying to figure out why a born with a silver spoon in his mouth wealthy Manhattan native would be considered a better representative of "rural America" than a woman from an upper middle class family raised in the suburbs of Chicago.

Rational AIN'T got a thing to do with it.

If you haven't figured out yet that the oligarchs have engaged in a successful, long-term, propaganda campaign ... and a successful l-t effort to game the system... against anyone who might threaten their hopes for domination... I think maybe you've not been paying attention.

Propaganda is about manipulation, not about logic. Gaming the system is about power, not strengthening our Republic.

[George Jung]

I was about to refute Garrets assertion, yet again - beginning to see a pattern emerge! - but see it's already been thoroughly, exceedingly nicely, done.

'both sides do it' is a fallacy.

[George Jung]

Rational AIN'T got a thing to do with it.

If you haven't figured out yet that the oligarchs have engaged in a successful, long-term, propaganda campaign against anyone who might threaten their hopes for domination... I think maybe you've not been paying attention.

Propaganda is about manipulation, not about logic.

Oh, I believe stromberg 'gets it', quite well. Just pointing out the obvious, which so many ignore.

[Garret]

I was about to refute Garrets assertion, yet again - beginning to see a pattern emerge! - but see it's already been thoroughly, exceedingly nicely, done.

'both sides do it' is a fallacy.

I'm confused. AFAIK, the only assertion I made was that some people think differently than most here & that ignoring them won't make them go away. That's not true?

I (repeating myself) do NOT agree with them. However, I do believe the Dems need to make an attempt to engage them & try to point out how the Dems can better serve them than the folks they are currently voting for. Is this a bad idea?

[David G]

I'm confused. AFAIK, the only assertion I made was that some people think differently than most here & that ignoring them won't make them go away. That's not true?

I (repeating myself) do NOT agree with them. However, I do believe the Dems need to make an attempt to engage them & try to point out how the Dems can better serve them than the folks they are currently voting for. Is this a bad idea?

I agree with you that citizens who vote R are less monolithic than some folks would suggest. And less deplorable. The true 'deplorables' are the welded-on tRump Kult members. But all who would vote R these days have one thing in common. They've allowed themselves - through ignorance, laziness, hatred, lack of self-awareness, etc. - to be misled into voting against both their own interests and our nation's interests. Lied to plausibly... by masters of the art. Some of them, given sufficient provocation, will come back... or at least reject the 'ultra-MAGA' direction that many R's are pushing. But they've been bamboozled by the bamboozlers. And that is at least 'some' deplorable.

[Garret]

I agree with you that citizens who vote R are less monolithic than some folks would suggest. And less deplorable. The true 'deplorables' are the welded-on tRump Kult members. But all who would vote R these days have one thing in common. They've allowed themselves - through ignorance, laziness, hatred, lack of self-awareness, etc. - to be misled into voting against both their own interests and our nation's interests. Lied to plausibly... by masters of the art. Some of them, given sufficient provocation, will come back... or at least reject the 'ultra-MAGA' direction that many R's are pushing. But they've been bamboozled by the bamboozlers. And that is at least 'some' deplorable.

I can't disagree, but saying that does not do anything to educate them or at least dissuade them from continuing to vote for Reps.

[David G]

I can't disagree, but saying that does not do anything to educate them or at least dissuade them from continuing to vote for Reps.

I'm not clear that there's anything that the more rational can actually do to turn them. What are you thinking?

[Garret]

I'm not clear that there's anything that the more rational can actually do to turn them. What are you thinking?

First step is getting on TV (& not MSNBC, etc.) to explain the lies spread by the right. Pelosi saying they're lies won't do it. Calm, regular folks need to be seen explaining what's being done. It also needs to be done in short, easily digestible episodes.

[L.W. Baxter]

I agree with you that citizens who vote R are less monolithic than some folks would suggest. And less deplorable. The true 'deplorables' are the welded-on tRump Kult members. But all who would vote R these days have one thing in common. They've allowed themselves - through ignorance, laziness, hatred, lack of self-awareness, etc. - to be misled into voting against both their own interests and our nation's interests. Lied to plausibly... by masters of the art. Some of them, given sufficient provocation, will come back... or at least reject the 'ultra-MAGA' direction that many R's are pushing. But they've been bamboozled by the bamboozlers. And that is at least 'some' deplorable.

you assume that "they" have the same values as you or i. that they align their self-interest, and the nation's best interests, with a more socialized, egalitarian society, with a broadened notion of "all men are created equal", in which the government provides more services, wealth is more equitably distributed, and the playing field is altered for racial and gender equity, and leveled for opportunity based on heritage.

if you lose that assumption, you can let go of the idea that "they" are dumb, or have been hoodwinked. they are voting their perceived interests, same as you or i. their elected representatives reflect their will. they are not more "liberal" than the politicians they elect.

what "they" really need is some good fooling. a few of them need to be massaged into believing that the entitlement of their heritage can survive in a more diverse and egalitarian world. which of course, it can't. alternatively, maybe you can convince their kids to surrender some of their racial, religious, and cultural advantages. and wait for the parents to die.

[David G]

you assume that "they" have the same values as you or i. that they align their self-interest, and the nation's best interests, with a more socialized, egalitarian society, with a broadened notion of "all men are created equal", in which the government provides more services, wealth is more equitably distributed, and the playing field is altered for racial and gender equity, and leveled for opportunity based on heritage.

if you lose that assumption, you can let go of the idea that "they" are dumb, or have been hoodwinked. they are voting their perceived interests, same as you or i. their elected representatives reflect their will. they are not more "liberal" than the politicians they elect.

what "they" really need is some good fooling. a few of them need to be massaged into believing that the entitlement of their heritage can survive in a more diverse and egalitarian world. which of course, it can't. alternatively, maybe you can convince their kids to surrender some of their racial, religious, and cultural advantages. and wait for the parents to die.

Sure... sorta. A little.

But I'm not 'assuming' anything.

I simply don't care how they themselves 'align their self-interest'... or what they claim their 'values' are. It's all misinformed and maladapted. They ARE, in fact - setting all politics and pom-pom shaking aside - voting against the interests of the nation, themselves, and their children & grandchildren. This can be shown empirically... whatever faith-based beliefs they hold.

[WI-Tom]

Their tribal identity IS their self-interest to a large degree. I'd argue that their need to preserve it comes from a worldview based in fear and insecurity. Which causes them to be hostile to the more socialized, egalitarian society, as Baxter pointed out.

Fear causes people to do ugly things, and support other people doing even uglier things.

I'm not sure how to reduce their fears of a more egalitarian society when what they fear IS a more egalitarian society. To such an extent that they'd rather have an autocracy, even an ugly fascist one.

Tom

[Keith Wilson]

I simply don't care how they themselves 'align their self-interest'... or what they claim their 'values' are. It's all misinformed and maladapted. They ARE, in fact - setting all politics and pom-pom shaking aside - voting against the interests of the nation, themselves, and their children & grandchildren. This can be shown empirically... whatever faith-based beliefs they hold.

Tom has it right, I think.

Alas, what you and I think are their interests are obviously not what they think they are. Voting against their economic interest, sure, although they'd disagree. That can indeed be shown empirically. But maintaining the values of their tribe as the values of society, and making sure their town stays mostly homogeneous and inhabited by people who look and talk and think like them?

[L.W. Baxter]

Sure... sorta. A little.

But I'm not 'assuming' anything.

I simply don't care how they themselves 'align their self-interest'... or what they claim their 'values' are. It's all misinformed and maladapted. They ARE, in fact - setting all politics and pom-pom shaking aside - voting against the interests of the nation, themselves, and their children & grandchildren. This can be shown empirically... whatever faith-based beliefs they hold.

so, your plan is to prove "empirically" that the things other people value, their ideals, are "against their own interests". right.

like, empirical proof that sports are a waste of time. empirical proof that you shouldn't be sad right now. empirical proof that men and women are spiritually the same. empirical proof that there's life after death. empirical proof that all men are created equal.

it's not gonna happen, david. never. you are employing the wrong part of speech.

[Paul Pless]

republican tribal identity:
dont pay taxes
hate on people that are unlike themselves
own the libs

[Garret]

Their tribal identity IS their self-interest to a large degree. I'd argue that their need to preserve it comes from a worldview based in fear and insecurity. Which causes them to be hostile to the more socialized, egalitarian society, as Baxter pointed out.

Fear causes people to do ugly things, and support other people doing even uglier things.

I'm not sure how to reduce their fears of a more egalitarian society when what they fear IS a more egalitarian society. To such an extent that they'd rather have an autocracy, even an ugly fascist one.

Tom

I don't think so. Using the guy I mentioned above as an example - he's not part of a "tribe" - or at least he doesn't see it that way. This is a guy who lives in a small town, way up in the hills & runs a small sawmill, sells some firewood, does land clearing for the 2nd home owners in nearby towns, etc. Hard working, probably only HS educated guy who comes from a family that's probably voted Rep for 5 generations or more. He loved my "Liberalitarian" moniker - "Happy to help anyone out, but leave me alone to live my life" & is pro-choice - because "What someone else does is none of my business - though I'd prefer my wife didn't get one".

He said he doesn't watch much news & doesn't have cable - so he doesn't see Fox News. Additionally, he would not vote for Trump if he ran again "because he turned out to be a liar". When I said "like the tax cut that pretty much only helped the rich?" He said "It did? I don't pay a lot of taxes so I never noticed."

He is precisely the kind of person that could be reached by the messaging I mentioned above - but the Dems don't seem to want to do the sort of short, simple, & direct addressing of issues that will be required to get these folks on board.

[John Smith]

Rational AIN'T got a thing to do with it.

If you haven't figured out yet that the oligarchs have engaged in a successful, long-term, propaganda campaign ... and a successful l-t effort to game the system... against anyone who might threaten their hopes for domination... I think maybe you've not been paying attention.

Propaganda is about manipulation, not about logic. Gaming the system is about power, not strengthening our Republic.

Propaganda is another word for lies.

Imagine where we might be today if politicians all actually told the truth, and if all "news' outlets actually got their facts correct. Imagine if all voters had the same set of actual facts?