Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PTTG??]

I wonder if this feeling of social vertigo is what people felt in Iran after the revolution. This feeling of being in a once-modern country that is hurtling back decades in days.

[Spehss _]

I watched a bit of the DNC Party Chair Forum on C-Span.

What the hell is the Democrat Party doing? Most non-white demographics vote Democrat, Trump won states that haven't gone red in years, a majority of Trump's winning vote base were white people, many of whom were working class or low middle class and saying that the Obama administration let them down and the Democrat Party didn't seem to care about their economic issues, and the people running for the Democrat Party chair are now saying that they have a problem with getting minority (non-white or women or lgbt) votes? The easiest way to start pulling in votes would be to try to reach low class white people instead and weaken Trump's base, right?

Instead it looks like Dems want to continue their identity politics for everyone except straight white males and ignore the elephant in the room. They don't seem to be learning anything from how this election cycle went.

[smjjames]

I watched a bit of the DNC Party Chair Forum on C-Span.

What the hell is the Democrat Party doing? Most non-white demographics vote Democrat, Trump won states that haven't gone red in years, a majority of Trump's winning vote base were white people, many of whom were working class or low middle class and saying that the Obama administration let them down and the Democrat Party didn't seem to care about their economic issues, and the people running for the Democrat Party chair are now saying that they have a problem with getting minority (non-white or women or lgbt) votes? The easiest way to start pulling in votes would be to try to reach low class white people instead and weaken Trump's base, right?

Instead it looks like Dems want to continue their identity politics for everyone except straight white males and ignore the elephant in the room. They don't seem to be learning anything from how this election cycle went.

Don't know if the slam poet guy was an interlude or one of the candidates, but while I did look at it a little, the captions aren't working very well. Not sure what you're getting at though, the fact that a lot of the DNC candidates are non-white? That may just be a function of the Democrats base.

Still, the Democrats problem isn't so much the identity politics, it's that they have been neglecting the rural areas and towns. Yes identity politics is part of it, but there are certainly minorities in the rural areas being hit by the same problems as said 'straight white male' demographic.

As for learning from their mistakes and how to move forward, they are lacking some sort of 'postmortem' report to see what went wrong and how they can improve. Although, the Republican one ended up being thrown in the trash and torched.

[Spehss _]

Don't know if the slam poet guy was an interlude or one of the candidates, but while I did look at it a little, the captions aren't working very well. Not sure what you're getting at though, the fact that a lot of the DNC candidates are non-white? That may just be a function of the Democrats base.

Still, the Democrats problem isn't so much the identity politics, it's that they have been neglecting the rural areas and towns. Yes identity politics is part of it, but there are certainly minorities in the rural areas being hit by the same problems as said 'straight white male' demographic.

There's a slam poet? I skipped the introduction parts to where it actually seemed the 7 candidates were talking about stuff. I only watched maybe 5 or 10 minutes of the actual meaningful content starting at 21 minutes.

[Baffler]

I watched a bit of the DNC Party Chair Forum on C-Span.

What the hell is the Democrat Party doing? Most non-white demographics vote Democrat, Trump won states that haven't gone red in years, a majority of Trump's winning vote base were white people, many of whom were working class or low middle class and saying that the Obama administration let them down and the Democrat Party didn't seem to care about their economic issues, and the people running for the Democrat Party chair are now saying that they have a problem with getting minority (non-white or women or lgbt) votes? The easiest way to start pulling in votes would be to try to reach low class white people instead and weaken Trump's base, right?

Instead it looks like Dems want to continue their identity politics for everyone except straight white males and ignore the elephant in the room. They don't seem to be learning anything from how this election cycle went.

That may well be the case, considering they still haven't even done a postmortem for the election yet.

[smjjames]

I watched a bit of the DNC Party Chair Forum on C-Span.

What the hell is the Democrat Party doing? Most non-white demographics vote Democrat, Trump won states that haven't gone red in years, a majority of Trump's winning vote base were white people, many of whom were working class or low middle class and saying that the Obama administration let them down and the Democrat Party didn't seem to care about their economic issues, and the people running for the Democrat Party chair are now saying that they have a problem with getting minority (non-white or women or lgbt) votes? The easiest way to start pulling in votes would be to try to reach low class white people instead and weaken Trump's base, right?

Instead it looks like Dems want to continue their identity politics for everyone except straight white males and ignore the elephant in the room. They don't seem to be learning anything from how this election cycle went.

That may well be the case, considering they still haven't even done a postmortem for the election yet.

Yeah, I've read something similar elsewhere, basically donors want answers to what the heck happened, how we got here, why, when, and how they plan to fix things.

Though honestly, while there have been a whole bunch of independent analysises which generally point to the same thing (withdrawl from rural areas and concentrating in urban areas, among others), there hasn't been any official analysis of what went wrong or how they'd fix things.

[Frumple]

I mean, most of it really isn't that complicated. You had people that wanted to get conned -- wanted simple, easy solutions to complex problems that they don't exist for and were willing/desperate enough to suspend all disbelief if someone said they had one loudly enough -- and so they did. Add a sprinkle of FTFE and voilà.

Still, the Democrats problem isn't so much the identity politics, it's that they have been neglecting the rural areas and towns. Yes identity politics is part of it, but there are certainly minorities in the rural areas being hit by the same problems as said 'straight white male' demographic.

Haven't been neglecting the goddamn rural communities, the rural communities have been ignoring and/or rejecting attempts at attention while electing people that were intent on making sure their areas kept going to shit. Consistently. For decades. Identity politics are a pretty sizable part with that, but it's the conservative ones that are the key issue on that front, not the bits related to minorities (they're still an issue, but a smaller one), and in complete honestly there's functionally pretty much nothing the dems can do about that. You cannot spread a message when every venue you are willing to use is ignored or maligned. If they want to break into that about their only option is going to be to abandon every last iota of integrity and stridently lie out of every orifice. It's either going to take that, or the demographics in question becoming willing to listen to things from your corner that aren't blatant lies... and it's now pretty clearly demonstrated that anything that happens from that direction is going to come from inside the demographics in question and no where else.

The easiest way to start pulling in votes would be to try to reach low class white people instead and weaken Trump's base, right?

Trying to court trump's base would do sod all. Trump's base is not going to move, and there's pretty much nothing the dems can try to do about that that haven't been doing for longer than pretty much any of us have been alive. That doesn't boil down to "fuck our platform and everything we've attempted to stand for", anyway. Minorities there's at least traction with at the mo', and turnout actually was a problem this last election, so trying to improve on that front is a pretty solid idea.

They do seem to be learning something from this election, really. They're learning that you cannot convince people that will not listen, that no amount of help or emphasizing that help is going to get people to notice what you're doing when they are willfully ignoring what you do, and that putting much effort into either is a waste of that effort. So direct your campaigning resources elsewhere, because you've clearly identified an area investment isn't going to do you much good. _{mind, you keep efforts to improve the areas going because, unlike your opponents in this case, you're not complete bastards on the net and basic governance is kinda' yer shtick, but you acknowledge that you're not going to get any electoral advantage worth note from it}

[smjjames]

Still, the Democrats problem isn't so much the identity politics, it's that they have been neglecting the rural areas and towns. Yes identity politics is part of it, but there are certainly minorities in the rural areas being hit by the same problems as said 'straight white male' demographic.

Haven't been neglecting the goddamn rural communities, the rural communities have been ignoring and/or rejecting attempts at attention while electing people that were intent on making sure their areas kept going to shit. Consistently. For decades. Identity politics are a pretty sizable part with that, but it's the conservative ones that are the key issue on that front, not the bits related to minorities (they're still an issue, but a smaller one), and in complete honestly there's functionally pretty much nothing the dems can do about that. You cannot spread a message when every venue you are willing to use is ignored or maligned. If they want to break into that about their only option is going to be to abandon every last iota of integrity and stridently lie out of every orifice. It's either going to take that, or the demographics in question becoming willing to listen to things from your corner that aren't blatant lies... and it's now pretty clearly demonstrated that anything that happens from that direction is going to come from inside the demographics in question and no where else.

Explain the trend seen in this analysis (link to conclusion which also has links to the other three parts in the series) then. While it doesn't explain why and how it happened and doesn't offer solutions, it does explain what happened as far as the trend because explaining how they got to this point is going to be cruicial to understanding how to bounce back and move forward.

Of course though, one caveat is that the postmortem might not actually be the path back, see the Republicans own postmortem.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Democrats can absolutely steal Trump's base, and without compromising any of their values in the process. The working class and rural vote went more to Trump because of his practically impossible but unchallenged economic policy regarding them. Economic relief for these areas is their most cared about issue, and even just establishing a meaningful platform on it beyond trying to ride long-term economic success would serve the Dems massively.

Identity politics are an utterly vital element of the Democratic platform, but they are only one aspect of a coalition. There are people who are so bigoted that economic radicalism wouldn't be alluring when placed alongside acceptance of whatever minority group, but that vein is just a vein. Claiming just a segment of the non-college white vote alongside reliable Democratic voters is basically automatic victory.

[Frumple]

Explain the trend seen in this analysis (link to conclusion which also has links to the other three parts in the series) then. While it doesn't explain why and how it happened and doesn't offer solutions, it does explain what happened as far as the trend because explaining how they got to this point is going to be cruicial to understanding how to bounce back and move forward.

I mean... explain what part? The stuff linked slots in pretty well with what you quoted from me, as near as I can tell. Dem/liberal efforts in these areas have remained pretty strong throughout the period being analyzed, but acknowledgement or recognition of those efforts very much haven't (and were only so strong to begin with, really). If you're looking for a how, worsening economic conditions, what amounts to media ossification -- the communities solidifying around certain sources of information, many of them just flatly inaccessible to a democrat message, to say nothing of what the messages that are being transmitted look like -- and a side of demographic shift (people getting older, et al).

In the conclusion bit, though, what I'd disagree with pretty strongly is that it is reversible, at least not by any external actor. The situation on the ground in these areas is not what it was 30, 40 years ago, and it's pretty much physically impossible for them to get back to it. What worked to get rural and lower density areas population to vote for dems decades back is not going to work now, and more likely than not you've outright lost, and permanently, many of the points you once would have used for leverage. They're just not freaking there anymore, and the populations that remain (and aren't trying to get out, anyway) are largely pretty staunchly against acknowledging the stuff involved with that.

The Democrats can absolutely steal Trump's base, and without compromising any of their values in the process. The working class and rural vote went more to Trump because of his practically impossible but unchallenged economic policy regarding them. Economic relief for these areas is their most cared about issue, and even just establishing a meaningful platform on it beyond trying to ride long-term economic success would serve the Dems massively.

... MSH, that's the thing. There isn't a platform to establish when it comes to that, for these areas. The only substantial economic relief they're going to see is by welfare and government investment,* either directly, or indirectly via subsidies and tax breaks to offset of the costs of doing business in these areas. Long term economic success -- retraining (education funding, good luck), moving out of particularly impoverished areas into ones that can support you (welfare, tax breaks for travel et al, scholarships, etc., see previous paren, add in a dash of non-economic concerns like family history and environmental comfort and crap) -- is pretty much it. There's not a single other bloody option, particularly not one that's not going to dry up again within a generation or two at most.

Like. Businesses will not come to these areas. They're out of the way (transport costs), they're varying degrees of run down (infrastructure costs), the population is generally having one sort of problem or another (human resource costs, as well as shortage of qualified workers which adds even more because you have to bring folks in), and if there's no resources in the area (extractive, temporary, sometimes a net loss for the community due to working hazards et al t'boot), then there's no reason to be there because there is nothing there. Anything that will be able to profit in those conditions, will not be large enough to support more than maybe one or two communities, out of significantly more than that.

*And to a fair extent, the culture/general attitude in these areas, again particularly for the ones that have been there as things slid to shit, will refuse those as an option. You cannot get their votes with that message, because they will be significantly more likely to listen to someone saying there's another way -- even if said option is a complete impossibility -- over someone that is acknowledging the raw economic reality that has been shitting on their dignity and future for years.

[redwallzyl]

Explain the trend seen in this analysis (link to conclusion which also has links to the other three parts in the series) then. While it doesn't explain why and how it happened and doesn't offer solutions, it does explain what happened as far as the trend because explaining how they got to this point is going to be cruicial to understanding how to bounce back and move forward.

I mean... explain what part? The stuff linked slots in pretty well with what you quoted from me, as near as I can tell. Dem/liberal efforts in these areas have remained pretty strong throughout the period being analyzed, but acknowledgement or recognition of those efforts very much haven't (and were only so strong to begin with, really). If you're looking for a how, worsening economic conditions, what amounts to media ossification -- the communities solidifying around certain sources of information, many of them just flatly inaccessible to a democrat message, to say nothing of what the messages that are being transmitted look like -- and a side of demographic shift (people getting older, et al).

In the conclusion bit, though, what I'd disagree with pretty strongly is that it is reversible, at least not by any external actor. The situation on the ground in these areas is not what it was 30, 40 years ago, and it's pretty much physically impossible for them to get back to it. What worked to get rural and lower density areas population to vote for dems decades back is not going to work now, and more likely than not you've outright lost, and permanently, many of the points you once would have used for leverage. They're just not freaking there anymore, and the populations that remain (and aren't trying to get out, anyway) are largely pretty staunchly against acknowledging the stuff involved with that.

The Democrats can absolutely steal Trump's base, and without compromising any of their values in the process. The working class and rural vote went more to Trump because of his practically impossible but unchallenged economic policy regarding them. Economic relief for these areas is their most cared about issue, and even just establishing a meaningful platform on it beyond trying to ride long-term economic success would serve the Dems massively.

... MSH, that's the thing. There isn't a platform to establish when it comes to that, for these areas. The only substantial economic relief they're going to see is by welfare and government investment,* either directly, or indirectly via subsidies and tax breaks to offset of the costs of doing business in these areas. Long term economic success -- retraining (education funding, good luck), moving out of particularly impoverished areas into ones that can support you (welfare, tax breaks for travel et al, scholarships, etc., see previous paren, add in a dash of non-economic concerns like family history and environmental comfort and crap) -- is pretty much it. There's not a single other bloody option, particularly not one that's not going to dry up again within a generation or two at most.

Like. Businesses will not come to these areas. They're out of the way (transport costs), they're varying degrees of run down (infrastructure costs), the population is generally having one sort of problem or another (human resource costs, as well as shortage of qualified workers which adds even more because you have to bring folks in), and if there's no resources in the area (extractive, temporary, sometimes a net loss for the community due to working hazards et al t'boot), then there's no reason to be there because there is nothing there. Anything that will be able to profit in those conditions, will not be large enough to support more than maybe one or two communities, out of significantly more than that.

*And to a fair extent, the culture/general attitude in these areas, again particularly for the ones that have been there as things slid to shit, will refuse those as an option. You cannot get their votes with that message, because they will be significantly more likely to listen to someone saying there's another way -- even if said option is a complete impossibility -- over someone that is acknowledging the raw economic reality that has been shitting on their dignity and future for years.

you might be right. the small town without a reason to exist is dead and theirs no saving it because it serves no purpose now that it's industry is gone never to return. the people are right their community's are dying. but theirs nothing to be done but let them die and try to help the people move on.

[smjjames]

Explain the trend seen in this analysis (link to conclusion which also has links to the other three parts in the series) then. While it doesn't explain why and how it happened and doesn't offer solutions, it does explain what happened as far as the trend because explaining how they got to this point is going to be cruicial to understanding how to bounce back and move forward.

I mean... explain what part? The stuff linked slots in pretty well with what you quoted from me, as near as I can tell. Dem/liberal efforts in these areas have remained pretty strong throughout the period being analyzed, but acknowledgement or recognition of those efforts very much haven't (and were only so strong to begin with, really). If you're looking for a how, worsening economic conditions, what amounts to media ossification -- the communities solidifying around certain sources of information, many of them just flatly inaccessible to a democrat message, to say nothing of what the messages that are being transmitted look like -- and a side of demographic shift (people getting older, et al).

In the conclusion bit, though, what I'd disagree with pretty strongly is that it is reversible, at least not by any external actor. The situation on the ground in these areas is not what it was 30, 40 years ago, and it's pretty much physically impossible for them to get back to it. What worked to get rural and lower density areas population to vote for dems decades back is not going to work now, and more likely than not you've outright lost, and permanently, many of the points you once would have used for leverage. They're just not freaking there anymore, and the populations that remain (and aren't trying to get out, anyway) are largely pretty staunchly against acknowledging the stuff involved with that.

The Democrats can absolutely steal Trump's base, and without compromising any of their values in the process. The working class and rural vote went more to Trump because of his practically impossible but unchallenged economic policy regarding them. Economic relief for these areas is their most cared about issue, and even just establishing a meaningful platform on it beyond trying to ride long-term economic success would serve the Dems massively.

... MSH, that's the thing. There isn't a platform to establish when it comes to that, for these areas. The only substantial economic relief they're going to see is by welfare and government investment,* either directly, or indirectly via subsidies and tax breaks to offset of the costs of doing business in these areas. Long term economic success -- retraining (education funding, good luck), moving out of particularly impoverished areas into ones that can support you (welfare, tax breaks for travel et al, scholarships, etc., see previous paren, add in a dash of non-economic concerns like family history and environmental comfort and crap) -- is pretty much it. There's not a single other bloody option, particularly not one that's not going to dry up again within a generation or two at most.

Like. Businesses will not come to these areas. They're out of the way (transport costs), they're varying degrees of run down (infrastructure costs), the population is generally having one sort of problem or another (human resource costs, as well as shortage of qualified workers which adds even more because you have to bring folks in), and if there's no resources in the area (extractive, temporary, sometimes a net loss for the community due to working hazards et al t'boot), then there's no reason to be there because there is nothing there. Anything that will be able to profit in those conditions, will not be large enough to support more than maybe one or two communities, out of significantly more than that.

*And to a fair extent, the culture/general attitude in these areas, again particularly for the ones that have been there as things slid to shit, will refuse those as an option. You cannot get their votes with that message, because they will be significantly more likely to listen to someone saying there's another way -- even if said option is a complete impossibility -- over someone that is acknowledging the raw economic reality that has been shitting on their dignity and future for years.

you might be right. the small town without a reason to exist is dead and theirs no saving it because it serves no purpose now that it's industry is gone never to return. the people are right their community's are dying. but theirs nothing to be done but let them die and try to help the people move on.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic there redwallzyl because that's a rather morbid way of looking at it. Or maybe you're using hyperbole.

I was gonna give a solution that I've read around, but it's pretty much one that Frumple has already said.

Still, there ARE ways, but those methods take time, lots of time, to have full effect, but everybody wants things to happen RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW (in all caps for effect).

[Frumple]

... probably not sarcasm. It's pretty legitimately what the economic outlook for these areas are, if put a bit bluntly. Particularly if they're trying to hold on or return to the previous state of things in that area of life. It's not really morbid, per se, but it definitely seriously bloody sucks. Living in these areas can be pretty shit so far as the larger picture/future goes, and it's made worse by it being so common to not really realize what's been happening until you're older, and find yourself starting to understand the world more only to suddenly recognize what's happening to your community but having missed most of the good windows to do something about it (for yourself and family, if nothing else). Folks bury their head in the sand and throw themselves behind impossibilities for a reason, even if it's damned foolish.

The economy's changed, and overall population grown besides. What could manage to compete and sustain these less dense areas a generation or two (or three, whatever) ago just flat can't manage that anymore, at the absolute least to the same extent. Folks that try get out competed by ones that aren't effectively handicapping themselves and either are able to support less and less of the areas population, or eventually get pushed out of their market and out of business, with the community just buggered maybe a bit slower than the next town over. It sucks! It sucks several different varieties of metaphorical and entirely too often literal dong.

There just ain't really much you can do about it... and a lot of what you can is pretty unpalatable for the cultures involved, unfortunately. Problem ain't really the time involved (though that's definitely contributed, especially hand in hand with efforts to sabotage most attempts at something effective -- means that a lot of the stuff that could have done more, hasn't), but the nature of what the actual options are and what takin' advantage of them entails. That'd be the identity part I mentioned, heh.

[PTTG??]

I don't really know if the Democrats can recover. They disavowed their most energetic supporters by rejecting Bernie, and it's clear that choosing Hillary over him wasn't some kind of tactical masterstroke. They have no young heirs, and they were outplayed by Trump of all people. Add to that the shameful performance in the lower races, the state levels, the congress.

And this coming out of the Obama years! There are no words for the level of systemic failure that has swept through the DNC!

The years of compromises that voters have had to endure because the democrats are "better than the other guy" is just annother embarrasment. Obama's continuing wars, his failure to shut down Guantanimo, the Democratic cowardice in the face of Republican threats to filibuster, Democrats utter failure to drive aggressive policy goals like banning coal, driving space exploration, developing a society ready to handle automation, or simply improving education... It's over.

Why support Democrats when they have demanded so much in exchange for the simple promise of "not being the Republicans," and then failed to deliver even on that?

In my case, at least, I don't think I can support the Democratic party at all. We need something new.

[Rolan7]

I think these first days, if nothing else, has proven that a moderate conciliatory path is- while not ideal - better than the alternative.
I hope I'll be proven wrong, going forward.