2018 U.S election

[MaryKB]

Don't forget also misogynist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, how about going to their union halls and talking to them, in a way that shows you understand and want to address their concerns? Make pro-union policies a big part of your platform. Know who tried that in 2016? Bernie Sanders. He got a lot of those people to show up to the polls for him, and in primaries no less.

It's practically a lay-up, and it's not going to alienate urban and suburban voters to be explicitly pro-union. It only upsets corporate donors, which explains why so many Democrats totally whiff on this easy lay-up. Know who doesn't want corporate PAC money and won't care if he pisses off potential corporate donors? Rhymes with Keto (if you pronounce it like a white).

Just out of curiosity, what are you suggesting that unions have to do with the question at hand? Are you saying that rural voters are union voters? Near as I can tell "appeal to unions" is not only "not going to alienate urban and suburban voters," it is directly appealing to them. I just don't see how that is an appeal to rural voters.

 

[Farm Boy]

I dunno. How'd Bernie do it before he lost and suddenly economic interests "dried up and became" wimmin hatin' child fornicatin' racist Trumpists? It was the penis and the pigment right? Or was it the Jewishness. I keep getting confused on the narratives.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is huge overlap between rural and racist.

Maybe, but it is far from one to one. If it were the GOP would be dead already because they'd only have one group to appeal to and that group is too small. It takes all the rural voters, including those who are racists, plus all the racist voters, to be competitive. If you just appeal to the overlapping rural and racist you get 25%, as demonstrated by the open Nazi running in Illinois.

 

[Farm Boy]

You get 25% from being American and uninformed on who the hell is running other than noting it's not a Democrat. It's less efficient than the old machine in the city proper, but killing straight ticket vote punching was still a win in bringing that down. How'd he come up? Lipinski is one of the last true blue union dogs, if I remember right. The Republicans in district don't even pay attention to running against him, as the Nazi sneaking in showed.

 

[metalhead]

Just out of curiosity, what are you suggesting that unions have to do with the question at hand? Are you saying that rural voters are union voters? Near as I can tell "appeal to unions" is not only "not going to alienate urban and suburban voters," it is directly appealing to them. I just don't see how that is an appeal to rural voters.

Lots of counties outside of major metro areas have strong union presences, although this obviously depends on the state. But even where people aren't actually in unions, you can still answer their economic concerns without having to talk about their racial anxiety.

The problem isn't that you have to use race to appeal to racists in these places. It's that you have to say things that might upset corporate donors in order to appeal to their economic interests. Being explicitly pro-union and pro-worker is a marker. That is why being anti-trade is such a big deal for Trump. People who grow stuff or make stuff for a living hear someone who gets their concerns, even if he's wrong on the facts and policy.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Just out of curiosity, what are you suggesting that unions have to do with the question at hand? Are you saying that rural voters are union voters? Near as I can tell "appeal to unions" is not only "not going to alienate urban and suburban voters," it is directly appealing to them. I just don't see how that is an appeal to rural voters.

People like money. Unions/mimum wage/whatever. There's a reason proposals that are more progressive about minimum wage are killing it, or how teacher protests were so successful in places like West Virginia. Proposals do benefit from not having a person behind them, which does limit the racial and sexist element. Farm Boy's earlier point about Bernie is, I think, a bit reductive in that if Bernie was the exact same in 2016 except a woman, she would have been dropkicked into the sun early on for being overly emotional or 'crazy' or whatever and stood no chance. But there's some room to appeal to some people's self-interests. I think finding a way to communicate a UBI as a tax refund or something is an open avenue some Dems should explore. People like money! They hate taxes! Tell them you're giving them money as a break from taxes! Woooo.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Lots of counties outside of major metro areas have strong union presences, although this obviously depends on the state. But even where people aren't actually in unions, you can still answer their economic concerns without having to talk about their racial anxiety.

The problem isn't that you have to use race to appeal to racists in these places. It's that you have to say things that might upset corporate donors in order to appeal to their economic interests. Being explicitly pro-union and pro-worker is a marker. That is why being anti-trade is such a big deal for Trump. People who grow stuff or make stuff for a living hear someone who gets their concerns, even if he's wrong on the facts and policy.

What you are missing is that "upsetting corporate donors" costs urban and suburban votes, directly. For every appeal to the economic interests of rural voters you make you are threatening the economic interests of everyone else, not just corporate donors. Trump is managing this by appealing to the rural voters and getting them to believe that he is on their side despite everything he does actually being bad for them, but that's a hard trick to match.

 

[rah]

I would say he must think they're stupid but then he thinks everyone is. Not himself, of course.

 

[Farm Boy]

We like eating, but we don't like paying for it. fudge those guys. Do they have **** I can steal? I like that too. Why are we funding water conservation districts again? Oh good, the Republican governor is gone, we can support axing the Extension service again since it isn't him doing it.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Upsetting corporate donors doesn't cost any votes. O'Rourke just showed that. It's literally what the populace wants right now. You can make money in other ways. "I don't eat corporate america's ass" literally is a slogan that would win votes. Nothing about corporate america's vast control over DC is helping the economy or inequality or urban jobs or anything.

 

[civvver]

I don't believe not supporting Donald Trump is what's hurting Republicans. My Republican governor candidate (Tim Schuette) sent me a flyer saying he would be Trump's badly needed ally in Michigan (and his flyer had a big horrible picture of Donald), and he was thoroughly crushed by Gretchin Whitmer yesterday

You mean Bill Schuette? I don't think trump had anything to do with. He lost cus he's a giant butthole of a person. He mishandled everything about the flint water crisis for political gain, he had some issues with his staff and just comes off as a jerk.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Upsetting corporate donors doesn't cost any votes.

Notice that I didn't say that it did. I said that the things that appeal to rural voters that upset corporate donors also upset everyone else.

When the rural voter says "muh little tractor isn't pollutin' that much, we gotta back off these regalations" and you go along, the people who live with ten million internal combustion engines within five miles aren't gonna be happy. That has nothing to do with corporate donors, it's just the way it goes. Etc etc etc.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not familiar with agricultural vs commercial regulations, nor grandfathering, I see. Or is that just too complicated? It has a comma and everything.

You mean Bill Schuette? I don't think trump had anything to do with. He lost cus he's a giant butthole of a person. He mishandled everything about the flint water crisis for political gain, he had some issues with his staff and just comes off as a jerk.

Walker's out too. Screwed. the. pooch.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not familiar with agricultural vs commercial regulations, nor grandfathering, I see. Or is that just too complicated? It has a comma and everything.

Nope, not too complicated at all. I just understand that politically it's really hard to play the "well, but really..." game against a determined opponent when it comes to urban and suburban voters. "Deregulation" is a winning word out rural and with the corporate donors, but not really anywhere else. Trying to take the time to explain the specifics of what you mean while your opponent has swung a quick tar brush and moved on costs votes.

 

[Farm Boy]

"Right to repair" is the term you want right now, California wondermuffin. Talk about a deregulation neither party is willing to touch with a 10 foot pole. The CA Farm Bureau just sold out this year. Can't imagine IL will be far behind. Both massive jackass states, in this regard, on the whole.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"Right to repair" is the term you want right now, California wondermuffin. Talk about a deregulation neither party is willing to touch with a 10 foot pole. The CA Farm Bureau just sold out this year. Can't imagine IL will be far behind. Both massive jackass states, in this regard, on the whole.

Ah. Right to repair meaning that as long as I can keep the old pre-regulation tractor running I don't have to comply? Or meaning I can "repair" my truck by removing all this egregious emission control stuff?

Noting that neither one is something that urban and suburban voters have any reason to let fly, though it is perhaps reasonable to say they don't really have a reason not to as long as it is clearly stamped 'special case for rural use only.'

 

[metalhead]

What you are missing is that "upsetting corporate donors" costs urban and suburban votes, directly. For every appeal to the economic interests of rural voters you make you are threatening the economic interests of everyone else, not just corporate donors. Trump is managing this by appealing to the rural voters and getting them to believe that he is on their side despite everything he does actually being bad for them, but that's a hard trick to match.

Nope. Here's a perfect example for you.

My wife's cousin is a union guy. Will work a union factory job until he retires. He liked Trump because Trump talked about us "getting killed at the border" due to disparate tax rates and such. Being anti-trade deal, or pro-tariff, or hell even just being willing to talk about those things instantly endears you to entire communities of union (and non-union) people who either work in, or service, the manufacturing sector.

Do you think suburbanites give a crap about trade policy? Of course not. But when your livelihood involves making or growing things that then need to be sold somewhere, those things matter to you. It's important. These people for decades have been hearing labor leaders ***** about trade deals and how they screw over workers. Trump comes along as the first guy ever to rail against them, and it worked. My father-in-law, a lifelong proud union Democrat, said all his co-workers love Trump, for the same reason.

 

[Bootstoots]

I'm finding it a little demeaning honestly to suggest coming forward with allegations of sexual assault and attempted rape is some sort of political strategy, and you should be careful about doing so for strategic reasons. I feel this whole line of thinking is suggesting women's safety is some sort of political tool, and you decide when and where to bring up allegations not based solely on what is best for protecting women but rather what might be most politically expedient and strategic, you know what I mean? I can understand why you might be inclined to think that way a little, but I feel it's not at all a good path to go down, and I'm feeling you're suggesting women should reconsider coming forward if she thinks it might upset Republicans and mobilize them to vote.

Well, politics in the US is a bare-knuckled brawl where principles are mostly a liability (absent a good strategy to convert them into votes). I agree that this is an awful way to treat a sexual assault victim or anyone else, but if treating someone like a human being who needs to be heard means losing two Senate seats, it probably isn't a good tradeoff. A lot more than one human gets harmed with each lost Senate seat, after all, and it's that cold utilitarian logic that I'm using here.

Ford did everything right, of course. But, having seen the results here, I'm inclined to say the Dems should just sit on accusations of a similar nature in the future. Not because it's the morally right thing to do, but because it's the less-bad choice when you think about total benefit vs. harm.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I dunno, a lot of polling pre-2016 showed like, 2 percent (slight exaggeration but whatever) of likely voters even knew what the TPP was or cared about it. I just don't think deregulation or regulation or trade matter all that much, to also address the tractor story from Tim. There are way more higher order things driving the rural vote, and they're the same thing driving the bougie white non-rural vote too, and that's something that can't really be combated. I don't know that you can really counteract white identity and Christian identity and party identity being the main drivers of Republican voters, as tons of polling has showed. But you sure as hell can't do it with arguing about tractor regulation (which honestly the Republican base doesn't give a crap about) or TPP. You might be able to by arguing about wages and money and horsehockey tech bros and stockbrokers. At least that's a much simpler message.