2018 U.S election

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.

So since Trump said the same stupidly wrong things that labor leaders said he is a hero. Got it. But how does that relate to the rural vote? Maybe a case could be made for "I grows them soybeans and sells them down to the silo and it jist never occurred to me that a trade war might hurt me," but suburban union members aren't really as gullible, so why should they buy into Trump strongly enough to make up for the losses that come with trade wars combined with lying about trade wars? My answer is that I don't think they do. Once again, the effort made to appeal to rural voters carries more cost than reward.
 
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.'

Didn't bother googling it I see. Or maybe you bought John Deere and GM's line. Right to repair has to do with dealer licensing and software. Patent and non-manufacturer fitted parts available on the market. Though, I suppose a big enough loser might make the argument that allowing people to fix their stuff is actually the wrongness in the regulation. Sounds California enough to be plausible?

Also, on road and off road diesel has been a thing forever for agricultural equipment. They're taxed differently. Off road diesel is dyed pink, here. It's cheaper, but I don't know anybody personally that's stupid enough to risk that peepee pounding that comes if you get caught with it in your pickup.
 
So political deadlock is "Happier Days" to you? Because with Republicans holding the Senate and Democrats taking the House, that's what we can look forward to for the next two years. I don't know about you, but the idea of the government getting nothing done for the next two years doesn't exactly fill me with optimism.
Gridlock, you mean. Americans now have their favorite form of government: gridlocracy. (I just invented that and I'm really proud of it). We give parties all-branches rule for two years, then rein them in.
 
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 ****** tech bros and stockbrokers. At least that's a much simpler message.

C'mon man...right here there are any number of people who would absolutely birth a methane farting cow over such a 'raping of the environment and hastening of our climate change doom' as agreeing with that farmer about his tractor would represent, and I'd have bet you are one of them...though that's off the top of my head so could be mixing you into a crowd you are peripheral to.
 
C'mon man...right here there are any number of people who would absolutely birth a methane farting cow over such a 'raping of the environment and hastening of our climate change doom' as agreeing with that farmer about his tractor would represent, and I'd have bet you are one of them...though that's off the top of my head so could be mixing you into a crowd you are peripheral to.

I'm not entirely clear of your phrasing, but, sure, there are people who get off on destroying the environment, but there's a reason almost nobody runs on saving or destroying the environment in this country, Republican or Democrat. Voters just aren't receptive to "hey we're killing the planet" or even "hey let's kill the planet" as much as a lot of other policies or ID factors. It's just a part of the Republican identity because Republican politicians make it so. If a bunch of leading Republicans came out tomorrow and said "global warming is real" the Republican voter opinion on it would change, too. It's part and parcel of things but it's hardly a driving factor. There are so many more issues that are more salient, many of them identity based, but even health care is way more important to most people. I mean dear lord we can't even get Dems to embrace tackling this issue and their base at least accepts it.

Anyways, I'm sort of lost as to where my own point was going with this, but tl;dr, just support medicare for all and minimum wage hikes and you help everyone without even having to 'court' rural votes, and maybe you nab a few. Neither of those solve racial housing or school segregation but I'd hope decent progressive politicians can multitask.
 
Didn't bother googling it I see. Or maybe you bought John Deere and GM's line. Right to repair has to do with dealer licensing and software. Patent and non-manufacturer fitted parts available on the market. Though, I suppose a big enough loser might make the argument that allowing people to fix their stuff is actually the wrongness in the regulation. Sounds California enough to be plausible?

Also, on road and off road diesel has been a thing forever for agricultural equipment. They're taxed differently. Off road diesel is dyed pink, here. It's cheaper, but I don't know anybody personally that's stupid enough to risk that peepee pounding that comes if you get caught with it in your pickup.

I don't google farmy stuff. I have my own friend in the industry who I respect the opinion of.

I do remember the hubbub over software in engine control modules, I just don't remember it being shorthanded as 'right to repair.' Don't shoot me.

The difference in 'non-road diesel' as it is generally known here, and regular diesel is just a matter of taxation. Fuel taxes that are earmarked for highway maintenance have been deemed unfair when charged to people who don't use it to actually bop down a highway. California has taxes that are so specifically earmarked that they can't be collected on diesel fuel pumped into the reefer motor on a semi, even if it is pumped from the same pump as the truck fuel. At the truck stop we had to deduct those taxes off the pump price for reefer fuel. I imagine that if some trucker got caught siphoning reefer fuel down into their truck tank they'd have indeed gotten slapped somewhere sensitive.
 
So since Trump said the same stupidly wrong things that labor leaders said he is a hero. Got it. But how does that relate to the rural vote? Maybe a case could be made for "I grows them soybeans and sells them down to the silo and it jist never occurred to me that a trade war might hurt me," but suburban union members aren't really as gullible, so why should they buy into Trump strongly enough to make up for the losses that come with trade wars combined with lying about trade wars? My answer is that I don't think they do. Once again, the effort made to appeal to rural voters carries more cost than reward.

No, see, now you're mixing things up. Trump isn't losing the suburbs because he rails against trade. It's all the other stuff he does, his being a terrible person and manifestly unfit for the job, that costs him among suburban voters.

The point isn't that Trump is right about trade. And it's not as if he's the only one saying the things he does about NAFTA and global trade. It's merely that he is willing to talk about it as something important. It makes a connection. It doesn't turn off other voters, because it's an abstract issue to them. It's not going to motivate them against Trump, or anyone, the way it motivates others for him.

As I pointed out, Sherrod Brown easily won re-election in what is suddenly pretty red Ohio by using the same message. It doesn't cost him in the suburbs, he won easily. So this isn't a hypothetical, this is something that has actually been tried, successfully, by other candidates. Doesn't mean you have to use trade, necessarily, but it is an example.
 
I'm not entirely clear of your phrasing, but, sure, there are people who get off on destroying the environment, but there's a reason almost nobody runs on saving or destroying the environment in this country, Republican or Democrat. Voters just aren't receptive to "hey we're killing the planet" or even "hey let's kill the planet" as much as a lot of other policies or ID factors. It's just a part of the Republican identity because Republican politicians make it so. If a bunch of leading Republicans came out tomorrow and said "global warming is real" the Republican voter opinion on it would change, too. It's part and parcel of things but it's hardly a driving factor. There are so many more issues that are more salient, many of them identity based, but even health care is way more important to most people. I mean dear lord we can't even get Dems to embrace tackling this issue and their base at least accepts it.

Anyways, I'm sort of lost as to where my own point was going with this, but tl;dr, just support medicare for all and minimum wage hikes and you help everyone without even having to 'court' rural votes, and maybe you nab a few. Neither of those solve racial housing or school segregation but I'd hope decent progressive politicians can multitask.

Maybe the suburban Republicans would change, but they already are. The rural voter votes Republican not because they "get off on destroying the environment," but because they perhaps rightfully think that their little tractor doesn't need to be wrapped up in that along with my nine passenger SUV that I drive my two kids to school in when they could easily walk the distance, and the GOP caters to that. Trying to compete for that rural voter by also catering to that immediately 'earns' that 'gets off on destroying the planet' brand, so catering to the rural vote costs more than it is worth.
 
Not familiar with agricultural vs commercial regulations, nor grandfathering, I see. Or is that just too complicated? It has a comma and everything.



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


I'm new here. Whats with FarmBoy's smugness?

Also as far as I can tell the point that rural and urban split is worsening seems accurate. Maybe the suburbs are falling into urban gravity, maybe not. Its hard to tell. What I can say is rural voters are literally voting against their own interests, their children's interests, and their elder's interests when they vote for the party that wants to gut public education, eviscerate the welfare system, and push social security into the 70+ only category. This has been the case for quite some time and I don't know how Democrats can fix that dissonance. Perfect example is here in now dominantly red Missouri we've passed measures protecting unions and raising minimum wage while simultaneously electing people whose purpose in office is to get rid of those measures.

They need to figure that part out. The nation is decidedly racist and it always has been. I'm surrounded by people who fear antifa, BLM, and caravans more then their local right winger extremist, more then losing their job, more than regulations or opioid epidemics. You won't convince them otherwise in the short term. So how do you pull rural voters out of the horrors of Trump reality and into actual reality?

Progressive ballot measures passed almost everywhere. Maybe just focus on that? That's actual democracy anyways.
 
I do remember the hubbub over software in engine control modules, I just don't remember it being shorthanded as 'right to repair.' Don't shoot me.

Got angry. The emissions thing was literally the JD/GM "justification" for right to repair needing to not work. "Well, if guys can fix or hire an independent shop to fix the sensors when they die, then they might modify their equipment to bypass emissions! The tractor has to brick itself when sensors die until a licensed and therefore ethical John Deere repairman is dispatched 80 miles on immediate notice at (not so much) owner's expense!"
 
Oh hai! Which dl are you? There's a couple that omit the space.
 
Maybe the suburban Republicans would change, but they already are. The rural voter votes Republican not because they "get off on destroying the environment," but because they perhaps rightfully think that their little tractor doesn't need to be wrapped up in that along with my nine passenger SUV that I drive my two kids to school in when they could easily walk the distance, and the GOP caters to that. Trying to compete for that rural voter by also catering to that immediately 'earns' that 'gets off on destroying the planet' brand, so catering to the rural vote costs more than it is worth.

Suburban voters will go back to Republican once they have a president who stops using naughty words.

Anyways, I'm never going to argue for Dems trying specifically to court a largely white demographic, so I don't think we're really disagreeing that much, because the last thing I want is "well what about the whiiiiiiiites" but there's room to try to expand a message without going to bat for racist voters. Ohio just supported a Republican governor on the back of smashing Dems with the rural vote with much higher rural turnout, but Sherrod Brown also won pretty handedly.
 
No, see, now you're mixing things up. Trump isn't losing the suburbs because he rails against trade. It's all the other stuff he does, his being a terrible person and manifestly unfit for the job, that costs him among suburban voters.

The point isn't that Trump is right about trade. And it's not as if he's the only one saying the things he does about NAFTA and global trade. It's merely that he is willing to talk about it as something important. It makes a connection. It doesn't turn off other voters, because it's an abstract issue to them. It's not going to motivate them against Trump, or anyone, the way it motivates others for him.

As I pointed out, Sherrod Brown easily won re-election in what is suddenly pretty red Ohio by using the same message. It doesn't cost him in the suburbs, he won easily. So this isn't a hypothetical, this is something that has actually been tried, successfully, by other candidates. Doesn't mean you have to use trade, necessarily, but it is an example.

Okay...so now we are at the end of the 'trade is a dead end' road. That would be the one I asked about when I asked what unions had to do with appealing to rural voters in the first place.

My correction that I clearly need to make...Trump appeals to three groups, which have overlaps. Rural voters, racists, and union members who buy the 'protectionism makes prosperity' bull.

You are suggesting that appealing to those mislead union voters would be cost free for the Democrats, other than in their relationship to corporate donors, and I suppose that might be accurate. I think there are a lot of voters who just have a low opinion of unions generally though*, so there might be some cost among them, and even though it is abstract I think there is a general sense among a whole lot of people that 'free trade'='lower prices' ** and they tend to like that so there might be some costs there as well.


*example, it is a bit surprising that Lexicus and I can enjoy a beer and a meal together, given our differences of experience on the issue

**which may be no more technically accurate than the idea that protectionism causes prosperity
 
Got angry. The emissions thing was literally the JD/GM "justification" for right to repair needing to not work. "Well, if guys can fix or hire an independent shop to fix the sensors when they die, then they might modify their equipment to bypass emissions! The tractor has to brick itself when sensors die until a licensed and therefore ethical John Deere repairman is dispatched 80 miles on immediate notice at (not so much) owner's expense!"


Farm boy is right about this particular topic, surrounded by farmers here. This is a legitimate concern and completely reasonable when you consider that come harvest time farmers do not have the luxury of waiting for repairmen. Emissions on farm equipment is mush less of concern then say pesticide over use or antibiotic abuse by the way (for the rest of planet).
 
Suburban voters will go back to Republican once they have a president who stops using naughty words.

I disagree. While I think Trump accelerated their flight I don't really believe that he caused it. Too many examples of the split in favor of the GOP shrinking before he came along, plus the fact that it continued to shrink yesterday with Trump being only peripherally on the ballot. Sure, there's 'Trump effect,' but it shouldn't really outweigh Trump himself.
 
Got angry. The emissions thing was literally the JD/GM "justification" for right to repair needing to not work. "Well, if guys can fix or hire an independent shop to fix the sensors when they die, then they might modify their equipment to bypass emissions! The tractor has to brick itself when sensors die until a licensed and therefore ethical John Deere repairman is dispatched 80 miles on immediate notice at (not so much) owner's expense!"

Got it. It actually is a good illustration of the problem presented by trying to appeal to the rural vote. Nobody really likes complying with the regulation in question, and everyone has their reasons. I have a truck with a locked in check engine light, which indicates that I am, every time I drive, contributing more than my legally authorized share to the horrific demise of the planet. Any politician who tried to say "but Tim barely goes anywhere in that truck" would be cutting their own political throat here in environmentally woke California. I have to be whomped on appropriately lest there be an appearance of special treatment, or worse the perception that the candidate wants to slaughter all of humanity.

So either the candidate abandons the rural vote and enjoys the benefits, or they pursue the rural vote and pay the price. Which is the better choice is a straight cost benefit analysis.
 
It's how it's supposed to work, roughly.The problem is that you get one side who play Calvinball and only accept the rules as long as they win, as they've been doing with judiciary appointments and the detruction of ballots that had been possibly tampered with.
Well, on this and on the urban-rural split:
Why Trump’s Culture War Lost the Suburbs — But Held the Senate

As of this writing, the Democratic Party is projected to win more than 30 House seats — and a greater than seven-point victory in the national popular vote, roughly the margin that Republicans claimed in the “wave” election of 1994. At a time of historically low unemployment and historically high consumer confidence, a historically large percentage of voters turned out to rebuke the party in power by a historic margin.

And yet, that party strengthened its grip over Congress’s upper chamber — and, thereby, over the federal judiciary for years (if not decades) to come.

Progressive commentators (like myself) have spent much of the past two years cataloguing Donald Trump’s most garish affronts to democratic ideals — his vilification of vulnerable minority groups, shameless corruption, compulsive mendacity, contempt for the press, and occasional enthusiasm for political violence.

But Tuesday’s results are a reminder that Trump is undermining popular sovereignty in the United States in a far more subtle (and less villainous) way — by building a Republican coalition that exploits the counter-majoritarian features of our political system with extraordinary efficiency.

This isn’t a new story of course; liberals have been bemoaning the “tyranny of the minority” since the Electoral College handed Donald Trump the presidency in 2016 (if not since gerrymandering handed the GOP the House in 2012). Further, the reddening of rural America is a phenomenon that long predates the Trump campaign.

But Tuesday’s results confirm that, in turning America’s culture wars into nuclear conflicts, the president has ripped the divide between America’s high-density areas, which are typically underrepresented in the Senate (and to a lesser extent, in the House) — and its low-density areas, which are typically overrepresented in Congress — wide open.

Trump’s psychedelically racist closing message — that the entire Democratic Party was trying to orchestrate an invasion of the United States by Central American gangsters and “Middle Eastern” terrorists, in an ill-defined plot to steal elections through mass voter fraud — did not play well with the public writ large. And it appears to have been absolutely fatal to many House Republicans who hail from suburban districts.

But it did energize the Trumpian proletariat. The president preached his apocalyptic nativism in Florida, Missouri, and Indiana — and Republican Senate candidates rode to victory on landslide margins in the exurban and rural parts of those states.

The efficacy of Trump’s gambit in those areas, combined with the fact that 2018’s Senate map was even more tilted towards rural states than the upper chamber as a whole, has allowed Mitch McConnell to expand his majority. And the Senate Majority Leader will use his new lease on power to continue confirming reactionary judges to the federal bench at a historic clip. It is possible (though not necessarily likely) that Democrats will be able to dislodge Trump’s minority coalition from the Senate in 2020. But wresting control of the courts back from the conservative movement could be a decades-long project — and in the meantime, far-right jurists could do grave damage to the prospects for majority rule, by both brazenly nullifying progressive legislation, and abetting voter suppression. (It is possible that Democrats lost multiple races Tuesday night due to the Roberts court’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act).

Not all of Tuesday’s results fit neatly into the macro-trend of an urban-rural divide. In states with relatively high population densities, like Maryland and Massachusetts, moderate Republican governors won reelection handily. Meanwhile, in Kansas, and select low-density districts throughout the Plains and Midwest, Democrats scored some victories on the strength of popular dissatisfaction with the GOP’s underfunding of basic public goods. These aberrations suggest that the current extremities of geographic polarization aren’t inevitable. If Marco Rubio had won the presidency in 2016, the Republican Party might well have retained its suburban wing, while leaving a significant number of rural Trump voters demobilized or open to Democratic appeals.

But the birther king won. And he assembled a GOP coalition that’s relatively small for a major party, in national terms, with core constituencies that are likely to shrink as a percentage of the population in the coming years. But on Tuesday night, it proved well-distributed enough to entrench the conservative movement’s influence over the least majoritarian arms of the federal government. And that might just might allow the American right to nullify the prospects for progressive governance in the United States for the foreseeable future.​
 
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Nevada elected a dead guy in a landslide. The candidate died last month, but due to how Nevada's election laws are written, he remained on the ballot. Polling stations even had signs that clearly stated the candidate was dead, yet people voted for him anyway simply to stop the Democrat candidate from winning the seat.
 
I don't agree with your categories of interpretation at all.
Name one thing Trump is doing that helps unions.
I would ask if you were kidding, but unfortunately not. I was a Steward for 15 years so this is an easy one.

In the last two years, Trump has done more for unions than the Democratic party. Keeping jobs in the country helps unions. Every tariff Trump has done helped unions. Saving coal helped a bunch of unions. Slowing illegal immigration helps unions. Renegotiating NAFTA helped unions. Even raising company bottom lines helps unions because there is more money for benefits.

We are not even touching things like record low unemployment for minorities. It doesn't hurt that union rank and file tend to be Trump friendly while a high ranking Democrat called them deplorable. In 2016, who do you think was switching from Democrat to Republican or nonvoting to Republican in Union states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Union workers elected Donald Trump and he has taken care of them.

J
 
I would ask if you were kidding, but unfortunately not. I was a Steward for 15 years so this is an easy one.

In the last two years, Trump has done more for unions than the Democratic party. Keeping jobs in the country helps unions. Every tariff Trump has done helped unions. Saving coal helped a bunch of unions. Slowing illegal immigration helps unions. Renegotiating NAFTA helped unions. Even raising company bottom lines helps unions because there is more money for benefits.

We are not even touching things like record low unemployment for minorities. It doesn't hurt that union rank and file tend to be Trump friendly when a high ranking Democrat called them deplorable. In 2016, who do you think was switching from Democrat to Republican or nonvoting to Republican in Union states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Union workers elected Donald Trump and he has taken care of them.

J

https://www.unionfacts.com/union/United_Mine_Workers

Coal miners union is a minor concern, see what I did there. Tariffs hurt as many if not more union members then it helps. NAFTA seems like it changed very little. Economy was rocking before Trump took over. So the previous statements are actual reality.

Politically though you are right these are all wins for Trump. People buy the deception.
 
Back
Top Bottom