Republican Party Seeks Health Care for Whites Only

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by GoodEnoughForMe, May 3, 2018.

  1. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,452
    Location:
    new alhambra
    Oh, yeah, it wasn't the main thing. We can talk about sexist media coverage, Comey, her lack of campaigning in the midwest, etc., etc., but I do think a white ticket has a bit of a soft ceiling that Dems have to consider, even if uncomfortable. Kaine was a legit awful pick in every way. He was a pick based on her having won already and wanting someone who could navigate DC. Super presumptive choice.
     
    caketastydelish likes this.
  2. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    I don't know, I think my uncle's facebook feed and his embrace of the character of a ultra partisan right man doesn't humanize him. It makes me ashamed to know him.
     
  3. metalhead

    metalhead Angry Bartender

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Messages:
    8,031
    Has nothing to do with that. I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about the way news is framed. American media has a way of framing stories in a way that is studiously uncritical of the circumstances of a given news story. That is doggedly persistent in presenting a narrative that both sides of an argument have equal merit and that both deserve to be treated as such.

    It's small-c conservative. They don't want to rock the boat, but in the process prop up garbage narratives and grant them legitimacy they don't deserve. They're afraid to challenge those in power, terrified of drawing the ire of anyone in power, and they get used and abused as a result. They're completely incapable of framing stories that does anything other than take unfettered capitalism as the desirable status quo.
     
  4. Chose

    Chose King

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    669
    Location:
    USA
    Good to know.
     
  5. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    9,350
    Gender:
    Male
    You make a good point here, which makes me want to bring something else up. If you listened to Hillary's speeches closely roughly a week or so up to the actual election, she was clearly talking like a President elect. That it had already been decided. With the feel-good baloney "no matter who wins we need to unite and move forward as a country" stuff. Honestly, that makes her come across as arrogant, to think it's over before the first vote had been cast. Voters noticed that.
     
  6. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    For the presidential election, while they can't win the white vote, that's not really necessary. They need to not lose it by too wide a margin. The big story behind Hillary Clinton's loss is that Obama lost the working-class white vote by 26 points, but Clinton lost it by 39, and that 13-point swing was just enough for the Republicans to make up for slightly worse performances among minorities and college-educated whites. If that group starts acting like a true ethnic voting bloc, it could go Republican by an even wider margin than 67-28; further, more college-educated whites might be swayed by anyone even slightly more respectable-acting than Trump.

    Still, assembling a reliably winning presidential election coalition by the 2030s is quite likely possible with an approach focused mostly on identity politics plus funding from tech giants and whatnot. But that still won't help on the state level in states that are whiter than average - as are the states that are instituting work requirements for Medicaid. Democrats in those states can't afford to just wait for demography to be destiny. It used to be that state-level Democratic parties could be very different from the national ones - the Dems didn't lose the state houses in Arkansas and West Virginia until 2014, and Kentucky until 2016. But now everything has polarized nationally and I'm not sure that state-level parties can get out of the shadow of the national party anymore even when it's in their advantage to do so.

    Republicans are also likely to have a structural advantage in Senate races for a long time into the future given that sparsely populated states are represented the same as populated ones - in fact the Democrats should be counting their lucky stars that Trump has turned their awful 2018 Senate map into something survivable. This discusses how they could have been knocked out of a Senate majority for a very long time to come had Clinton been elected.

    Even if angry white voters can eventually be steamrolled over with demographic change nationally, it will take a very long time to recover and there will be a large amount of damage should our politics become even more racially polarized than they are now. And that's assuming that the Reps don't get total control and shut down immigration 1920s-style at some point, which is absolutely what would be in their interests to do.
     
  7. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    I remember a time when I was about 11 or 12 and he was complaining about 7-up cutting local distribution guys and how he was forced to do the "n-word work" except it wasn't parsed delicately for forum sensibilities and included another expletive. He was always a resentful twerp who blamed everyone else for him going directly in beverage distribution after college and never having the ambition or balls to do anything more. You seemingly have this idealized reality where people like me, who have lost family members to the thrall to some of the worst aspects of conservative thought, don't fit in. Not everyone knows a self radicalized doofus uncle, but I do and it sucks.
     
  8. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    26,386
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    You know my answer already, though: a broadly left-wing agenda that focuses on universal social benefits. Ultimately though this agenda needs to be pushed through good old-fashioned organizing rather than through media-centric PR tactics.

    All depends what you want to do. You aren't going to find a political appeal that satisfies everyone but still has any real content. Driving dialectical conflict can be a sound strategy but it can also easily backfire. Dialectic includes thesis and antithesis after all.
     
  9. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    9,350
    Gender:
    Male
    I think it's a bit more complex than that. Some minorities vote Republican... the ones that make lots of money. A significant percentage of legal immigrants from this country go on to be very successful. That's because of a certain quality control filter that applies to them that doesn't apply to the illegal ones. If you aren't already wealthy/educated/making top grades back in your home country we probably won't let you in.

    Note that our immigrants from Asia, Middle East, and Africa... despite these parts of the world being in mass poverty, those that come here are not like that. They actually tend to be very well off. Ever wonder why? Trump's "build a wall" plan is already implementing the type of thing that would be in their best interest.
     
  10. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    The part about the soft ceiling is likely correct. It will probably be a good idea for them to go with the Obama strategy - pick someone who is a minority so as to drive up turnout among that community, but who speaks and acts like a white person (at least around whites) and who is good at signaling to white people. Advertisers seem to have learned that a while ago - notice the number of black people speaking and acting like middle-class white people in commercials.

    I think, as well, that most whites really don't want to think in overtly racist terms, and voting for a minority candidate who fits into the majority culture in every way is a good way for them to reassure themselves that they aren't racist. There might have been a little of that behind Obama's considerably better performance with working-class whites than Clinton's.

    I mean, that's what I want to happen. I hope it's possible, and that people eventually see through the divide-and-conquer tactics that are used to foment the opposition to social democratic policies that we currently see.

    Yeah, satisfying everyone is obviously not going to work and I wouldn't advocate for it. But ideally the fault lines can be drawn somehow that normally leaves a few percentage points more on the left side than the right, and that doesn't simply serve as a proxy for race or other immutable characteristics about people. Countries that operate based on ethnic polarization generally operate poorly and with frequent conflict, and we also have a really heavily-armed white population. I see ways that things could go very badly, and it's worth thinking about how to head that risk off and try to make the transition to a no-ethnic-majority population as smooth as possible.
     
  11. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    26,386
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    Organizing works. The Democrats don't do it anymore because they're a corporation that exists primarily to funnel donor payments to consultants.

    To the extent that this phenomenon is explained by white people actually reacting to the gradual erosion of their privilege, conflict is inevitable.
     
  12. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Republican voting preference in some immigrant minority groups existed as recently as the 1990s, but is no longer be the case. Asians, Middle Easterners, Africans, and third+ generation Hispanics all seem to be natural constituencies for the Republican Party, but they aren't voting like that anymore although some subsets of them did until very recently. See for instance this on Asians and this on Muslims.

    It is of course still true that many of these groups have mostly wealthy and educated diaspora groups in the US. But the Republican Party has lost their support, at least for now.

    I think it's quite likely that there will be some shift towards the Republicans over time in these groups, especially among third+ generation Hispanics, who are already identifying as white in increasing numbers. The county-by-county results in the 2016 election showed significant swings towards Trump in much of South Texas and New Mexico/southern Colorado, areas where Hispanics are the majority and have lived for generations, but swings toward Clinton among urban Hispanics especially in California and Arizona.

    Yeah, and that was one of the messages I hope they took away from the Clinton campaign. They pulled back their ground game relative to Obama, while focusing on checks from large donors and mass media advertisements. We know how well that worked out.

    Right, it's just that the magnitude and form of the conflict matters, and we might want to think about how to do that best.
     
  13. Naskra

    Naskra Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,214
    I live in a purplish district in the south, candidates here tend to hide their party affiliation, offering their personal brand instead. It often takes some digging to find out their party.
     
  14. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    26,386
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I don't think this is wholly true. I was part of the "ground game" in 2016, even if for what's called an "independent expenditure" rather than for the Clinton campaign proper. Clinton had the most "ground game" ever by some measures (edit: I disavow that statement, but she certainly had much more of a 'ground game' than her opponent, though I'm not sure about relative to Obama) - but what that amounted to was a whole bunch of different organizations, including the campaign proper, trawling the same neighborhoods and in many cases the same voters with what amounted to in-person tv ads. As far as I know there was never any canvas with the intention of getting feedback from people - they relied on the data whisperers and pollsters and whatnot to give them that stuff. Which of course meant that it was all focus-grouped fluff.

    Well, one of the problems is that as you note intensifying capitalism is putting the squeeze on people. I don't think there's any real reason to slow the progress toward racial equality. But I think that if you lessen the squeeze put on everyone by capitalism you can certainly reduce the perceived stakes of conflict driven by race and its gradual abolition.

    To some extent though...I dunno. Reactionaries gonna react. There's only so much we can do about this while still doing what's right.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2018
  15. mrt144

    mrt144 Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    11,121
    Location:
    Seattle
    Good thing Trump isn't letting many opportunities to inject himself pass by.
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  16. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    26,386
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    More on the ground game thing:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clintons-ground-game-didnt-cost-her-the-election/

    fwiw Silver thinks Clinton's ground game was just as good as Obama's:

     
  17. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    His article seems to imply that ground games in general don't do much, simple demographic regression captures most of what happened and adding ground game data doesn't help at all. That's certainly plausible based on the data. The difference between Clinton and Trump ground game was obviously large, at any rate - Trump's organization was threadbare and the RNC did a half-hearted effort itself.

    Overall, it seems quite likely that large numbers of dollars are chasing very few votes for both TV advertising and ground game effort. Candidate visits don't seem to do much either, as that article pointed out.
     
  18. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    47,170
    Location:
    US of A


    I think you're misusing the concept of identity politics. Identity politics is exclusionary. This is not what the Democrats are doing. This is what the Republicans are doing.
     
  19. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I'm using the concept as it appears to be most commonly used now: to describe politics that are based around identity groups, such as races, gender, sexuality, religions, etc. It's a pretty broad concept and doesn't usually refer strictly to people advocating for one side or another.
     
  20. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    47,170
    Location:
    US of A

    The problem being, if a Democratic party does not address the problems of various minority groups, those groups have no reason to vote for Democrats. The turn to conservatism that Bill Clinton and the New Democrats represented gives the Democratic constituency no reason to be, you know, the Democratic constituency. There is the Republicans, and the Republicans Light. And the Republicans Light is always at a disadvantage in that battle. Why vote for the lesser evil?

    Bill Clinton's biggest mistake was abandoning the white working class. A Democratic party which is going to be really able to win enough elections to govern needs to appeal to the working class, as well as to all the various other groups. They've lost the 'conservatives', for the conservatives really aren't in any sense conservative any longer.

    They have to build a coalition. Nothing else will win. And to build a coalition, they have to address the issues of all the pieces of the coalition.
     

Share This Page