Senate The US Politics discussion

I just don't buy this.

Clinton won the majority of voters who number one concern was the economy.

 

Unfortunately, there is one point I agree with KW on: changes in attitudes are arduous processes that take decades of work. For short term political gain, you cannot change attitudes. You can only appeal to selfish interests. After 9/11, the antiwar movement suffered a major setback, and a reactionary militaristic patriotism took hold, coupled - crucially - with a surge of bigoted attitudes toward Middle Easterners and Muslims. Luckily, fate handed us the economic recession, and lo and behold, people were suddenly reluctant to bomb brown people when they perceived the resulting budget deficit to be the cause of their bad fortunes. Who would have thought that losing ones job would make a man so peaceful?

While appeals to people's "better angels" are admirable, unfortunately short term shifts in political opinions require a demonstration of how a particular policy negatively affects themselves personally.

 

I think some of what I'm attempting to articulate is that it feels like hostage taking. "Give me what I want and I'll think about voting for what's right." The thing is, what they want is frequently or increasingly unacceptable in the times we live in. There's a fundamental incompatibility in many cases, like white men being primarily in charge, which I think a lot of white male voters in the areas we're talking about truly do want. Not everyone, of course, or even most, but definitely a lot. There's an entitlement that can't really be tackled head on until the people you're talking with are okay ceding power to women and people of color.

I'm all for talking with people. I'm just not for bending over backwards. I think in many cases, these conversations will get people to see what they truly support, which may be necessary for change down the road for them.

 

That is my biggest problem.

The constant infantilization of these kind of voters is getting tiresome. Democrats have been bending over backwards to try to win back these type of voters for decades. The main reason why Bill Clinton ran as a third way Democrat in 1992 was to bring back these type of voters. (They later abandoned him in 1996, even with Clinton backing stuff like the crime bill).

 

Can we all agree that a lot of things get euphamized or hidden under more superficial reasons? Most people don't actively come out and say (or think) that they would refuse to vote for a woman, or a person of color, and so on. However, they may find themselves much more receptive to things like "but emails!" than they would otherwise be.

 

KW, how about the idea of interacting more with the people in the red states, listening to their concerns more, vocalizing them more - as long as these are legitimate and proper concerns? The election was close. I don't think you'll need to, or can, convince the pure hillbillies. But you can convince enough moderate people, definitely. It's not double or nothing.

 

Hilary was the embodiment of the establishment and that's why she failed. Her gender had nothing to do with it.

Watto strikes again. 100% correct.

 

On the flip side, how about they start doing things like this.

For all the talk about city people living in a bubble, it much worse in rural/exurban areas of the country.

 

"I won't talk until they come to me"

This, dp4m, is what I meant when I said the Left are just as bad as the Right.

 

I strongly disagree. I can maybe listen to the idea that her gender wasn't as big a factor as certain other issues, but nothing? That's complete nonsense. It had a lot to do with it in my view.

lexu

 

Don't rule it out. I think it had something to do with it for a lot of people. There are people who genuinely hold the view that Obama made the US look weak because he, personally, is lanky. You don't think a female commander in chief would be anathema to such people? It's a more widespread belief than you give it credit for.

Ordinary people have argued expressly this viewpoint on TV when interviewed. And if I'm not misremembering, I recall a political commentator on Fox News one time in complete seriousness saying "How will our enemies fear us? It's a travesty."

Certainly.

 

Except the left does talk to them.

We have literally been doing this for decades, especially after D's lose an election.

 

And there is your problem.

Unable to see the fault of your own side. No offence, but you're no different from a Trump supporter; both blinded their own positions and refusing to recognise any potential common ground. If you wish to narrow the election down to a simplistic item as gender, then you're are lost and destined to keep losing. Did her gender come into play when discussing factory jobs? Was her being a women related to trade? Fears of globalisation and a negative affect on the working class was a result of her gender? No. Again, keep making excuses.

Not everyone who voted for Trump was a sexist or racist; don't use it as an excuse not speak to his voters - some of them, if not the majority, probably had legitimate fears, which liberals refused to address. Why? because you thought they were a basket of deplorables.

Go find moderate Trump voters. Understand their reasoning and then debate. If you're successful, liberal America has a winning coalition. But keep calling them names and liberalism will keep failing people. It is ******' hilarious that radical America is now owned by conservatives. CONSERVATIVES. Let that sink in. And it happened because liberals did nothing.

You're not challenging prejudices, you're strengthening and allowing them to grow.

And, thanks to your "I won't talk to them!", LGBT, African Americans and women have no one to defend them.

Well done, mate. Well done.

/rantover.

 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree, Daniel.

 

I agree with Daniel, in the sense that, while you may be right that they genuinely are deplorable people, you can buy their votes by addressing all the other reasons they voted for Trump besides their deplorable views.

Leave their deplorable attitudes to the social activists. You had an optimistic belief in cultural evolution on the last page. Rely on that. For now, get their vote.

 

Yup.

Urban voters get criticized for being out of touch and condescending and while this is true to some degree. It is also a fact that urban voters live in areas that are more representative of what today's America look like. It shouldn't just be up to urban/left leaning people to engage rural voters.

 

When an electorate is so divided, so poison, that it refuses to acknowledge each other, this is how fascism grows. Your reap what you sow.

 

I just don't agree in most cases, because I think most of those voters use whatever pretext is necessary to avoid voting for either Democratic candidates or Democratic ideas (when supported by Democrats). What I'm saying is that the pretexts and reasons will shift around as necessary. If you address one, another one takes its place. What you're after is impossible in most cases, because most don't want to let go of what they truly value most, which is white supremacy, particularly white male supremacy.

Is that true of everyone? Definitely not, and those are the voters you want to have these conversations with. They can be persuaded. The rest? I don't think so, absent a major life event or circumstance.

"The what's the matter with Kansas?" conundrum was solved some time ago, when it became clear that economic concerns aren't actually what most of those voters care most about. They care about social issues more than anything else.

DanielUK

You're walking perliously close to "both sides-ism" and I completely reject that.

 

what does that mean ?

.

 

Again, there's your problem.

 

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I disagree with you and find myself unpersuaded by what you're saying.

 

Well, we have all been saying the same thing. It's just that your assessment of how large this group is has ranged from what you're saying now to non-existent.

 

I'm not fussed. I'm not the one with a fascist President

 

It definitely exists. No question in my mind of that. If I had to estimate just off the top of my head, I would say maybe 10-15% of Trump voters? I don't know if it's much more than that. Maybe 20%. No more than that, though.