Mourning in America - Trump Year One: November '16 to

please note, I am all in favor of fighting Republicans on Medicare and ACA repeal, and if either comes to pass there absolutely needs to be strong messaging to convey how this is hurting people. I am only saying that I'm not convinced Republicans will end up being particularly punished for any of this.

― Al Moon Faced Poon (Moodles),

There's a history of wins, as I wrote about here. One of the reasons why Reagan lost operational control of the House in the 1982 midterm elections was the relentlessness with which Speaker Tip O’Neill framed the stakes with the starkness of a telegram: the Republicans want to gut Social Security, the Democrats want to save it. In the end Reagan, reeling, acquiesced, signing a bill in 1983 that in effect repudiated every thing he’d ever said about it. And don't forget Dubya's Social Security accounts. How far did that get?

Yes, that. Simple effective message.

90% of people do not even understand the lie that Paul Ryan is trying to tell them.

how do you cut something as popular as medicare without immediately losing the next election?

Maybe his supporters will be cool with it, burn it all down, give it a chance, we've tried absolutely everything short of shutting it down, so let's try that! I know on paper it will hurt me and my family, but my heart says, what the hell.

I agree with this piece

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democrats_are_already_screwing_up_the_trump_resistance.html

― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40)

i... get where bouie is coming from, but i'm not sure how supporting a black muslim as dnc chair serves to "obscure the fundamental tribalism of trump's appeal".

i like the notion of a "good cop/bad cop" approach. and if warren and sanders want to be the good cops and say "we understand your economic anxieties", i think there's a place for that. i just don't think that should, or will, be the be-all and end-all of responding to trump.

― xiphoid beetlebum (rushomancy), Thursday, November 17, 2016 12:40 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

1. No one said supporting a black Muslim as dnc chair obscures the fundamental tribalism of trump's appeal, they said that that politician's particular argument does at this moment. For future reference, conflating a person's identity with the quality of their arguments is dumb. "I don't know how racists could vote for Obama"-level dumb

2. It's not about "good cop/bad cop" its hyper cynical dishonesty

how do you cut something as popular as medicare without immediately losing the next election?

Have faith that your candidate's ability to resist the tides of history and defy gravity will hold out over the old rules

if anyone is interested in a provocative argument by scott alexander about trump and racism they should check out his website. i won't link to it bc i think it's the kind of thing that would outrage ilx but it's certainly a perspective.

on further reflection, i think that perhaps the bouie article is a little bit symptomatic of some of the widespread media problems that may have contributed to trump's election. the whole notion of the "clickbait media", and i think of slate as a prime example of this, is built on the notion of provocation rather than contemplation. bouie makes his case thoughtfully and considerately, but the context in which it is presented undermines that case, emphasizing instead an immediate and rabid emotional response, either confirmatory or hostile. i don't think that internet media necessarily _creates_ upset, but it has this way of derailing legitimate anger and upset into things like demanding that every single member of the dnc resign effective immediately.

my feeling is that probably not a lot of good is going to come from online sources, and that organizing offline and locally is going to wind up being more productive and decisive.

Don't be a punk if you're gonna bring it up link to the thing http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

1. No one said supporting a black Muslim as dnc chair obscures the fundamental tribalism of trump's appeal, they said that that politician's particular argument does at this moment. For future reference, conflating a person's identity with the quality of their arguments is dumb.

2. It's not about "good cop/bad cop" its hyper cynical dishonesty

― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40)

for future reference, the american electorate is also dumb. perhaps i am a living breathing example of "hyper cynical dishonesty", but i do not think the democrats are going to win elections by appealing to humanity's better qualities. thinking we can or should be trying to turn the human race into a living embodiment of plato's "republic" may not be cynical or dishonest, but it is utterly, utterly delusional. :)

Fwiw, I don't think trump is "more racist" than candidates past I think that he made race his signature issue more than past candidates. Obviously there's a permanent consistent structure to how white people vote in the U.S. but that does not mean that Trump isn't a new candidate stoking explicit racial appeals, nor that there aren't black or Latino voters who buy into conservative arguments, including race-related ones

idg what you guys think the utility is of this post-electoral hand-wringing about campaigns/voter appeals/role of racism etc. there's work to be done, look ahead. Alfred is correct that things like the upcoming battle over Medicare need to be the focus.

In other news re: the filibuster -

Asked by The Huffington Post about ending the filibuster, Sen. Orrin Hatch was blunt.

“Are you kidding?” he said with some vehemence. “I’m one of the biggest advocates for the filibuster. It’s the only way to protect the minority, and we’ve been in the minority a lot more than we’ve been in the majority. It’s just a great, great protection for the minority.”

Hatch, the most senior member of the GOP, presides over the Senate every morning as the president pro tempore, making him third in the line of succession to the White House. He’s also chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

I don't think it's going to happen. They don't need to do it, since the Democrats don't look likely to adopt McConnell's anti-Obama strategy (even though they v much should imo)

That's re: the dumb Scott Alexander piece

idg what you guys think the utility is of this post-electoral hand-wringing about campaigns/voter appeals/role of racism etc. there's work to be done, look ahead. Alfred is correct that things like the upcoming battle over Medicare need to be the focus.

The current debate is about a Slate article addressing the forward facing positioning of the Democratic Party stupid of course it has utility

yeah I wasn't referring to that as much as the prior 500 posts or so

That Scott Alexander close-reading of Trump ignores the fact that he couldn't be bothered to say any of those things about African-Americans or Mexicans or whomever in the communities he was talking about, which I think is a really, really important thing to elide if you're going to try close reading.

per the Slate piece, goole is correct imo

bouie's point is sound but frankly i don't think warren-sanders-ellison expect trump to govern like a working class populist at all. when they meet the reality of what's likely to happen i don't think their position and reid's are going to be different.

― goole, Thursday, November 17, 2016

or re: the Slate piece, I mean

yep

There are about 5000 problems with the Scott Alexander piece including data cherrypicking and treating his blatant pandering ("the hispanics") as his actual platform

bouie's point is sound but frankly i don't think warren-sanders-ellison expect trump to govern like a working class populist at all. when they meet the reality of what's likely to happen i don't think their position and reid's are going to be different.

― goole, Thursday, November 17, 2016

No of course they don't, they're just pivoting to make sure a bunch of white people who voted for trump don't feel bad about having voted for a racist & want their guilt assuaged, and they're just giving them a dishonest rationalization at the expense of the people who actually did vote for them

eh you really think there were that many Trump voters that listen to/read angry letters by Sanders/Warren? That's some small potatoes, I suspect.

forget it shakes

Can something as simple and corny as 'more paid holidays' work as a way to cater to workin' folks?

Im thinking about Al Franken's book where he wins the presidency by promising to abolish atm fees.

Don't be a punk if you're gonna bring it up link to the thing http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Thursday, 17 November 2016 18:58 (ten minutes ago) Permalink

Mordy, this piece makes the case that Trump made "gains" among minority voters, but minority turnout was much lower than 2012 as I understand it, so I'm not convinced there were gains in absolute numbers. He merely got a higher share of the minorities (than Romney) that did vote.

let's not forget all the minorities purged from the voter rolls in the last 4 years, as per Greg Palast

so yeah, % is up but overall #s are way down, at least based on my half assed analysis

Can something as simple and corny as 'more paid holidays' work as a way to cater to workin' folks?

Americans don't want this because they prefer to work than take vacations, unlike lazy Europeans. Anyway, it's not the job of business to provide vacations for people. Why should they have to pay for free stuff for you?

Mordy, this piece makes the case that Trump made "gains" among minority voters, but minority turnout was much lower than 2012 as I understand it, so I'm not convinced there were gains in absolute numbers. He merely got a higher share of the minorities (than Romney) that did vote.

Not that % of minority voters or raw numbers would prove one way or another that he is or isn't racist (this is just the flipside of the 'how could racists vote for Obama' inquiry). But I felt that he made a strong case that Trump's racism was at the very least overstated even if I personally attribute a greater role to it in his campaign than maybe Alexander does.

to crank up the hyper cynical dishonesty, one of my takeaways from this election is that, at minimum, a decisive minority of the american electorate cannot be trusted to make wise or moral decisions regarding governance. if you're a politician accountable to that electorate, what the hell is your path forward?

In lighter news, The Onion is going to ride this out to the end: Biden Forges President’s Signature On Executive Order To Make December Dokken History Month

In other lighter news, check out the thread I started on the kittens we're fostering to help relieve the stress and anger.

here's a draft if you want to help blow up Chuck's inbox

Sir,

It will not do any good for the health of this country if you cooperate with Donald Trump and the GOP. It will tear apart the Democratic Party, it will embolden Mr. Trump and his deeply bigoted, deeply corrupt hangers-on, while doing nothing to help working Americans and their families.

If you cooperate with Donald Trump on any legislative activity other than fully funding the federal executive branch, or passing an amendment to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, you will be doing a great disservice to Americans who voted in the majority to see a Democrat in the office of President.

Do not cooperate with Donald Trump. Do not "work with" the GOP. If you do, it will set back the Democratic party by over a decade, and it will make 2018 even more difficult for our incumbents.

sure, I'll send that

brb!

So apparently neither Trump nor anyone from his transition team has had any contact with -- or briefings from -- the State Dept. prior to phone calls he's making to world leaders (presumably on unsecured phone lines) or his in-person meeting with Shinzo Abe.

The issue I have with that Scott Alexander piece is that it defines the idea of a "racist" the same way people on the right seem to - people who wear white hoods, who would never have a black friend or listen to rap music, who believe that whites are genetically superior, etc. etc. In reality I think a lot of white people consider racism as a thing of the past and generally feel like the media is beating the drum a little too hard when it comes to, say, black people getting shot by police. That they are, at worst, split-second decisions where someone felt threatened, and by the way, don't white people get shot all the time? We let BET slide, so why BLM? etc. etc.

If anything, the most important point in that article is that Trump is just a singularly weird dude, but more than that he has a middle schooler's understanding of racism. And I mean that literally. I remember being 12 and saying to a black guy at school, "Sup, my man?" and feeling really embarrassed about it. Truth is I just wanted to make him comfortable and had no idea how patronizing I was being. Ditto for Trump and the taco bowl tweet, or that incredibly bizarre ad he did courting Indian Americans - it's a deliberate attempt to say, "If I was a bigot, would I be doing this??" To say Trump is "openly white supremecist" seems a little extreme to me, more than that, he's just an idiot.

This of course is a problem when you're running for FUCKING PRESIDENT, because if your message is so ambigious and devoid of nuance, it invites people to read between the lines and see things you're not really intending. Alexander saying, "what's the difference between a wall and a fence really" misses the point. Neither of these things are going to be effective at combatting illegal immigration, but the wall carries so much more power, amounting to essentially a big "FUCK YOU!" to Mexico - it comes off as a racist idea to me because the costs associated with it would be so much better spent elsewhere, if indeed crime and the economy were your real concerns.

I think the biggest takeaway from that piece imo is that calling him an "open racist" or using language to that effect, while his campaign takes and took pains to at least make their explicit language + rhetoric inclusive (even hamfistedly, or even if not delivered correctly) is corrosive. if ppl were only making the case that his campaign was implicitly racist (much like we have made similar claims about other republican campaigns) or suggestive, that would be one thing. but he links to plenty of msm pieces to thoroughly demonstrate that "openly" is the word of the day.

one thing maybe he's missing is that the "open" in "open white supremacist" might be operating like the word "literally"

I wonder if there's any way to signal that you're going to work with Trump just to get in the door, then spin him up on shit on whatever you can come up with that puts him at odds with GOP leadership(to the extent he believes anything at all).

Is there utility to exacerbating his own dysfunctional personality against the dysfunctional personalities in the Congress? You have a clueless dyspeptic asshole who tends to listen to the last person who talks to him, what do you do with him to burn up time/energy/money for months?

I wonder if there's any way to signal that you're going to work with Trump just to get in the door, then spin him up on shit on whatever you can come up with that puts him at odds with GOP leadership(to the extent he believes anything at all).

given what credulous cretin Trump is (and that he seems to believe whoever spoke to him last at any given moment) this would be a good strategy. doubt this is what Schmuckie has in mind though.

Yeah, that's the thing. We're stuck with backed up sewage pipes filling the Oval Office at the present moment, so what can you do to make sure that outflow starts befouling Congressional chambers, if you will, and force them into dealing with it?

Also, I think the claim that "yeah, there are some hate crimes, but that's just a negligible percentage of the country" is ignoring the bigger point, that these are being done IN THE NAME OF Donald Trump. The claim that "Hillary supporters are committing acts of violence too" ignores the fact that Trump himself encouraged that sort of violence against protestors at his rallies.

Not that % of minority voters or raw numbers would prove one way or another that he is or isn't racist (this is just the flipside of the 'how could racists vote for Obama' inquiry). But I felt that he made a strong case that Trump's racism was at the very least overstated even if I personally attribute a greater role to it in his campaign than maybe Alexander does.

― Mordy, Thursday, 17 November 2016 19:22 (thirty-one minutes ago) Permalink

The racism didn't just come out of nowhere for this campaign
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/donald-trump-and-the-central-park-five (piece from 2014, noting his highly visible commentary on the case in 1989).

Although I read another piece I'll try to find that made the very good point that his *appeal* wasn't as much dominated by racism as liberals thought, that if you really followed his speeches the wall and deportations and muslim registries were a lot smaller in his overall scheme than made out to be.

I think the biggest takeaway from that piece imo is that calling him an "open racist" or using language to that effect, while his campaign takes and took pains to at least make their explicit language + rhetoric inclusive (even hamfistedly, or even if not delivered correctly) is corrosive. if ppl were only making the case that his campaign was implicitly racist (much like we have made similar claims about other republican campaigns) or suggestive, that would be one thing. but he links to plenty of msm pieces to thoroughly demonstrate that "openly" is the word of the day.

― Mordy, Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:49 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Where does he make the case it's corrosive? Is this just "non racist whites voted for the implicit racist because they're tired of being called racist" in pseudo intellectual clothes?

Although I read another piece I'll try to find that made the very good point that his *appeal* wasn't as much dominated by racism as liberals thought, that if you really followed his speeches the wall and deportations and muslim registries were a lot smaller in his overall scheme than made out to be.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, November 17, 2016 1:58 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is absurd. People were fucking chanting "build the wall" at his rallies

You guys are contorting into fact-denying logic pretzels to argue race wasn't a central tension in the campaign

http://nonsite.org/editorial/listening-to-trump

xp D-40 - what are Thanksgiving conversations like with your family?

I'm not denying race was a central tension in the campaign. But look, white democrats are racist too. Plenty of racist white Clinton voters. I'm talking about ways the Democrats could have gotten more votes and can in the future.

Like you know "Trump voters" aren't just this racist blob that lives in a trailer park on top of a coal mine. They have a variety of respective motivations and interests. Some of them are reachable. Sort of feel like a broken record.

BTW, Bill Clinton also appealed to racism on the campaign trail. He dog-whistled too. I don't think that's a good approach, but it's certainly not something the Hillary campaign has EVER been above. cf 2008.

Yes we just disagree radically on how to reach them, and I think pandering to them for a slight edge in the years the GOP doesn't run an explicitly white supremacist campaign is herding cats as electoral strategy