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

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

Scott Alexander piece loses me by not so much as mentioning Trump's role in the birther movement and how that prepped his run at the White House. No amount of taco bowls and rainbow flag waving can blind ppl to that fundamentally racist act and speech, so central to his appeal. You can't accuse ppl of crying wolf when you ignore the fact that red riding hood's granny has in fact bared fangs.

Scott Alexander piece loses me by not so much as mentioning Trump's role in the birther movement and how that prepped his run at the White House. No amount of taco bowls and rainbow flag waving can blind ppl to that fundamentally racist act and speech, so central to his appeal. You can't accuse ppl of crying wolf when you ignore the fact that red riding hood's granny has in fact bared fangs.

― never have i been a blue calm sea (collardio gelatinous), Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:11 PM (twenty-four seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yea that's how i felt about the piece too.

the birther shit is how trump entered the political sphere and built up his base of followers

i know i (and others, esp deej) keep mentioning that but i really can't believe how often that fact is glossed over or ignored

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

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:04 PM (eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Haven't gotten through the whole thing but it's largely reasserting a thing that I'd been saying all along: Trump is like a horoscope. People who are so inclined are going to parse the vagaries for those bits that seem to apply to them favorably and ignore the rest.

Like why does the notion of not appealing to their worst instincts never seem like an option? Trump got away with breaking a lot of "electability" rules...just like Obama did. But we always go back to the well of condescendingly assuming these voters are unreachable unless we treat them like caricatures. (Rather ironically, I feel like I'm arguing for the humanity of the white racist swing voter more than those trying to pander to them.) they can be reached the same way white liberals are reached re: race, tbh. Like you said, lots of democrats are racist after all. Stop treating them like idiots and treat them like well meaning racists because that's what they are

"Should blind" rather (to myself)

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

― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Thursday, November 17, 2016 3:10 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the same economic issues that could "pander" to them might also improve turnout among the democrats' minority base

Like you know "Trump voters" aren't just this racist blob that lives in a trailer park on top of a coal mine.

iirc this is the logline for "Squidbillies"

scott alexander is one of those guys who seems be very smart and reasonable without knowing anything, anything at all, about the world. like every day is a blank slate, and the deep connotations that history attaches to this or that phrase or action is completely invisible to him.

trump posing with a shitty taco bowl from the cafe in his own building is seen as real outreach and not this hamfisted half-insult, what can you even do with that? at such immense length too, jesus.

"if you take trump with complete wall-eyed literalism, he sounds fine" yeah ok, i'm not going to that.

i'm not sure who has argued for "pandering to" racist white voters. that seems like a pretty crucial strawman

The same logic we're currently applying to the white working class could just as easily have applied in the primary when it came to leaning Hillary vs Obama. "Working class whites will never elect a black man!" they said condescendingly. (I definitely remember hearing these arguments from well-meaning liberals). Now those same people (probably, it doesn't matter if this is true lol) are arguing these same working class whites need kid gloves when talking about race. Meanwhile the left avoids addressing it leaving conservatives with the only answers. D's are like "actually this will help all Americans" and this "colorblind" strategy fools no conservatives (who think undeserving people are getting those benefits) nor the liberal base (who feel that they're being ignored to pander to racists)

i'm not sure who has argued for "pandering to" racist white voters. that seems like a pretty crucial strawman

― k3vin k., Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:20 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What is "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate was not racist" if not pandering

Again you're quoting yourself, not anyone here. Lazy.

god this is tiresome

Again you're quoting yourself, not anyone here. Lazy.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:24 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No, I'm paraphrasing the democratic platform as articulated by Bernie sanders.

merrygoround.gif

yeah i'm done. deej will wear himself out in a couple of days and we won't see him again until the next election, thankfully

What is "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate was not racist" if not pandering

i personally wouldn't suggest the dems push that message

at the same time pushing the message "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate is racist" seems like a dead end

that's all i was getting at upthread

god this is tiresome

― Οὖτις, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:25 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is a lazier music message board version of one of the most important arguments happening on the left atm sorry it bores you

Jon Schwarz from 2007: Democrats And The Iron Law Of Institutions

Read this if you're driven insane by the Democrats....

1. The voting booth is by no means "the only place that Democrats care about what you do." In fact, from their perspective, by the time you get to the general election much of the game is over. Withholding your November vote from candidates they like but you don't will, at most, make them a little sad. Often they'd prefer it, if that's the price of keeping you out of their hair the rest of the time. That's why they don't try to appeal to the ~50% of Americans who don't vote.

2. If you want to motivate powerful Democrats, attempt to threaten their power within the party, not the well-being of the party overall. Of course, this is easier said than done, particularly because much of the power within the party is (as Karp would put it) an unelected Democratic oligarchy. For instance, Pelosi's status as Speaker can be challenged straightforwardly. Getting at the source of the party oligarchy's power, which is money and institutions outside of electoral politics, is much more difficult.

3. Any serious attempt to transform the Democratic party would include a conscious attempt to change its culture, into one that celebrates different people: organizers rather than elected officials and donors. Culture only seems like a weak reed. It's in fact the most powerful motivation people have. If people are celebrated for acting for the good of the whole rather than just themselves, they'll act for the good of the whole. Likewise, a better culture would humble the "leaders," to discourage those with individualistic motivations from seeking the positions. A Democratic party that worked would require Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer and anyone who donated over $5000 a year to clean the Capitol toilets.

4. If you don't believe the Democratic party is redeemable, don't get your hopes up that another party would end up being much better. Any other party would also be subject to the Iron Law of Institutions. It thus would be quickly just as dreadful as the Democrats...unless people put in the same amount of work as would be required to clean out the Democrats' Augean stables.

5. Generally speaking, don't expect too much from political parties, and certainly don't expect them to change much in less than a generation. And in any case, keep in mind much of the power in society lies elsewhere.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html

yeah i'm done. deej will wear himself out in a couple of days and we won't see him again until the next election, thankfully

― k3vin k., Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:27 PM (twenty-nine seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You act like I'm making some insane out there argument but this is actually an issue being debated all across the left right now & lots of people are more or less in my camp about this, you can dismissively handwave them but I'd recommend thinking harder about this stuff personally

no i understand that. we follow the same people on twitter

at the same time pushing the message "your vote for an explicitly racist candidate is racist" seems like a dead end

that's all i was getting at upthread

― the late great, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:27 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It does have the benefit of being true & while I'm not saying that should be our primary message I think it would help if people who are on the left wouldn't deny it

no i understand that. we follow the same people on twitter

― k3vin k., Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:32 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I unfollowed most of chapotraphouse months ago

thankfully i have no idea who that is

Stop calling Democrats the left. Pretty please.

Ok well, anyway, I think one thing we can hopefully agree on is that Democrats didn't do enough of a good job turning out black and hispanic voters and the young who should be in their base, and that stemmed from a lack of enthusiasm about or dislike for Clinton as well as some real tactical failures by the Clinton campaign -- taking states for granted and not investing enough in turnout in key places (in spite of all the hype about "ground game"). So I really hope they (1) pick a more liked candidate in 2020 and (2) focus like hell on registration and turnout for 2018.

^^^

all that shit is way more important than whatever messaging argument deej wants to have

@jeremyscahill
Gen. Mike Flynn reportedly named National Security Advisor. The post does not require Senate Confirmation.

July:

https://theintercept.com/2016/07/13/an-interview-with-lt-gen-michael-flynn/

Like, we probably could have won *this* election against an ultimately very unpopular GOP candidate just by doing those things better, without one more white working class vote. Of course we will need more white working class voters to win back congressional seats regardless, but as far as the presidency, if you don't like "pandering" then let's look at those other things I mentioned.

^^^

all that shit is way more important than whatever messaging argument deej wants to have

― Οὖτις, Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:39 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

If you think that shit isn't 100% related to the messaging argument I'm making you've probably talked exclusively to white people about electoral politics over the past year

Like, we probably could have won *this* election against an ultimately very unpopular GOP candidate just by doing those things better, without one more white working class vote. Of course we will need more white working class voters to win back congressional seats regardless, but as far as the presidency, if you don't like "pandering" then let's look at those other things I mentioned.

― the last famous person you were surprised to discover was actually (man alive), Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:42 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Don't disagree with this

the portion of the electorate that decides elections is post-rational - policies, positions, how racist something is/isn't, these things don't matter (or at least they don't matter to as many people as they should). Obama and Trump both won largely because of the image they projected and the way they made their audiences *feel*. I wish it weren't this way, but it is. At the national level the Democrats need STARS, not carefully designed messages.

xp

probably would help if the presidential nominee in 2020 (if there is an election) is someone besides the most hated candidate at that time.

hey, Andrew Cuomo! star star

you've probably talked exclusively to white people about electoral politics over the past year

deej I am not a guy who throws around insults on here casually (as I think my posting history bears out) but you can go fuck yourself. I live in a heavily latino neighborhood, my kid goes to a school that is 80% latino. I spent yesterday morning providing security/logistical support for a march organized by the latino principal, a latino 4th grade teacher and activist organizer, and the latino music teacher. The other parents I am in regular contact with in the community are asian, latino, african american, Jewish, and of course rich (and not so rich) white liberals. If you want to check my credentials there you are.

Another log for the eternal flame! https://newrepublic.com/article/138717/jd-vance-false-prophet-blue-america

If the system worked for you, you’re not likely to blame it for the plight of poor whites. Far easier instead to believe that poor whites are poor because they deserve to be.

But now we see the consequences of this class blindness. The media and the establishment figures who run the Democratic Party both had a responsibility to properly identify and indict the system’s failures. They abdicated that responsibility. Donald Trump took it up—if not always in the form of policy, then in his burn-it-all-down posture.

No analysis of Trumpism is complete without a reckoning of its white supremacy and misogyny. Appalachia is, like so many other places, a deeply racist and sexist place. It is not a coincidence that Trumpist bastions, from Buchanan County to Staten Island, are predominately white, or that Trump rode a tide of xenophobia to power. Economic hardship isn’t unique to white members of the working class, either. Blacks, Latinos, and Natives occupy a far more precarious economic position overall. White supremacy is indeed the overarching theme of Trumpism.

But that doesn’t mean we should repeat the establishment failures of this election cycle and minimize the influence of economic precarity. Trump is a racist and a sexist, but his victory is not due only to racism or sexism any more than it is due only to classism: He still won white women and a number of counties that had voted for Obama twice. This is not a simple story, and it never really has been.

We don’t need to normalize Trumpism or empathize with white supremacy to reach these voters. They weren’t destined to vote for Trump; many were Democratic voters. They aren’t destined to stay loyal to him in the future. To win them back, we must address their material concerns, and we can do that without coddling their prejudices. After all, America’s most famous progressive populist—Bernie Sanders—won many of the counties Clinton lost to Trump.

probably would help if the presidential nominee in 2020 (if there is an election) is someone besides the most hated candidate at that time.

no doubt

probably would help if the 2020 nominee were under a hundred. why can't younger people become politicans? the average age of house and senate is about 60. where's the freshness? it can't be my generation though because we have government-recognized slacker status. will have to be younger people.

i mean if if a non-politican with no experience can become president than a 35 or 40 year old progressive braniac should be able to win a house or senate seat. sweep the oldsters out!