• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Democratic Party Left Me Behind

sailordeac said:
when you figure it out, you'll start winning elections
Click to expand...

Oh, I know the answer, and it's that there is no difference. Otherwise Obama himself would never have been elected twice. The GOP is better at obsessive hating, I'll give you that. Your own obsession with Hillary is proof enough.
 
sailordeac said:
I'm sure poor dem policies and governing had nothing to do with it

hell, even now the dems are headed into midterms with solid popular ideas for the basis of successful government: I hate Trump, socialism, I hate Trump, open borders, I hate Trump, abolish ICE, I hate Trump, raise taxes, I hate Trump, we need more bureaucracy, I hate Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia, I hate Trump ...
Click to expand...

Except, you are lying and making shit up. Show me ONE Dem who said we should have open borders...

Come on...
 
Highland Deac said:
No, it really isn't. The GOP should have looked into the mirror before nominating Trump. Again, being attacked by Trump supporters for being uncivil and hateful is like being called ugly by a frog. Your side has zero credibility on this issue. Do you even read his tweets or statements?
Click to expand...
Trump is a more honest representative of the GOP than anyone else. He's a corrupt dumbass atheist New York billionaire who pretends he's a rural Christian everyman. He's a thin skinned fake tough guy who is far more concerned with perceptions than results. That's why he's super popular with Republican voters. They dont give a fuck about anything but
1. The culture war &
2. Taxes

The people who are most out of touch with the country are the elitist effete anti-Trump conservatives - the Tom Nichols and the David Brooks's. There are so few of them, and every fucking one has an article in the New York Times.
 
Last edited:
MHBDemon said:
Click to expand...

http://assets.amuniversal.com/4ddd60a0518701363b6b005056a9545d

4ddd60a0518701363b6b005056a9545d
 
sailordeac said:
the potential for realignment is there

the group of unaligned voters is larger than either the dems or the pubs
Click to expand...

The potential for realignment is definitely there, but with all the heightened polarization it will be interesting to see if anything can come of it. The most recent drastic realignment between ideology and party was during the Civil Rights movement (a large exodus following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Southern Democrats opposed to the Act leaving for the Republican Party).
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
The potential for realignment is definitely there, but with all the heightened polarization it will be interesting to see if anything can come of it. The most recent drastic realignment between ideology and party was during the Civil Rights movement (a large exodus following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Southern Democrats opposed to the Act leaving for the Republican Party).
Click to expand...

I don't know what one or two factors would cause large groups to move one way or the other, though. In the 60's, most Southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party because they didn't think that blacks should have the same rights as whites, and you still see that factor playing out in the present day. Even though there were many differences across the rest of the platforms between the Southern Democrats and their new party, the anger that blacks were trying to become equal to whites overcame those differences to allow them that common ground to join forces.

I don't see what the factor could be in the present day that would cause such realignment. It should be income inequality and poor, rural Republican voters should realign with Democrats to try and combat the power that corporations and the wealthy have seized over our political structures. However, as we have seen for half a century, it's incredibly difficult to get poor white Americans to think that they'd be better off outside of the Republican Party because at the end of the day, they are still white. Social Identity Theory suggests that there are certain subgroups that we all identify with, and those identifications strongly correlate to our biases and discriminations against people in other subgroups. And what many studies have found over the last half century is that the subgroup that most identify with most strongly is their race subgroup. In other words, you could take a white person and a black person who are in every way the same (income, housing, social status, etc.), but the white person will most likely think they are better off because they are white. And due to Republican propaganda for the last 50 years, many rural white voters associate a large amount of Democratic policies as handouts to minorities, specifically blacks. And because they are "better" than those that get those "free handouts," they align themselves, against their best interests, with the party that is against such "handouts."

Unless Democrats can finally convince poor, rural, white voters that they want the same things and that their policies will benefit them just as much as it will those out-groups that such voters are biased against, there can't be a wholesale realignment of voters. Race is that important, and working against 50 years of propaganda is as uphill a climb as you can get.
 
Deacon923 said:
not to mention administration officials like Tom Price and Scott Pruitt, who created more scandals in one year than Obama's entire administration created in 2 terms.

i do think that the demonization of all Trump voters as racist rubes is overdone.
Click to expand...

It’s “overdone” because people are searching for any explanation why poor rural white people support the world’s most famous wealthy New Yorker.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
I don't know what one or two factors would cause large groups to move one way or the other, though. In the 60's, most Southern Democrats moved to the Republican Party because they didn't think that blacks should have the same rights as whites, and you still see that factor playing out in the present day. Even though there were many differences across the rest of the platforms between the Southern Democrats and their new party, the anger that blacks were trying to become equal to whites overcame those differences to allow them that common ground to join forces.
Click to expand...

Yes and Nixon's Southern Strategy simply continued the exodus.

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger.""
 
Politicians from both parties have gotten away with letting down ordinary Americans for decades because millions of Americans are culturally wedded to their tribal political identities of Republican or Democrat, and can’t think outside the box.
Click to expand...

Politicians from both parties have let down ordinary Americans for decades because one party’s entire platform is centered around preventing the other party from helping ordinary Americans while the latter party spends 90% of its time debating how to help ordinary Americans without offending any subset of Americans (including the 1%) and 10% of its time telling themselves that the term “ordinary” is offensive.

The last thing the Democratic Party needs to do is spend another 25 years waffling in wonkishness. They need to break hard left because:

1. The political spectrum needs readjusting (there’s a term escaping me right now to describe how putting extreme views into the public sphere leads to a redefinition of “extreme,” this shifting the range of “acceptable” views in the direction of that particular extreme).

2. That’s where the most popular policies on most issues are.

3. Given the hyper-partisan environment, turnout wins elections now more than ever. The enthusiasm and the potential turnout lies to the left, not the center.
 
Hillary didn’t lose solely because poor, rural, whites thought Donald Trump cared about them. She lost just as much because she didn’t turn out her base in the cities of purple states and wealthy white suburban center-right voters came home or voted third party because they thought Trump wouldn’t be this bad (or that if he was it wouldn’t hurt them).

There is nothing Dems can do in the short/mid term about the first group.

Trump will have far more impact on the last group than any Dem could. They will either wake up to how bad he has been/could be or they won’t.

If there is a blue wave out there it will be from that middle group. Dems would be fools to ignore it.
 
RChildress107 said:
Politicians from both parties have let down ordinary Americans for decades because one party’s entire platform is centered around preventing the other party from helping ordinary Americans while the latter party spends 90% of its time debating how to help ordinary Americans without offending any subset of Americans (including the 1%) and 10% of its time telling themselves that the term “ordinary” is offensive.

The last thing the Democratic Party needs to do is spend another 25 years waffling in wonkishness. They need to break hard left because:

1. The political spectrum needs readjusting (there’s a term escaping me right now to describe how putting extreme views into the public sphere leads to a redefinition of “extreme,” this shifting the range of “acceptable” views in the direction of that particular extreme).

2. That’s where the most popular policies on most issues are.

3. Given the hyper-partisan environment, turnout wins elections now more than ever. The enthusiasm and the potential turnout lies to the left, not the center.
Click to expand...

Normalization?
 
RChildress107 said:
1. The political spectrum needs readjusting (there’s a term escaping me right now to describe how putting extreme views into the public sphere leads to a redefinition of “extreme,” this shifting the range of “acceptable” views in the direction of that particular extreme).
Click to expand...

 
sailordeac said:
maybe some of y'all are on to something, partisan drivel is the right approach to realignment for losers
Click to expand...

I responded substantively to your post. I notice you didn't bother responding to it though. Low hanging fruit and whatnot.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I responded substantively to your post. I notice you didn't bother responding to it though. Low hanging fruit and whatnot.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you want to wear a shoe if it does not fit

but, anyway, the potential realignment seems to be between elite and populist, and the pubs seem to have a leg up, but situation remains messy and up for grabs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top