The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[IceSpear]

Tribalism taps into very powerful instincts of human psychology. Once a person successfully weaves themselves into the mentality of a group and acts as their ideological validator and emotional surrogate, their followers will be inclined to attach their own identities to said leader and hold them up as a superhuman icon free from any of the follies the rest of us are prone to. The emotional investment we put in those we look up to is intense and we make them a part of ourselves; people have deeply ingrained incentives to overlook all sorts of flaws present in the authorities figures within the tribe since it might force the tribe to question its own integrity if the models it holds up as their exemplified virtues turn out to be less perfect than believed.

We are social creatures at heart; all things good and bad in human society flow from this incontrovertible truth. The same psychological mechanisms exploited for ill by power hungry egomaniacs like Trump have been utilized by other leaders to mobilize segments of society in pursuit of noble causes (i.e.:MLK Jr.).  

[IceSpear]

This should give people some real good insight into the "Economic distress" the "White Working Class" was worried about when they all voted for Trump LOL. As I've said many times most of these WWC have above average incomes (50k+), own their own homes, and are relatively economically comfortable, and the only things they think about when they vote are 1) Making sure Blacks don't get Welfare, 2) Making sure Hispanics get deported, 3) Making sure Abortion is banned, 4) Making sure they can buy Assault Rifles, 5) Making sure gays and lesbians can't marry, and finally 6) Making sure America keeps on bombing Muslim countries. Due to this Democrats should not focus on trying to win these people, and should instead try to turnout their base of Nonwhites and young people to flip the three states Trump won by less then a point (MI, PA, and WI).

Why did nearly 7 million vote for Obama and then Trump then that are disproportional located in the Midwest? You're confusing a small portion of te White WWC with the average Republic voter?

Because Trump is "one of them", Romney and McCain were not. Listen, I'm not saying that all of these guys are racist, but the notion that Trump won because of "economic anxiety" is just bull. Cultural issues, identity voting and depressed democratic turnout decided that election.

These same people will turn around and at the drop of  hat curse billionaires (like Trump), coastal elites (like Trump), Jews (like Trump's son-in-law), bankers (like his Goldman Sachs appointees), big corporations (like his administration is made of and intervenes on behalf of), godless sinners (like Trump)... the list goes on and on. Trump is everything these people claim to hate, and yet they support him. I'm sure the fact that he's an outspoken bigot and racist is just a coincidence.

[IceSpear]

The "Opinion of ____" threads with FF/HP polls are a permanent staple of the Atlas forum, for better or worse. They are very much a part of the forum culture. I enjoy the existence of "opinion of" threads because of how bizarre and uniquely Atlas the entire concept is. I doubt there's anything like it at all anywhere else on the internet.

Like, think about it for a moment. The forum membership literally polls itself to determine the favorability ratings of posters as if they were politicians or something. We even use our own bizarre jargon in the polls: "freedom fighter" and "horrible person," and there's only a very small group of us still around who were forum members when those two phrases were first created. Yet for some reason the phrases and acronyms took root and now we've been saying them for an entire decade!

The thousands of you who have joined since then must have been so perplexed the first time you noticed "FF" and "HP" were a standard part of the forum's parlance. "Isn't it rude to call someone a "horrible person where they can read it?," I'm sure most of you thought at one point, and "why does 'Freedom Fighter' mean good?"

Yet almost everyone accepts it without question and soon starts using the acronyms themselves. This bizarre tradition has been in place for a decade and it would be a travesty to do away with it now.

[IceSpear]

The IG report confirms what we already knew from the Rosenstein memo. Comey, a hedge fund multimillionaire with a grudge against the Clintons going back to the early 2000s, a max McCain/Romney donor, a man photographed with a Trump sign on his front yard, an agent of the taxpayers, a government official in charge of the nation's highest law enforcement agency, in a breathtaking and unprecedented departure from his own's agency's practice, insubordination of his superiors, dramatically tipped the scales of a national presidential elections in the last 11 days.

Trump was right to fire him.

[IceSpear]

Obviously a reprobate, but I deeply dislike this "economic anxiety" meme used by liberals to argue that any person who voted for Trump or abstained is an evil racist rather than admit that their strategy of pumping up St Hilary of Clinton was flawed.

I don't think that's the point of the meme. It's to poke fun at how people, particularly the media, go out of their way to not point out the obvious of how racial animus motivates a non-insignificant portion of Trump's base and instead seek alternative explanations. How many liberals on here would actually be willing to claim that Hillary was the flawless, beautiful candidate we had all been waiting for other than Landslide Lyndon? Support for her was largely based as a counter to the alternative.

I literally cannot fathom how the Clinton-cult cannot comprehend that the Economic Anxiety Theory applied solely to voters who switched from Obama to Trump; it was not intended to explain the partisan Republican who voted for Trump. Most likely, this woman already ditched the Democratic Party a long time ago (if she ever supported it).

As for the subject of the OP, that woman is abhorrent and deserved to be arrested.

The Clinton cult is a rather unsuccessful one as far as cults go.

It's a really dumb theory too, because the data demonstrates that economic anxiety swings White voters leftward, not rightward. Obama---> Trump voters were quite heavily swayed by racial and immigration issues; a sizable portion of them voted Obama previously precisely because of economic anxiety and then proceeded to vote Trump due to racial resentment factors becoming more salient post-Obama. Looking at the White-working class vote in 2016, those who indicated that they were under the most financial stress were the most likely to vote Clinton.

The entire narrative is upside down. I see no problem in mocking it.

[IceSpear]

As we are all well aware, Democrats are the party of very rich and very high-IQ urban and suburban voters with college degrees from elite schools while Republicans are the party of poor white working class blue-collar hicks without even high school diplomas who live out in the sticks of Flyover Country and vote entirely on racism and silly Bible Belt fundamentalism and nothing else rational or remotely intelligent. This much is obvious to all educated observers.

My question is, when, if ever, will the Democrats max out their votes with their super-IQ rich urban/suburban voters and when will Republicans likewise max out their votes with the dumb-as-rocks racist, bigoted, and completely uneducated and ignorant rural white plebs of the Deliverance type countryside who vote against their own interests? Will it be in 80 years, 100 years (or longer) or never?

[IceSpear]

The whole Trump thing reminds me of Whitewater, where a minor nothingburger was given lives of its own by the political enemies of a President to enable a Special Prosecutor with a vengeance to go far afield to dig until something stuck, and then came impeachment and a trial.  It didn't work out well for Bill Clinton's enemies, and I'm predicting in the end that this matter isn't going to do much more damage to Trump.

1. I really don't think it's fair to compare Starr and Mueller. Starr was blatantly partisan, leaked like crazy and seemed to want to spread out as far as possible (based on my understanding of a 20+ year old investigation). Mueller's investigation has been fast, more or less leak-free and is run by someone who most pols on each side of the aisle expressed admiration and respect for. Further, he is a Republican, overseen by another Republican, investigating a Republican president. If politics is as cynical as people think, this is the best Trump could have fared if he was destined to wind up with a special counsel investigation.

2. It's debatable just how much you could argue Mueller's investigation is sprawling. He's still investigating the original crimes, and people caught up in it that seem like they are way "off-topic" are either in his scope because he's trying to leverage for cooperation and/or because it was impossible to ignore the crimes even if he tried. Manafort is an excellent example of that. Mueller probably has reason to believe he could know things, and encountered a massive amount of criminal behavior in his investigation. Even if Mueller didn't have any use for him, it would be malpractice (in my opinion) to not pursue charges, even if Mueller just opted to hand it off to another department. Trump and his cronies should not be let off the hook if Mueller/other investigators stumble across their crimes anyway.

If you really want to make the case that this is a true witch hunt, come back in a couple years after Mueller has basically concluded the original case but for some reason, shows no signs of stopping and is currently investigating and indicting people in connection to a completely new scandal that is outside the scope of the original investigation. Then I agree, you'd definitely have something there. But as it stands now, I think this witch hunt claim is unfair to Mueller.

The goal here by Trump's enemies was to convince America that he was the Manchurian Candidate.  (Actually, "B-1 Bob" Dornan tried to do that to Clinton as well, in regards to his college trip to the USSR.)  They'll prove that Trump "colluded" (not a crime, but it sounds yucky) with Russia.  After almost 2 years, there's no reason to believe that what people REALLY want to prove is that Trump is a Russian Spy.  What they've proven is that a political consultant launders money and a lawyer made an illegal campaign contribution.

Admittedly, wandering into a place like Daily Kos at times looks like a leftist fever dream, with people fully ready to believe Trump is communicating with handlers on a regular basis. But a great many of us, perhaps even most, just believe that Trump made opportunistic plays to leverage Russian assistance in an election even he was convinced he was losing.

I've thought about this a lot, and I'm actually fully prepared to believe that, at most, Trump is guilty of knowing about the hacked emails/data ahead of time and offering instructions on what he wants done with it, which afaik would be a fairly serious crime, given that it would essentially make him a party to a major violation of the CFAA, which hackers regularly get sentenced bigly for. I also think it's probable that Trump's Russian business dealings have left him vulnerable, and he has probably made some changes to both Republican Party policy and govt policy to stay in the good graces of Russians he is involved with. This is actually the least interesting possibility of the whole ordeal, since we already know he has received a lot of money from Russia due to numerous statements by his son(s) and Trump rather blatantly holds a major soft spot for Russia that lacks any other believable explanation.

I don't think it's that much more complex. For instance, if it was, (1) why were so many people in Trump's orbit reaching out to Russia to set up meetings? If there was a direct link at the top, they wouldn't need to do this and would probably be discouraged not to. (2) If there was -full- coordination, why did Russians start trying to hack Clinton's various accounts when Trump publicly asked them to at a campaign speech/press conf.? They wouldn't do it then if they were in communication, because Trump would have already asked them. The most likely explanation is, like I said, Trump saw an opportunity offered by a hostile foreign power and took it - rather haphazardly, too. Far from a smart, complex conspiracy but still a conspiracy nonetheless.

But not being more complex doesn't mean it isn't any less serious. If those^ theories turned out to be true, I believe that would absolutely be grounds for removal from office and prosecution.

Might Trump have committed felonies?  Of course it's possible, but Mueller is not any closer to proving this now than he was a year ago.

How do you know that though? Mueller has made pretty fast work of a lot of indictments, including a very complex untangling of Russian military officers and their roles in the conspiracy to meddle in our election, and that takes time. If Mueller has more indictments to drop closer to Trump himself, it makes since that he would wait until the end, because he can be fired at any moment by Trump (or rather, a new acting AG). This, by the way, is probably the most dumbfounding flaw in the American government's design - letting the president manage investigations into themselves.

The worst that will come of this is a blue wave.  The worst that will come of Mueller long-term is Trump's re-election defeat.  But he won't be removed from office.  He won't resign.  And he won't because Mueller doesn't have enough to make that happen.

This seems accurate, but mostly because Trump probably won't resign and won't be removed because Congressional Republicans are scared of losing their jobs to GOP voters in love with Trump, and won't break with him over anything, except maybe short of him shooting someone on 5th Ave, on video tape, holding a sign that says "I am Donald Trump", with his passport (opened) taped to his chest and a personal photo album confirming its him taped to his ass. So, really, Mueller can't ever find enough to make it happen, because the people who decide Trump's fate are absurdly biased and conflicted, and thus have nearly impossible demands.

[IceSpear]

No, it is not.

By the 2020 Census, if it's recorded and reported accurately, the results will show an American demographic landscape wherein Non-Hispanic Whites will constitute 60% of the population (give or take). That share is declining every year and will continue to do so. That also does not take into consideration the percentage of Americans who are North African, Middle Eastern, or Central Asian who're compelled to identify as White for the Census. 40% of Americans will be of some identity other than Non-Hispanic White. Yet, over 70% of the vote is still cast by Non-Hispanic White Americans, well over 60% of Senators and Congresspersons are Non-Hispanic Whites, and the rest of America's elected officials are overwhelmingly Non-Hispanic White (and we cannot forget to mention that they're disproportionately male as well).

Because of America's complex history, particularly regarding racial issues, the issue of race will be unavoidable. There are numerous socioeconomic problems facing American minority groups - primarily due to structural problems in American society that have been constructed over time to deliberately establish White dominance and minority subordination. Although we have made tremendous strides, there are still countless problems that need to be addressed in order to help raise minorities to similar living standards of Whites (and, ideally, raise the living standards of all races). The narrow focus of this OP, which downplays the "working class" identity of African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Asian Americans, and others, in favor of the image of working class Whites, is not applicable in a fair, just, and equitable society. The focus of the Democratic Party, despite its flaws, is on ensuring as many Americans as possible, from all backgrounds, can enjoy a middle class life.

To attain that, America must wrestle with its demons. That means confronting structural racism, the lingering effects of slavery, the consequences of imperialistic ambitions, and the bigotry and racism that permeates much of White American culture (it's important to note that bigotry, stereotypes, and discrimination are also prevalent in minority communities as well, aimed at both other minorities and at Whites). Most White Americans simply are not ready or not willing to recognize or confront these issues; mentions of it often provoke negative reactions, hostility, tribalism, xenophobia, and racism. Rarely has any privileged group ever willingly relinquished or sought to share its power (wealth, influence, status) with other groups - and most White Americans are no different. However, that is a cornerstone of the Democratic Party's project: to deconstruct America's system of White privilege, transfer power and wealth more equitably and, as a consequence, help to build a multicultural American middle class.

There is simply no way to confront economic matters in America without taking into consideration the historical and racial components. African American families do not have far lower wealth than White families due to coincidence or their willingness to work; it is due to a multitude of factors, such as slavery, segregation, mass incarceration due to the "War on Drugs," underfunded public schools, bias in hiring, being denied access to benefits from WWII and the Korean War (which helped launch White relocation to the suburbs, acquire home ownership, and access to colleges/universities), and countless other systemic and structural injustices. In order to help African Americans rise from their disproportionate rates of poverty, those issues must be resolved - and those are inherently racial issues. Hispanic/Latinos face numerous similar challenges, but other unique ones as well, such as living in an English language dominant society, negative interactions with immigration agencies, xenophobia, and so on. Again, those are inherently racial issues that must be confronted in order for Hispanic/Latinos to achieve similar wealth and status in American society.

Try as you will, but you cannot separate class from race or race from class. Economics and racial identity are intertwined; they must be confronted simultaneously to help all Americans achieve a respectable standard of living. And, the amazing thing about it is that, this does not have to come at the expense of White Americans achieving or retaining a middle class life either. White Americans who want to wage a war against other struggling Americans over the crumbs thrown to us by those living off our backs (pillaging our pockets with high rents, shorting our paychecks so they can retain their astronomical profits, placing our financial security in jeopardy to ensure they can have 7 yachts) are doing nothing but playing themselves. Everyone wins when everyone wins. The Mexican immigrant isn't your enemy, he isn't taking anything from you, he didn't force your boss to hire him at a lower wage; if wages drop because of immigration, it's simply because employers chose to terminate, demote, or underpay Americans (and the immigrant) so that they can maximize their profits at your expense. That is one thing that all Americans, regardless of race, need to realize and focus on: the enemies aren't your neighbors, they're your landlord, your CEO, and your corrupt politicians.

[IceSpear]

The best part is that for all the talk of "rugged individualism", the "country folk" all have cultural collectivism.  They wear the same clothes, they drive the same cars, they eat the same kinda food, the watch the same TV shows, they have slight variations of the same holiday traditions.

And they aren't "living off the land"... what a crock of sh**t.  I'm one of the very few people on Atlas that has lived in the country and in the city.  Where you had to drive 15 miles one way to get to town and you heard nothing at night but wolves and crickets and loons... and now the city where there are *always* people all around you.

People in the city come from all walks of life from all over the world and enjoy doing all kinds of different things.  Choice and diversity is the hallmark of the city.  These are things liberal minded people like and are comfortable with.  Conservatives like predictability and tradition.

But this romantic idea that they're out cuttin' the hay for the cows so they can have milk is pure bullsh**t, honey.  They gettin they milk at Wal-Mart, loaded it in their Chevy Silverado, and tipping their Cabellas baseball cap with the fishhook on the bill to the other guy that is doing the exact same thing.

Addendum:

He’s not necessarily wrong about rural people viewing themselves as being “rugged individuals living off the land”. It doesn’t have to be true for them to rationalize this belief system. How many of these people are on disability/food stamps/Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP/etc and still complain about moochers and illegals freeloading off the government?

[IceSpear]

Suffolk had Senator-elect Heck up by 3 in Nevada in September 2016, and he certainly didn't "improve with time", lol. Heller might not lose by double digits, but it's amazing how people forget every time how polls regularly underestimate Democrats in Nevada. If Heller somehow wins re-election in Nevada, it's because some enormous scandal about Rosen breaks in October, or because Democrats are having a terrible night and losing 5-6 Senate seats while only making minimal gains in the House. There is no universe in which Democrats win the House while Heller wins re-election. If you don't believe me, well, neither did most posters in 2016 when I suggested that there was absolutely no way that Clinton would win without Nevada, and that Democrats wouldn't take the Senate without it.

[IceSpear]

Atlas Democrats:

"Trump is obviously a vile human being, why do still people vote Republican?"

Atlas Democrats, after a wealthy Republican says he will stop voting Republican because Trump is a vile human being:

"I don't want your support, neoliberal scum!"

The left's outright hatred of rich people is so odd to me. Especially since many of them came from well off families.

Atlas socialists often come from middle class white suburban backgrounds and in their teen/20’s angst must rebel against it and everything it’s about. So instead their admiration is glued towards rural white voters who they avoid in real life and make weird caricatures about them being socialists with a social conservative bent. It’s similar to how white weeaboos worship Japan while knowing nothing about actual Japan.

You just always get it so right. Preach!

No, no he didn’t. The stereotype of the Champaign socialist being the only socialists around is a false stereotype.

Literally the first word of my post refers specifically to atlas socialists. I highly doubt Gloria LaRiva and Eugene Debs’ ghost are browsing atlas.

I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

I did mention the atlas working class members that are socialists later in my post and why giving crap to the middle income folks here is bunk. Plus let’s be honest, the accusations of atlas members is your generalization of all socialists.

Well it’s either they’re sheltered from being middle class or they’re just deluded to assume that rural whites are interested in socialist policies. You can claim all you want about how people like me “segregate ourselves” from suffering but you guys are the ones on this forum who defend the same people that time and time again have voted for Republican candidates and elected Trump. They don’t see themselves as victims and people like your ilk come across as being hilariously condescending when you try to tell them that they’re actually suffering (arguably more condescending than Icespear’s entire posting history).

Also the best case scenario you’ll get is rural whites just not seeing themselves as victims. Worst case scenario you’ll find plenty of the ones who know they’re getting screwed and are fine with it so long as minorities aren’t getting the benefit. Read up on the southern strategy if you have the time mate.

[IceSpear]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- HRC


Hmmmm

55% of Republicans back family separation policy

45% of Republicans want the government to shutter “biased or inaccurate” media

52% of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 election

43% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim

47% of Republicans believe Trump won the popular vote

46% of Republicans believe Pizzagate - leaked emails from the Clinton Campaign talked about pedophilia and child trafficking

68% of Republicans believe million of illegals voted in the 2020 election

74% of Republicans believe Obama wiretapped Trump Tower

61% of Republicans say FBI is framing Trump

44% of Republican voters agree with false claim about Trump inauguration attendance

Majority of Trump supporters 'don't believe Trump Jr attended Russian lawyer meeting'

Number of Republicans' confidence in Russia's Vladimir Putin has doubled

51% of Republicans see the media as the "enemy of the people"

51% of Republicans say fake ‘Bowling Green massacre’ justifies travel ban executive order

50% Republicans say Trump is a genius

42% Republicans think it is ok to bodyslam reporters

30% of GOP voters support bombing Agrabah, the fictional city from Aladdin

[IceSpear]

Iowa

[IceSpear]

Convince the entirety of the SJW wing of the Democratic Party to start their own party

Ah, the good ol' theory.
Guys, we just need to abandon all the LGBTQ community and make their lives hell again, destroy our environment, ignore sexually assaulted women, force other women to carry fetuses or die in backalley abortions and ban black people from kneeling! Then the vast swathes of white working class #poulists will flock to our banners!

Short answer--Why bother (see Hillgoose above)

Long answer--Coal power plants are going to keep closing, WV mines are going to keep declining and shut down as the coal gives out, even the met coal mines (a major one will close this week for "geologic reasons").  Fat Nixon can lie to them all day, it doesn't change reality.

Their population pyramid is totally fubar'd.  They have fewer people than they did in 1980.
They have fewer people than they did in 1950.  They have 262,000 people between the ages of 55-64 and 212,000 between the ages 10-19.  They had 30,000 births in 1980 and 18,500 last year.  They are not a magnet for and are in fact hostile to the idea of immigration.   They are a lock to have fewer people in 2050 than they do now.  They don't have a Senator who can drag stuff into the state like they once did.  They live in geographically difficult terrain where infrastructure is difficult to build and maintain.  There is no compelling reason economically to build and maintain such infrastructure.

Save for the Eastern Panhandle and Morgantown (and even Morgantown is iffy) there is no reason to expect anything different from West Virginia.  Why bother.

[IceSpear]

It is not that candidate quality doesn't matter at all, but that it is dominated in terms of importance by partisanship and national environment.

Take one of your examples:

2010 has many examples as well but the most famous was Deleware

- If candidate quality didnt matter it wouldnt have mattered that the GOP nominated Christine O Donnell over Mike Castle. Yet Castle was leading big in all the polls and as soon as the GOP nominated O Donnell , Coons led big and never let go of the lead.

If O'Donnell were running in a solidly Republican state (maybe Missouri or even Ohio), she would have won. The more important factor explaining why O'Donnell lost is not just that she was a lunatic (lots of Republicans were lunatics in 2010), but that Delaware is a very strongly Democratic state. Yes, candidate quality can help explain why she lost whereas Mark Kirk won in Illinois, but you also need to take into account the inherent partisanship of the state/district, and its elasticity and the type of race.



The biggest problem with the concept of "candidate quality" is that candidate quality is not really an inherent quality or characteristic of candidates. Rather, when a candidate does well, and particularly if they do better than expected, this is attributed to "candidate quality" post-hoc as an explanation of why they are doing well. But the actual explanation may be something else particular to local voting patterns and political trends, or whatever else. But whatever it is, it ends up getting called "candidate quality" even if it doesn't have anything particularly to do with the candidate.

Importantly, "candidate quality" is not something that remains remotely constant over time. In one year, a candidate may be judged to have very high "candidate quality," and then in the next year they may lose in a landslide. Did the candidate change so much? No. The district's partisanship and national environment changed. There were a lot of Democrats who were thought to be very "high quality candidates" in 2008, and then most of them lost in 2010.

This year, it is quite possible that candidates like David Valadao and Will Hurd will survive, be judged "high quality candidates," and then lose in 2020. Why? Not because they will do anything different in 2020, but because Hispanic turnout will be different in their districts.

Bottom line - "candidate quality" is not so much an actual thing, it is a filler phrase wherein "other factors that I can't explain at the moment" get dumped into a pile. "Candidate quality" is the residual.

[IceSpear]

An elitist Democrat to me is someone who has the luxury of referring to civil rights issues as identity politics and is privileged enough to believe that social issues should not matter just as much as economic ones. Even sometimes convincing themselves that these issues aren’t greatly related for a lot of working people, especially the ones who are brown, are women, and LGBTQ.

[IceSpear]

I think you are whistling by the graveyard. 

Could be wrong, but I think it is more a case of "this Blue Dog don't hunt no more."

I don't see a whole lot of difference here as compared to, for example, TN-04 in 2010. Which had nothing to do with Kavanaugh... And everything to do with Partisanship...

Lincoln Davis, the Dem incumbent, was a good ole boy Blue Dog who all the rural folk in middle Tenessee were very happy with... until they weren't...

Here is a funny quote from a newspaper article at the time:

http://archive.knoxnews.com/news/4th-district-house-candidates-get-dirty-television-ads-from-outside-interest-groups-heat-up-davis-d--358412541.html/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This article is from October 19... Yes, later in October than we are currently...

The final actual margin was not even remotely "somewhere in between." It was an a 57.1% - 38.6% ruralstomping. And he was a good ole boy even up to mid-October!!!

What happened? Partisanship, the same thing that is happening in TN now.

[IceSpear]

TIL People acting smug and assuming to know more than they actually do about the lives of minorities (something conservatives NEVER do) is more racist than trying to delegitimatize a black president, insisting that we need to preserve “white culture” in America, preventing people from certain countries from even entering the country, separating families and putting children in cages, marching with torches in favor of white nationalism, and trying to build a wall which will serve no purpose other than to make people feel safe from the scary Mexicans.

I mean, sure, you could point to a few individual liberals who are racist or say cringeworthy things, but to argue that liberals, on the whole, are the most racist? Yeah, that belongs in this thread.

[IceSpear]

Bullock isn't a right winger, he's very much an economic progressive. The difference is he will talk about bread and butter issues instead of divisive social issues like the urban NYC wing wants

Yes, divisive urban NYC issues like... unemployment, rent prices, infrastructure issues, gentrification, police brutality, and income inequality.

Some of you Dems who pull the whole "identity politics" BS are worse than the Republicans who do it.

Exactly. Thank you.

Gay/black/Hispanic/women's rights are not "identity politics". This are real issues that affect the economic and social lives of millions of Americans and their families.

For example, if you can be fired in 30/50 states simply for being LGBT, that's a civil rights AND economic issue. If you could be denied housing for being LGBT that's a civil rights AND economic issue. If you are paid less than men for the same job because you're a woman that's a civil rights AND economic issue.

Dismissing it as a "divisive issue" is wrong and abhorrent.

[IceSpear]

I was only going by your avatar tbh ^

It's not about whether cuts will or won't be needed in the future (I'm not sure what viable plans will be pushed but I imagine cuts will be done), I was merely pointing out that if Republicans had practiced what they preached and been responsible stewards of the government, we wouldn't have such an insane level of debt to deal with. And this is really what bothers me about all of this. The GOP has spent decades borrowing and spending on everything from tax cuts to wars, and then every time it looks like the people get fed up with them, they turn around and scream about the safety net. It's dishonest, shameful and in my opinion, makes them unfit to govern. It would be a lot easier to deal with the growth of spending on these programs if we didn't also have tens of trillions of debt to deal with, much accrued from the irresponsible politicians in the Republican Party. It's not even like we need a perfectly balanced budget either. Having just 1/3rd-1/2 of our current debt would be substantially more manageable.

What also bothers me is that for all these years, Republican voters rarely ever held these people accountable. They just kept on electing the same Republicans who marched in lockstep with presidents who gave little thought to the idea of actually paying for your agenda. Even the Tea Party fanatics folded on tax cuts after years of whining about spending/the debt. Democrats did not do this to America. For all the perceived problems of the Democratic Party, at least they are tax and spenders. I'd much rather have someone who admits that, hey, you actually have to pay for this stuff, and does that, instead of pretending like they are taking care of things while secretly just racking up debt. People would never accept that kind of behavior from their kids/spouses or in a business. It's destructive and insane.

I actually do want us to start making major efforts to reduce the debt, and I would accept a lower standard of living if it meant a more secure future. I would feel better about the future if we could start finally making major efforts to address this problem. But as far as I am concerned, the GOP has thoroughly discredited itself as a responsible or viable partner in this endeavor. They behave like addicts with all of this, and they can't be trusted to do the right thing. They've had most of the power over the purse strings since the 90s and it's done nothing but drive this country into the ground. And even to this point, they still won't admit that their tax cuts and irresponsible fiscal stewardship has contributed immensely to the problem. They are either lying through their teeth on a daily basis, or they are completely delusional about any semblance of sane economic policy, and both are pretty bad. So until they as a party comes clean with this, they can go get bent as far as I am concerned.


TL;DR Uncomfortable cuts are probably eventually going to be necessary, but it probably didn't have to be this way (or at least not as bad), and that is thanks to the Republican Party's decades of lunacy

[IceSpear]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

[IceSpear]

Of course Blackburn's still favored to win, but there's still a couple of (garbagy) public polls having it tied and random chatter about internal polls showing it close which mirror the public behavior of the campaigns. Is it that hard to believe all of this is happening at once?

Well let’s take into account that Pew had TN as the most white evangelical state in 2014 - 52% of its total population. And that study also showed that over three times as many Gen X/baby boomer TN residents were white evangelicals than millennials and younger millenials were. So the voting electorate given age turnout differences is probably gonna be at least 60% white evangelical in 2 days.

White evangelicals nationally voted about 80-84% for a thrice married pussy grabbing New Yorker simply cuz of the magic R next to his name. 80% of white evangelicals in the state directly below TN voted for Roy Moore, an accused pedophile who was a notoriously weak candidate even prior to the allegations (he won by a parsley 4 points against a Democrat in 2012 - with Obama on the ballot).

If Blackburn simply wins 80% of whites evanglicals in her state, she’s at 48% of the total share of the electorate without a single voter from the 40% of Tennessee voters that aren’t white evangelicals. If she gets just a tiny 15% of those folks, she’s at 54% total.

Now I know some people love pointing out that “Bredesen was a beloved Governor way back when!” well gubernatorials even today aren’t stongly reflective of the federal leanings of a state (let alone in 2006). Phil Scott as a Republican won his state easily in 2016 despite being in Vermont and Jim Justice also won his state easily in 2016 despite having a D next to his name. Voters are far, far less partisan even today in their gubernatorial races compared to their federal races. And how these voters felt in 2006 of all years is especially less partisan.

There’s no magic solution for Bredesen to beat these fundamentals. If some people just took off their Pom poms and Democratic Party cheerleading for two seconds they’d see this.

[IceSpear]

A divergence in gains between House and Senate is something I have noted the possibility of for a while simply based on the fact that the GOP has 5 Dem seats that are so far up the PVI ladder and the possibility for swings to be uneven across groups based on education and other demographic factors.

This makes it very  for Republicans to hold TN, and win IN, MO and ND (with outside longshots in WV and MT) and then barely hold TX etc, even while losing the popular vote for House and Senate by double digits.

Is it likely to happen, probably not. But I think there is a strong possibility of a GOP net gain in the Senate while losing the House majority.

This was written over 12 hours before any of the polls closed. Wow.

NC Yankee is one of our most insightful posters, that's for sure.

[IceSpear]

This race is not close. Only white liberal elites in bubbles could possibly think Mississippi whites will be swayed from their hyper tribal political behavior because of some racist remarks. 90% of whites in Mississippi will be saying worse at Thanksgiving dinner.

The only reason Roy Moore lost was because he was credibly accused of raping/molesting/pursuing teenage white girls. You take that out and leave his abhorrent anti-LGBT and anti-black comments he wins by double digits.

What is elitist about hoping people will rise above their worst impulses even when you know it’s ultimately unlikely?  I think you’re mistaking optimism, hopefulness, and idealism for elitism.  I mean, I hope you’d agree there’s nothing elitist about hoping a racist loses a Senate race.  And even if that was elitist, wouldn’t African-American elites living in the same bubble logically be expected to share the same view?  Why would someone’s skin color effect whether they thought Espy could win (btw, it sounded like you were using “white” in a pejorative way which...well...I’m pretty sure many folks here would consider it racist if someone started complaining about “black liberal elites”)? 

I don’t have contempt for whites. It’s a fact that many white liberals are completely ignorant to how rampant racism and hatred is outside of their liberal bastions. I’m not mistaking anything—- I am in several organizations where I’ve had push back on tackling certain issues because the alleged white progressives I was dealing with didn’t think it was a problem. That’s not optimism that’s ignorance and elitism. I’ve seen tweets and think pieces handwringing about Cindy’s behavior like it’s actually going to matter. White southerners are hyper partisan out of hatred and contempt for black folks. It is ridiculous to think that the state that still has the Confederate emblem in their flag and where the people who killed Emmit Till, Medgar Evers, Cheney, Goodman, and Schwerner are secretly celebrated around white dinner tables are going to vote against the crypt keeper because of her comments. If anything it’s making her more popular.

[IceSpear]

Of course it shouldn't be the only thing Democrats run on, but to me, whenever someone says "stop talking about identity politics and making everything about race!", I hear "talking about race makes me uncomfortable and I don't support slavery so it's not my problem!"

These are real issues, and Democrats should not abandon them for political expediency. Frankly, I'm tired of having to coddle white people who want to live in their "racism/sexism is dead" bubble (it's mostly white men who have never experienced it, and conclude that therefore it never happens), and get a little testy whenever anyone dares to suggest that some people have it bad because they're not white men, at least in part. If people would take an honest look at our immigration system (I'm helping my girlfriend deal with it right now, it's beyond horrible), our criminal "justice" system, the achievement gap in education, as well as who certain laws involving voting affect the most, it's not hard to see that we are not living in a post-racial society, and simply "not being racist" doesn't make all of these issues disappear.

This isn't to say that rural white voters in Pennsylvania are causing all of these problems, but if they aren't racist, they shouldn't be afraid of conversations about race taking place, especially given our history. I'll be very clear: If you attempt to derail any conversation about race/gender, or write it off as "PC culture" or "identity politics", you are part of the problem.