Options

Democratic Electoral Prospects and the Role of Red State/Blue Dog Democrats in the Party

24

Posts

  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    So you're just not going to stop with what I think are ridiculous assumptions that electing a Democrat would automatically be worse in the short term? Why are you assuming that coal grants would stop before anything else could be put in place?

  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    There is no way to reach them. If someone watches Fox News and disregards CNN or MSNBC they are too far gone. You're not getting through to them because they will deny reality. Katy Tur gave an example of this when she was on the campaign trail covering Trump and talking to people in areas just like the ones we are discussing. They were complaining about either the deficit or unemployment and how it had gone up under Obama and Tur tried to tell them the truth and even pulled up the actual .gov figures on her phone to show them and when faced with the literal facts she said the response was "I don't believe you.

    I love Katy Tur.

    But yeah, the real problem in politics is Fox News and (to a lesser extent) MSNBC and all of the other biased sources being able to spout info with absolutely no accountability.

    Uh...so where do you go for unbiased news?

    The right so desperately wants MSNBC to be the left version of Fox because then they don't look like crazy people.

    I'm also annoyed by that accusation but we can't do anything about it without having a media thread.

  • Options
    BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    edited October 2018

    Uh...so where do you go for unbiased news?
    No news is truly unbiased, which is part of the problem. You have to hope they at least try to be.

    MSNBC is nowhere near as bad as Fox News (what is, really), but to consider it unbiased is hilarious as well.

    I personally prefer BBC and Reuters atm :).

    Bizazedo on
    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    I think a problem with the overall Democratic strategy in red states is that it kind of involves shitting on their lives for a while for the greater good. Like:

    Hey coal people! The thing you've been doing is terrible for both you and the environment! Instead of you doing that we would like to send you back to school/retrain you and cover your health care at no charge to you and also maybe we could arrange some sort of stipend for you so you don't lose your house. So have fun with your 2-6+ years of tumult but remember it's for the greater good!

    That not only involves interrupting their status quo but people also legitimately like to work and be productive and a contributing member of society. We would all be so much better off if we did this for a variety of industries but it's not hard to see how it's easy to vote against that. Maybe we should be better at messaging "Hey this industry is going to die anyways and the Republican plan is to do this for as long as possible to enrich your bosses and then give you NOTHING to help you retrain while they jet off to exotic locales in their yacht."

  • Options
    HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Henroid wrote: »
    The role of red state Democrats is to spend money on behalf of the Republicans to vote Republican.

    I'm honestly sick of the 4D Chess people have been pretending this all is. The bottom line of American politics is "are you going to help people who are in dire need of it or not?" You don't get to bargain with how much people are allowed to be abused, or exchange one group's suffering for another, etc.

    When that chucklefuck Joe Donnelly says he's "open to legislation" that supports Trump's attacks on immigrants and their descendants, that's not some brilliant tactic coming into play. It's a complete betrayal of all the people affected by that kind of bullshit. There are racists among Democrats, and they go by many names; Red Dog Democrat, Blue Dog Democrat, and Centrist Democrat. Just because you state your racism politely doesn't mean you aren't racist.

    /mic-drop

    Edit - This thread was created when Donnelly's comments were brought up in the immigration policy thread btw, for context.

    It's nice to see that othering isn't solely restricted to Republicans. I'm pretty confident that calling Democrats that view themselves as centrists racists will accomplish nothing but costing Democrats some votes.

    Heffling on
  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    So you're just not going to stop with what I think are ridiculous assumptions that electing a Democrat would automatically be worse in the short term? Why are you assuming that coal grants would stop before anything else could be put in place?

    What ChaosHat said, mostly. Much of the rural states run on economies inexorably tied to policies at odds with most of our platforms on the left. And the democrats who do operate as you are talking about, the ones that support coal and a sort of "middle road" are the folks being decried here, like Donnelly, who frequently vote with the right to play political capital to get the concessions his state will need to keep those economies working.

  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    No, its not a matter of supporting coal its recognizing that you're trying to help an addict who is going to go through withdrawals. It has nothing to do with being "middle of the road", helping these economies is not a "middle of the road" thing.

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Viskod wrote: »
    No, its not a matter of supporting coal its recognizing that you're trying to help an addict who is going to go through withdrawals. It has nothing to do with being "middle of the road", helping these economies is not a "middle of the road" thing.

    Right, so you stop those economies and try to change them. What, precisely, would you see done that I didn't describe last page, Viskod? How exactly can policy at once shut down private enterprises that prey on your voter base while simultaneously forcing those private enterpises to keep employing people? Where do you take the existing money from to support those people (legally) and how do you give it back to the employees and communities effected in the short term (within weeks of the company leaving so people can still pay rent and feed their families)?

    Most Americans have less than 2 paychecks saved. That gives you, maybe, a month to support those folks without hardship.

    Enc on
  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    No, its not a matter of supporting coal its recognizing that you're trying to help an addict who is going to go through withdrawals. It has nothing to do with being "middle of the road", helping these economies is not a "middle of the road" thing.

    Right, so you stop those economies and try to change them. What, precisely, would you see done that I didn't describe last page, Viskod? How exactly can policy at once shut down private enterprises that prey on your voter base while simultaneously forcing those private enterpises to keep employing people?

    Enc, again, for like the fourth time. These are your assumptions that I keep asking you why you assume them. I can't keep this up. I'm sorry.

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    There isn't a third option between [continuing to fund the companies] or [not doing so].

  • Options
    BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Enc, again, for like the fourth time. These are your assumptions that I keep asking you why you assume them. I can't keep this up. I'm sorry.
    What, specifically, were his assumptions? What Enc and Chaos are getting at is how it works in those states.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    There isn't a third option between [continuing to fund the companies] or [not doing so].

    You could actually enforce mine safety law. Or ideally strengthen it. So that killing 38 miners gets you life in prison instead of a year, for example.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    There isn't a third option between [continuing to fund the companies] or [not doing so].

    You could actually enforce mine safety law. Or ideally strengthen it. So that killing 38 miners gets you life in prison instead of a year, for example.

    But the Democratic stance at large is not "we need better conditions for coal miners" it's that "we should stop having coal mines." I mean I guess you could say "oh no we care about the ability of coal miners to unionize" but given the stance on climate change and renewables that's kind of like saying we also care about the ability of lamplighters to unionize.

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    The role of red state Democrats is to spend money on behalf of the Republicans to vote Republican.

    I'm honestly sick of the 4D Chess people have been pretending this all is. The bottom line of American politics is "are you going to help people who are in dire need of it or not?" You don't get to bargain with how much people are allowed to be abused, or exchange one group's suffering for another, etc.

    When that chucklefuck Joe Donnelly says he's "open to legislation" that supports Trump's attacks on immigrants and their descendants, that's not some brilliant tactic coming into play. It's a complete betrayal of all the people affected by that kind of bullshit. There are racists among Democrats, and they go by many names; Red Dog Democrat, Blue Dog Democrat, and Centrist Democrat. Just because you state your racism politely doesn't mean you aren't racist.

    /mic-drop

    Edit - This thread was created when Donnelly's comments were brought up in the immigration policy thread btw, for context.

    It's nice to see that othering isn't solely restricted to Republicans. I'm pretty confident that calling Democrats that view themselves as centrists racists will accomplish nothing but costing Democrats some votes.
    My status as an American citizen (I was born here) is currently in danger by the administration because of racism. When a Democrat goes, "Maybe we should talk about this," that Democrat is racist. And any other Democrat that rushes to that Democrat's defense is racist. Why? Because it's easy to disregard the hardship of POC (or their descendants).

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    So you're just not going to stop with what I think are ridiculous assumptions that electing a Democrat would automatically be worse in the short term? Why are you assuming that coal grants would stop before anything else could be put in place?

    What ChaosHat said, mostly. Much of the rural states run on economies inexorably tied to policies at odds with most of our platforms on the left. And the democrats who do operate as you are talking about, the ones that support coal and a sort of "middle road" are the folks being decried here, like Donnelly, who frequently vote with the right to play political capital to get the concessions his state will need to keep those economies working.

    This is just a reframing of "economic anxiety" and ignores the cultural/racial components of US politics.

    Maybe instead we should assume they are voting for the actual platform the candidates they vote for are running on.

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    There isn't a third option between [continuing to fund the companies] or [not doing so].

    You could actually enforce mine safety law. Or ideally strengthen it. So that killing 38 miners gets you life in prison instead of a year, for example.

    Can't argue with that.

    Though, again, this would still require keeping the mining funding going to keep those companies in state rather than moving elsewhere. Probably more than historically, since enforcing those guidelines would make it less profitable for the company. The company owners have a lot of leverage in these situations. The owners can leave or develop new resources, the employees can't.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    There isn't a third option between [continuing to fund the companies] or [not doing so].

    You could actually enforce mine safety law. Or ideally strengthen it. So that killing 38 miners gets you life in prison instead of a year, for example.

    Can't argue with that.

    Though, again, this would still require keeping the mining funding going to keep those companies in state rather than moving elsewhere. Probably more than historically, since enforcing those guidelines would make it less profitable for the company. The company owners have a lot of leverage in these situations. The owners can leave or develop new resources, the employees can't.

    What mining funding Enc? Right now coal isn't biting it because government funding is being withdrawn or any environmental concerns. It's biting it because it isn't competitive.

    It's also a tiny industry given outsized importance for stupid reasons.

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    So you're just not going to stop with what I think are ridiculous assumptions that electing a Democrat would automatically be worse in the short term? Why are you assuming that coal grants would stop before anything else could be put in place?

    What ChaosHat said, mostly. Much of the rural states run on economies inexorably tied to policies at odds with most of our platforms on the left. And the democrats who do operate as you are talking about, the ones that support coal and a sort of "middle road" are the folks being decried here, like Donnelly, who frequently vote with the right to play political capital to get the concessions his state will need to keep those economies working.

    This is just a reframing of "economic anxiety" and ignores the cultural/racial components of US politics.

    Maybe instead we should assume they are voting for the actual platform the candidates they vote for are running on.

    Assume what you want, and for sure there is a lot of actual voting just because of Abortion, etc. But I know a ton of conservatives and have family throughout these regions. While many are religious, they care less about abortion than ensuring they have a meal tomorrow in my experience. But they do care about abortion an awful lot as well. None of this is simple calculus.

    Its complicated and messy, and saying "well voting for democrats is in those yokels best interests" isn't always immediately true, even if on a global sense it likely would be long-term.

  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Enc, again, for like the fourth time. These are your assumptions that I keep asking you why you assume them. I can't keep this up. I'm sorry.
    What, specifically, were his assumptions? What Enc and Chaos are getting at is how it works in those states.

    He assumes that there is nothing a Democrat can or will do to help these economies in the short term.
    He's assuming this automatically means either immediately killing their coal based economy or supporting it and doing nothing else.

    There is no reason to assume these things other than "I don't want to be wrong about this."

    Enc I feel you just aren't willing to entertain the idea that short term help can be supplied to these communities in good faith for the people that live there, while also simultaneously putting in place policy that will give them other options.

    And no, I don't have a policy plan laid out because I'm not running for office for these regions but I'm also not refusing to acknowledge that such a thing can even exist.

  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    The role of red state Democrats is to spend money on behalf of the Republicans to vote Republican.

    I'm honestly sick of the 4D Chess people have been pretending this all is. The bottom line of American politics is "are you going to help people who are in dire need of it or not?" You don't get to bargain with how much people are allowed to be abused, or exchange one group's suffering for another, etc.

    When that chucklefuck Joe Donnelly says he's "open to legislation" that supports Trump's attacks on immigrants and their descendants, that's not some brilliant tactic coming into play. It's a complete betrayal of all the people affected by that kind of bullshit. There are racists among Democrats, and they go by many names; Red Dog Democrat, Blue Dog Democrat, and Centrist Democrat. Just because you state your racism politely doesn't mean you aren't racist.

    /mic-drop

    Edit - This thread was created when Donnelly's comments were brought up in the immigration policy thread btw, for context.

    It's nice to see that othering isn't solely restricted to Republicans. I'm pretty confident that calling Democrats that view themselves as centrists racists will accomplish nothing but costing Democrats some votes.
    My status as an American citizen (I was born here) is currently in danger by the administration because of racism. When a Democrat goes, "Maybe we should talk about this," that Democrat is racist. And any other Democrat that rushes to that Democrat's defense is racist. Why? Because it's easy to disregard the hardship of POC (or their descendants).

    So some democrats are racist because they'd prefer to support the guy who would vote to keep coverage for pre-existing conditions over the guy who wouldn't? Donnelly didn't even endorse removing birth right citizenship, he said he'd take a look at proposed legislation which is the most tepid non-endorsement of all time. If my base was fervently for something and I didn't want to explicitly be against it in a contested election, yeah I'd probably say "I'll look into it."

    Joe Donnelly is also pro wall but that doesn't mean Hoosier Democrats that vote for him are pro-wall. You should really not want them to think that, since the alternative is staying home and losing ground in the Senate to Republicans. You're effectively giving them the options of vote for a racist (and be considered a racist), vote for a different, worse racist (and be considered a racist), or do nothing and allow the worst racist to win. Yaaaaay.

    A vote is not a blank agreement for everything that candidate espouses. It's simply a preference given the options. There's no way to differentiate a single issue voter from anything else. You do not agree with everything your elected representatives think even if you voted for them.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    There isn't a third option between [continuing to fund the companies] or [not doing so].

    You could actually enforce mine safety law. Or ideally strengthen it. So that killing 38 miners gets you life in prison instead of a year, for example.

    I guess the issue with that is that if you enforced mine safety law, then the companies would demand even larger subsidies to keep running their unprofitable coal mines to employ the people you don't want them to kill in their mines.

    What you actually need to do to these industries is cap the current subsidies, and then start ramping up subsidies for other industries and local schools etc. Then, after like 2 years the subsidies for the other local industries and schools are equal to what the coal mines get, and then you start ramping down subsidies for the coal mines over another 2 years. There's no way to inflict zero pain, but, with a 4 year transition in which the areas get MORE money than they do now for the entire time the pain should be minimized. You probabably also go state by state, removing the subsidies from the least viable mines first. That way the remaining mines become more profitable, and need less subsidy and can hire some of your overflow workers who are truly determined to remain involved in coal mining.

    Honestly, its a tough situation. Those towns are there because coal is there. And coal is now a dangerous liability which HAS to stay in the ground rather than be mined. So the town doesn't really have a structural advantage or 'reason' for being any more. You can provide subsidy, but, unless that subsidy is equal to all the money which the local community used to earn from coal mining then the town will be a less popular place to be (or if the town can unlock other local resources which didn't pair well with coal mining but still have value, such as tourism or syrup making etc). Some of these towns are going to fail, even if you literally were to take all the money that you used to use to subsidize coal and give it to the residents directly.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    So some democrats are racist because they'd prefer to support the guy who would vote to keep coverage for pre-existing conditions over the guy who wouldn't?
    This might come as a shock but healthcare and protecting peoples' citizenship status are two different issues. He's not racist because he has a position on healthcare, he's racist because he doesn't care what happens to Mexican-Americans one way or the other.

    Edit - The correct answer on the matter of Trump going "we should strip citizenship away from people" is "ARE YOU FUCKING OUT OF YOUR MIND?!" Anything less is gross and emblematic of ivory tower "doesn't affect me, shrug" mindset.

    Henroid on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Donnelly's comment is a fucking terrible Overton Window kind of thing, but not a policy problem. He'd look at it and see if it's constitutional. It's not, so he'd vote no. Hooray?

    But yeah, embracing the idea of the question because white midwesterners are super fucking racist is shitty and I don't blame anyone who is furious with him. But um, call him to tell it was shitty and vote for him anyway? Ugh.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    Turns out the average Senate seat is +6 R and that sucks so if democrats want to have any hope of winning the chamber we need red state dems. Red state dems are annoying and frustrating at times but they usually vote with you when it matters and certainly far better than the least worst republican, so... /thread?

    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    So some democrats are racist because they'd prefer to support the guy who would vote to keep coverage for pre-existing conditions over the guy who wouldn't?
    This might come as a shock but healthcare and protecting peoples' citizenship status are two different issues. He's not racist because he has a position on healthcare, he's racist because he doesn't care what happens to Mexican-Americans one way or the other.

    I totally understand that point. That's exactly what I'm saying. You're saying people who support and defend Donnelly are racist because he did a racist thing. You can support Donnelly, despite his saying a racist thing, because you give a shit about pre-existing conditions, and the fact that even if you take it that Donnelly supports revoking birthright citizenship, BOTH candidates are shitty racists so you might as well take the good with the bad instead of all bad. That does not also make you a racist!

    Even if somehow the Republican candidate wasn't also racist, I'm not going to tell someone who may be a cancer survivor or have family with pre-existing conditions they're a racist for caring about that more especially over the lukewarm non-answer that Donnelly gave! If Donnelly started saying "We need go go around burning crosses and wearing bed sheets again, who's with me!" then in that event sure, you're a racist for voting for him. For "I'd look at a piece of legislation" no.

    ChaosHat on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    Turns out the average Senate seat is +6 R and that sucks so if democrats want to have any hope of winning the chamber we need red state dems. Red state dems are annoying and frustrating at times but they usually vote with you when it matters and certainly far better than the least worst republican, so... /thread?
    POC and LGBTQUIA people don't matter, says Knight_. I mean you're willing to sacrifice their concerns, it sounds like.

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    Turns out the average Senate seat is +6 R and that sucks so if democrats want to have any hope of winning the chamber we need red state dems. Red state dems are annoying and frustrating at times but they usually vote with you when it matters and certainly far better than the least worst republican, so... /thread?
    POC and LGBTQUIA people don't matter, says Knight_. I mean you're willing to sacrifice their concerns, it sounds like.

    Do you think this as helpful for discourse

    This thread is on thin ice, I'll just let everyone know

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    The role of red state Democrats is to spend money on behalf of the Republicans to vote Republican.

    I'm honestly sick of the 4D Chess people have been pretending this all is. The bottom line of American politics is "are you going to help people who are in dire need of it or not?" You don't get to bargain with how much people are allowed to be abused, or exchange one group's suffering for another, etc.

    When that chucklefuck Joe Donnelly says he's "open to legislation" that supports Trump's attacks on immigrants and their descendants, that's not some brilliant tactic coming into play. It's a complete betrayal of all the people affected by that kind of bullshit. There are racists among Democrats, and they go by many names; Red Dog Democrat, Blue Dog Democrat, and Centrist Democrat. Just because you state your racism politely doesn't mean you aren't racist.

    /mic-drop

    Edit - This thread was created when Donnelly's comments were brought up in the immigration policy thread btw, for context.

    It's nice to see that othering isn't solely restricted to Republicans. I'm pretty confident that calling Democrats that view themselves as centrists racists will accomplish nothing but costing Democrats some votes.
    My status as an American citizen (I was born here) is currently in danger by the administration because of racism. When a Democrat goes, "Maybe we should talk about this," that Democrat is racist. And any other Democrat that rushes to that Democrat's defense is racist. Why? Because it's easy to disregard the hardship of POC (or their descendants).

    So some democrats are racist because they'd prefer to support the guy who would vote to keep coverage for pre-existing conditions over the guy who wouldn't? Donnelly didn't even endorse removing birth right citizenship, he said he'd take a look at proposed legislation which is the most tepid non-endorsement of all time. If my base was fervently for something and I didn't want to explicitly be against it in a contested election, yeah I'd probably say "I'll look into it."

    Joe Donnelly is also pro wall but that doesn't mean Hoosier Democrats that vote for him are pro-wall. You should really not want them to think that, since the alternative is staying home and losing ground in the Senate to Republicans. You're effectively giving them the options of vote for a racist (and be considered a racist), vote for a different, worse racist (and be considered a racist), or do nothing and allow the worst racist to win. Yaaaaay.

    A vote is not a blank agreement for everything that candidate espouses. It's simply a preference given the options. There's no way to differentiate a single issue voter from anything else. You do not agree with everything your elected representatives think even if you voted for them.

    I think that what our red state Democrats need to do, in areas where they agree with the President, is make sure that they are clear that while they may say, support a wall, that they would not vote for a wall in isolation because it wouldn't work. What they want is necessary border security and reinforcement, which may include large sections of wall, as part of a full package of immigration reform which includes a path to citizenship AND a migrant guest worker program with Mexico which will allow much needed immigrant labor to come and help build our homes and pick our crops AND a retargetting of immigration enforcement resources to target the employer and not the worker.

    I accept that Red State Democrats are less liberal than Blue State Democrats, and that they need to support people who live in their districts and vote for them. BUT, if the people who live in their districts just blindly want the President to take illegal and unconstitutional actions then the support of those people isn't worth the cost in other districts. I think the liberal base can accept and remain motivated if the candidate for North Dakota lays out a well thought out plan which isn't the plan they want, but if that candidate just comes out and says "Screw the law and screw immigrants, I agree with the President 100%" then the lost momentum in other states isn't worth the senate seat. We'd be better off just not competing for the Senate seat and hoping Joe Donnelly wins as a true independant for example.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Bizazedo wrote: »
    Viskod wrote: »
    Enc, again, for like the fourth time. These are your assumptions that I keep asking you why you assume them. I can't keep this up. I'm sorry.
    What, specifically, were his assumptions? What Enc and Chaos are getting at is how it works in those states.

    He assumes that there is nothing a Democrat can or will do to help these economies in the short term.
    He's assuming this automatically means either immediately killing their coal based economy or supporting it and doing nothing else.

    There is no reason to assume these things other than "I don't want to be wrong about this."

    Enc I feel you just aren't willing to entertain the idea that short term help can be supplied to these communities in good faith for the people that live there, while also simultaneously putting in place policy that will give them other options.

    And no, I don't have a policy plan laid out because I'm not running for office for these regions but I'm also not refusing to acknowledge that such a thing can even exist.

    I'm assuming, mostly from experience with state government, that policies that address unemployment take time and investment, or compromise with the predatory industries and the conservatives that run them. This thread was launched because those Blue Dog folks doing the compromising like Donnelly are unacceptable because they aren't left enough.

    I do both acknowledge and understand that economic hardship polices can and would be implemented, but that they have to have funding to make them work and finding funding takes time. Implementing them takes time. And a company closing a chemical plant because the funding they were skimming from the state or federal block grant takes much less time.

    Which is why I'm saying it will be problematic for folks in those industries in the short term. Because helping those folks takes time, money, and political will. All three of which have to be in place before economic hardship policies can be implemented and none of those three are currently in place for most of the poorer red states.

    This is mostly from history, because that has been what happened across most of the midwestern states, especially in the last two decades. I'm not sure how this is unreasonable/bad faith an assumption when it has played out before our eyes time and time again. I'd be happy to know what could be done to prevent short term hardship, and I'd love to know of examples were a poor state was able to change without major upheaval of the working class. I'm not aware of any such examples and would love to learn.

  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    Donnelly's comment is a fucking terrible Overton Window kind of thing, but not a policy problem. He'd look at it and see if it's constitutional. It's not, so he'd vote no. Hooray?

    But yeah, embracing the idea of the question because white midwesterners are super fucking racist is shitty and I don't blame anyone who is furious with him. But um, call him to tell it was shitty and vote for him anyway? Ugh.

    This is what I did! 'Cause, y'know what? I have NO doubt that Braun'd vote for that "legislation" in a heartbeat or he'd support that EO, or if it came to it he'd vote yea on an amendment. I don't think Donnelly actually would though. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. Also, I mean, I guess I can view it, regarding Donnelly, as easily as him going "yeah, an EO is not overturning a constitutional amendment, so nope, not supportin' that!"

    Just to clarify here, am I bein' called a racist who doesn't care about Mexican-Americans and what happens to them, because I support Donnelly over Braun?

  • Options
    Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Henroid wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    Turns out the average Senate seat is +6 R and that sucks so if democrats want to have any hope of winning the chamber we need red state dems. Red state dems are annoying and frustrating at times but they usually vote with you when it matters and certainly far better than the least worst republican, so... /thread?
    POC and LGBTQUIA people don't matter, says Knight_. I mean you're willing to sacrifice their concerns, it sounds like.

    Indiana is a +9 R PVI state. Missouri is a +9 R PVI state. West Virginia is a +19 R PVI state.

    I don't really think the political realities present wrt Indiana and Missouri and West Virginia allow liberal candidates to win. I don't love it. But what is the better option in 2018? I posit none.

    Knight_ on
    aeNqQM9.jpg
  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Donnelly's comment is a fucking terrible Overton Window kind of thing, but not a policy problem. He'd look at it and see if it's constitutional. It's not, so he'd vote no. Hooray?

    But yeah, embracing the idea of the question because white midwesterners are super fucking racist is shitty and I don't blame anyone who is furious with him. But um, call him to tell it was shitty and vote for him anyway? Ugh.

    This is what I did! 'Cause, y'know what? I have NO doubt that Braun'd vote for that "legislation" in a heartbeat or he'd support that EO, or if it came to it he'd vote yea on an amendment. I don't think Donnelly actually would though. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. Also, I mean, I guess I can view it, regarding Donnelly, as easily as him going "yeah, an EO is not overturning a constitutional amendment, so nope, not supportin' that!"

    Just to clarify here, am I bein' called a racist who doesn't care about Mexican-Americans and what happens to them, because I support Donnelly over Braun?

    To be honest, I just think we need better Red State Democrats who understand that they need to deliver comments which are...

    1) Sharp and witty
    2) Desirable to their voters
    3) Not repulsive to people in other states we need to win

    So, if someone says to you, "The President is planning to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order, what do you think of that?"

    Don't say

    "I'm open to investigating an end to Birthright citizenship"

    Say

    "Look, I've worked across the aisle before and will again, but the President is not a King. He can't do that. Its against the law, and here in Ohio we make sure people obey the law. If the president wants to work on a constitutional amendment as part of immigration reform, I'll sit down with him, but if he breaks the law I'll be voting to impeach him."

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    edited October 2018
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Donnelly's comment is a fucking terrible Overton Window kind of thing, but not a policy problem. He'd look at it and see if it's constitutional. It's not, so he'd vote no. Hooray?

    But yeah, embracing the idea of the question because white midwesterners are super fucking racist is shitty and I don't blame anyone who is furious with him. But um, call him to tell it was shitty and vote for him anyway? Ugh.

    This is what I did! 'Cause, y'know what? I have NO doubt that Braun'd vote for that "legislation" in a heartbeat or he'd support that EO, or if it came to it he'd vote yea on an amendment. I don't think Donnelly actually would though. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. Also, I mean, I guess I can view it, regarding Donnelly, as easily as him going "yeah, an EO is not overturning a constitutional amendment, so nope, not supportin' that!"

    Just to clarify here, am I bein' called a racist who doesn't care about Mexican-Americans and what happens to them, because I support Donnelly over Braun?

    To be honest, I just think we need better Red State Democrats who understand that they need to deliver comments which are...

    1) Sharp and witty
    2) Desirable to their voters
    3) Not repulsive to people in other states we need to win

    So, if someone says to you, "The President is planning to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order, what do you think of that?"

    Don't say

    "I'm open to investigating an end to Birthright citizenship"

    Say

    "Look, I've worked across the aisle before and will again, but the President is not a King. He can't do that. Its against the law, and here in Ohio we make sure people obey the law. If the president wants to work on a constitutional amendment as part of immigration reform, I'll sit down with him, but if he breaks the law I'll be voting to impeach him."

    I feel very confident that "I am open to impeaching the president" will probably not work in a state that voted for the President by almost 20 points. Yes, even with the caveat of if he broke the law.

    In fact, I bet it would go over with Indiana voters as well as "I am open to looking at the birthright citizenship legislation" is going over here.

    Edit: Actually I reread it and I think the "Here in Ohio" bit would be instantly disqualifying for a Hoosier regardless of the rest of the context.

    ChaosHat on
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Donnelly's comment is a fucking terrible Overton Window kind of thing, but not a policy problem. He'd look at it and see if it's constitutional. It's not, so he'd vote no. Hooray?

    But yeah, embracing the idea of the question because white midwesterners are super fucking racist is shitty and I don't blame anyone who is furious with him. But um, call him to tell it was shitty and vote for him anyway? Ugh.

    This is what I did! 'Cause, y'know what? I have NO doubt that Braun'd vote for that "legislation" in a heartbeat or he'd support that EO, or if it came to it he'd vote yea on an amendment. I don't think Donnelly actually would though. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. Also, I mean, I guess I can view it, regarding Donnelly, as easily as him going "yeah, an EO is not overturning a constitutional amendment, so nope, not supportin' that!"

    Just to clarify here, am I bein' called a racist who doesn't care about Mexican-Americans and what happens to them, because I support Donnelly over Braun?

    To be honest, I just think we need better Red State Democrats who understand that they need to deliver comments which are...

    1) Sharp and witty
    2) Desirable to their voters
    3) Not repulsive to people in other states we need to win

    So, if someone says to you, "The President is planning to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order, what do you think of that?"

    Don't say

    "I'm open to investigating an end to Birthright citizenship"

    Say

    "Look, I've worked across the aisle before and will again, but the President is not a King. He can't do that. Its against the law, and here in Ohio we make sure people obey the law. If the president wants to work on a constitutional amendment as part of immigration reform, I'll sit down with him, but if he breaks the law I'll be voting to impeach him."

    I agree with pretty much all of that, minus (just because of the proximity to Nov) ending with "if he breaks the law I'll be voting to impeach him." I'd probably just encourage him to quit after "we make sure people obey the law." Maaaaaaaaybe continue onto the bit about "I'll sit down with him", because that's part of this specific guy's shtick.

  • Options
    tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Donnelly's comment is a fucking terrible Overton Window kind of thing, but not a policy problem. He'd look at it and see if it's constitutional. It's not, so he'd vote no. Hooray?

    But yeah, embracing the idea of the question because white midwesterners are super fucking racist is shitty and I don't blame anyone who is furious with him. But um, call him to tell it was shitty and vote for him anyway? Ugh.

    This is what I did! 'Cause, y'know what? I have NO doubt that Braun'd vote for that "legislation" in a heartbeat or he'd support that EO, or if it came to it he'd vote yea on an amendment. I don't think Donnelly actually would though. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. Also, I mean, I guess I can view it, regarding Donnelly, as easily as him going "yeah, an EO is not overturning a constitutional amendment, so nope, not supportin' that!"

    Just to clarify here, am I bein' called a racist who doesn't care about Mexican-Americans and what happens to them, because I support Donnelly over Braun?

    To be honest, I just think we need better Red State Democrats who understand that they need to deliver comments which are...

    1) Sharp and witty
    2) Desirable to their voters
    3) Not repulsive to people in other states we need to win

    So, if someone says to you, "The President is planning to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order, what do you think of that?"

    Don't say

    "I'm open to investigating an end to Birthright citizenship"

    Say

    "Look, I've worked across the aisle before and will again, but the President is not a King. He can't do that. Its against the law, and here in Ohio we make sure people obey the law. If the president wants to work on a constitutional amendment as part of immigration reform, I'll sit down with him, but if he breaks the law I'll be voting to impeach him."

    I feel very confident that "I am open to impeaching the president" will probably not work in a state that voted for him by almost 20 points. Yes, even with the caveat of if he broke the law.

    In fact, I bet it would go over with Indiana voters as well as "I am open to looking at the birthright citizenship legislation" is going over here.

    Edit: Actually I reread it and I think the "Here in Ohio" bit would be instantly disqualifying for a Hoosier regardless of the rest of the context.

    Then our Red State Democrat needs to find something that DOES work for his state. And if that reduces him to saying...

    "Look, the people of North Dakota need me working for them, not on what the President decides is important. People here in North Dakota need jobs, and they need healthcare. They need strong unions, and they need safety on the job. I'm 100% focused on that, and if the President wants to talk about that, I'm here to work with him"

    Then thats what he has to do. These Red State Democrats are supposed to be with us on economic issues primarily, so they should stay laser focused on that. If they can't tolerate even the slightest jab at the President, then they can't talk about the President.

    edit - Incidentally, why cant someone in Ohio say, "Here in Ohio we make sure people obey the law". Are Hoosiers big lawbreaking fans?

    tbloxham on
    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • Options
    iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    Hoosiers live in Indiana, Ohioans live in Ohio. Pretty sure that's all Chaos means there. :)

    We're a touchy bunch, in IN.

  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    Donnelly's comment is a fucking terrible Overton Window kind of thing, but not a policy problem. He'd look at it and see if it's constitutional. It's not, so he'd vote no. Hooray?

    But yeah, embracing the idea of the question because white midwesterners are super fucking racist is shitty and I don't blame anyone who is furious with him. But um, call him to tell it was shitty and vote for him anyway? Ugh.

    This is what I did! 'Cause, y'know what? I have NO doubt that Braun'd vote for that "legislation" in a heartbeat or he'd support that EO, or if it came to it he'd vote yea on an amendment. I don't think Donnelly actually would though. I could be wrong, but I don't see it. Also, I mean, I guess I can view it, regarding Donnelly, as easily as him going "yeah, an EO is not overturning a constitutional amendment, so nope, not supportin' that!"

    Just to clarify here, am I bein' called a racist who doesn't care about Mexican-Americans and what happens to them, because I support Donnelly over Braun?

    To be honest, I just think we need better Red State Democrats who understand that they need to deliver comments which are...

    1) Sharp and witty
    2) Desirable to their voters
    3) Not repulsive to people in other states we need to win

    So, if someone says to you, "The President is planning to end birthright citizenship by Executive Order, what do you think of that?"

    Don't say

    "I'm open to investigating an end to Birthright citizenship"

    Say

    "Look, I've worked across the aisle before and will again, but the President is not a King. He can't do that. Its against the law, and here in Ohio we make sure people obey the law. If the president wants to work on a constitutional amendment as part of immigration reform, I'll sit down with him, but if he breaks the law I'll be voting to impeach him."

    I feel very confident that "I am open to impeaching the president" will probably not work in a state that voted for him by almost 20 points. Yes, even with the caveat of if he broke the law.

    In fact, I bet it would go over with Indiana voters as well as "I am open to looking at the birthright citizenship legislation" is going over here.

    Edit: Actually I reread it and I think the "Here in Ohio" bit would be instantly disqualifying for a Hoosier regardless of the rest of the context.

    Then our Red State Democrat needs to find something that DOES work for his state. And if that reduces him to saying...

    "Look, the people of North Dakota need me working for them, not on what the President decides is important. People here in North Dakota need jobs, and they need healthcare. They need strong unions, and they need safety on the job. I'm 100% focused on that, and if the President wants to talk about that, I'm here to work with him"

    Then thats what he has to do. These Red State Democrats are supposed to be with us on economic issues primarily, so they should stay laser focused on that. If they can't tolerate even the slightest jab at the President, then they can't talk about the President.

    edit - Incidentally, why cant someone in Ohio say, "Here in Ohio we make sure people obey the law". Are Hoosiers big lawbreaking fans?

    Hoosers == Indiana.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    The dimensions of this question seem to be:

    1) Is it possible to attract right-leaning voters to support you by supporting right-ish policies?
    2) Is there a line between acceptable right-ish positions that a Democratic candidate can have and ones that are unacceptable?
    3) Do conservative Democrats depress Democratic turnout in other states?
    4) Is it possible to build a winning coalition that doesn't need any right-wing states or right-wing voters?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    The dimensions of this question seem to be:

    1) Is it possible to attract right-leaning voters to support you by supporting right-ish policies?
    2) Is there a line between acceptable right-ish positions that a Democratic candidate can have and ones that are unacceptable?
    3) Do conservative Democrats depress Democratic turnout in other states?
    4) Is it possible to build a winning coalition that doesn't need any right-wing states or right-wing voters?

    Yes that is a good summation. I will add it to the OP.

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    4 is worrying to me, in that it encourages the problem we faced in 2016 with republicans being able to pour funding against specific state elections without having to worry about local elections in their districts.

    1 and 2 feel like contextual questions which will change by personal politics and will always have local variations on their answers. Yes its possible to attract right-leaning voters and yes there is a line between acceptable and unacceptable, but that line will change from community to community and place to place. Some things should always be firm though, like ensuring everyone is treated equally and stopping the garbage being done to our immegrant, minority, and LGBTQ populations.

    I don't think I would believe 3 without some sort of peer-reviewed study backing it.

This discussion has been closed.