So he's defining "ordinary voters" as the 1-2% of people who voted Obama/Trump?
That's a remarkable definition of ordinary.
Are their statistics for this? I know both my parents were Obama/Trump voters (further, my father has now expressed interest in Buttigieg, at least last I asked about it a few weeks ago).
Macomb County, MI was a significant one. Mostly in "blue wall" states. NYT had a piece about it, and a retrospective from voters who now regret it.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited July 2019
Is there actual concrete evidence of these "Obama-Trump" voters truly existing beyond anecdotes? I get the feeling they really don't (at least not en masse) and Stephens and Brooks are just never-nudes shouting "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" and those dozens are comprised entirely of conservative writers that have been exiled from Fox News appearances.
I'd consider myself a part of the "ordinary voter" now-a-days. As i do feel like the political ideals i supported so vehemently in the late 90's early 00's has effectively left me behind as well.
I know that doesn't make me super popular on these forums, but it's true. I'll openly vote for anyone against Trump. However, i will not be voting for far left reaching candidates in the primaries. I do want a moderate, and here in farm country that's pretty par for the course. (in my experience anyhow)
Is there actual concrete evidence of these "Obama-Trump" voters truly existing beyond anecdotes? I get the feeling they really don't (at least not en masse) and Stephens and Brooks are just never-nudes shouting "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" and those dozens are comprised entirely of conservative writers that have been exiled from Fox News appearances.
Scroll up.
It's almost 10% of Obama voters.
That's a lot of votes. Especially since they were probably heavily localized in the Midwest.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I'd consider myself a part of the "ordinary voter" now-a-days. As i do feel like the political ideals i supported so vehemently in the late 90's early 00's has effectively left me behind as well.
I know that doesn't make me super popular on these forums, but it's true. I'll openly vote for anyone against Trump. However, i will not be voting for far left reaching candidates in the primaries. I do want a moderate, and here in farm country that's pretty par for the course. (in my experience anyhow)
I apologize if this opens up a can of worms. I hope we can all be respectful here.
What's sorts of values or policies do you consider "far-left"?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Is there actual concrete evidence of these "Obama-Trump" voters truly existing beyond anecdotes? I get the feeling they really don't (at least not en masse) and Stephens and Brooks are just never-nudes shouting "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" and those dozens are comprised entirely of conservative writers that have been exiled from Fox News appearances.
Scroll up.
It's almost 10% of Obama voters.
That's a lot of votes. Especially since they were probably heavily localized in the Midwest.
Meh theres not much evidence for that really. Just do the math. Obama got 65m voters in 2012. Clinton got 65m voters in 2016. If there are about 12 million obama trump voters there at least 12 million Romney Clinton voters
Is there actual concrete evidence of these "Obama-Trump" voters truly existing beyond anecdotes? I get the feeling they really don't (at least not en masse) and Stephens and Brooks are just never-nudes shouting "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" and those dozens are comprised entirely of conservative writers that have been exiled from Fox News appearances.
Scroll up.
It's almost 10% of Obama voters.
That's a lot of votes. Especially since they were probably heavily localized in the Midwest.
Meh theres not much evidence for that really. Just do the math. Obama got 65m voters in 2012. Clinton got 65m voters in 2016. If there are about 12 million obama trump voters there at least 12 million Romney Clinton voters
Where they got the votes matters.
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
Is there actual concrete evidence of these "Obama-Trump" voters truly existing beyond anecdotes? I get the feeling they really don't (at least not en masse) and Stephens and Brooks are just never-nudes shouting "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" and those dozens are comprised entirely of conservative writers that have been exiled from Fox News appearances.
Scroll up.
It's almost 10% of Obama voters.
That's a lot of votes. Especially since they were probably heavily localized in the Midwest.
It was still dwarfed by the number of people who stayed home or voted 3rd party
Is there actual concrete evidence of these "Obama-Trump" voters truly existing beyond anecdotes? I get the feeling they really don't (at least not en masse) and Stephens and Brooks are just never-nudes shouting "There are dozens of us! Dozens!" and those dozens are comprised entirely of conservative writers that have been exiled from Fox News appearances.
Thinking about the change from 2016 to 2018, it is clear that both mobilization and persuasion were critically important in producing this scale of victory for Democrats. When it comes to turnout, the composition of the electorate roughly “broke even” with 2016, much different than the past two midterms. But “breaking even” doesn’t explain the amount and geography of gains that Democrats saw. A large portion of gains came from people who voted in both elections, switching from supporting Trump in 2016 to supporting Democrats in 2018. We show some of the math behind this, including how that conclusion changes in different areas of the country.
In 2016, political dynamics shifted, with a substantial number of Obama-Trump voters and Romney-Clinton voters. Both groups moved towards the middle, with “historical” Democrats voting slightly more Republican (about a 10 point shift), and “historical” Republicans voting slightly more Democratic (again by about 10 points). In 2018, some of the Democrats appear to have shifted back, going from +70 in 2016 to +76 in 2018, while the historical Republican margin remains the same. Given the imprecise nature of these groupings — they are based on a conglomeration of historical data — it is difficult to read too much into these trends. But they do suggest that some Obama-Trump voters did bounce back to Democrats in 2018.
I'll see if I can dig up a 2016 analysis anywhere for more specifics on that.
But basically, yeah, it happened and it was substantial as such things go. I believe it was also important geographically because of where those shifts occured, which is why the top-line numbers aren't that useful.
Wapo's Glenn Kessler, their "fact checker" has been on some absolutely wild shit about Sanders for a while now. This from the debate the other night:
But people in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful.
I'd consider myself a part of the "ordinary voter" now-a-days. As i do feel like the political ideals i supported so vehemently in the late 90's early 00's has effectively left me behind as well.
I know that doesn't make me super popular on these forums, but it's true. I'll openly vote for anyone against Trump. However, i will not be voting for far left reaching candidates in the primaries. I do want a moderate, and here in farm country that's pretty par for the course. (in my experience anyhow)
I apologize if this opens up a can of worms. I hope we can all be respectful here.
What's sorts of values or policies do you consider "far-left"?
Medicare4All (at least as laid out in Bernie's plan {full disclosure i voted for Bernie in the 16 primaries}), FREE College, and raising the minimum wage too high. Transgender competition in female sports.
I certainly support the IDEALS of these, but almost all of these are "a bridge too far" for me. Myself, along with a lot of the late 30s/early 40s voters i've come in contact with, might even think some of these things are good "in spirit" but -speaking for myself- see them as far too disruptive and damaging to implement in the current American state.
Example, Illinois past a $15/hour minimum wage. Which certainly makes sense in Chicago. But, there is a whole state attached to Chicago that it DOES NOT WORK IN. When it takes full effect my small business (paintball field) alone will have to cut employees, and i know there are a number of other small businesses who are in danger of the same. A lot of which are usually staffed by part timers, college kids, or high school teenagers working on the weekend. Just "boots on the ground" here, but in order to not cut staff we'd 100% have to raise prices. I was with the Democrats that minimum wage needed increasing, right up until they increased it so high it will absolutely harm small businesses. An $11 an hour minimum wage for down state would have been perfect.
Public Option? I'm 100% on board. Medicare for all? Cant do it. (personal opinion) it cant be done in this country in the current state we are in.
College 100% needs to be cheaper (seriously wtf is with the costs?) but i dont agree free.
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
I think the left has a great opportunity to snag a TON of midwest voters that are usually moderate republican so long as they dont try and force far left ideas.
Its worth pointing out that none of those things are particularly far left in other comparable nations and while they might be nice places to live, idk about utopia
Wapo's Glenn Kessler, their "fact checker" has been on some absolutely wild shit about Sanders for a while now. This from the debate the other night:
But people in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful.
If you are very conservative, a progressive tax would be “far left”
I suspect to most of this board, Sanders and Warren are further left than any major candidate for president in our lifetimes, but that is not a bad thing
I also suspect you would need to veer into full-blown communism for much of this board to be uncomfortable with any leftward movement
But if you look at it from a global perspective instead of one that has roots in American exceptionalism, no Democratic candidate is further left than slightly left of center
Their proposals are not significantly out of the norm from things many nations already do
They are only considered radical because we have been center-far right for our entire lives
So the argument is that those people are even poorer than Sanders was giving the impression of, so his point is even stronger?
Idgi
Kessler is a centrist editorializing against leftist causes under the guise of fact checking.
He's basically arguing that because so much of the bottom 50% have no wealth, it's an unfair comparison. "Of course the wealthiest person in the US has more money then so many people, they all have 0 wealth! All those wealthless people are just inflating the numbers on one side!"
It's not even technically correct, it's just stupid op-ed writing pretending to be fact checking.
Ninjeff, Sanders backed all those things in 2016 when you supported him, what changed?
Short answer put as delicately as i can (because we simply cannot have full conversation about this online, and because how you read it will inevitably be tainted by the fact that you dont know me. So you'll read it in the least altruistic way possible. That isnt a slight on you or anyone else, its just the nature of online discussion)
But the answer is I no longer trust the leftward movement to stop at -what i feel- is a reasonable outcome. Instead, i feel like they are just as caught up in "winning" as the right and far to addicted to the fight. I no longer trust many people on the left to be the party of logic and reason the way i did 4 years ago.
I was 100% totally and amazingly on board with Obama. He was exactly the type of Democrat I support. I thought Bernie might only pull slightly more to the left at the time, but now i see that -for me- he is too interested in smashing the system than making it better.
If you are very conservative, a progressive tax would be “far left”
I suspect to most of this board, Sanders and Warren are further left than any major candidate for president in our lifetimes, but that is not a bad thing
I also suspect you would need to veer into full-blown communism for much of this board to be uncomfortable with any leftward movement
But if you look at it from a global perspective instead of one that has roots in American exceptionalism, no Democratic candidate is further left than slightly left of center
Their proposals are not significantly out of the norm from things many nations already do
They are only considered radical because we have been center-far right for our entire lives
While that is true, they certainly have a fair share of issues, AND a lot of it was "rebuilt" in the shadow of WW2, when they had no choice but to rebuild. We are too far entrenched to make massive disruptive changes. We can get to a better place with slow deliberate choices and a gentle but constant coarse correction. Additionally, we are massive in both size and scope so we will face far different challenges when enacting things like healthcare reform.
now, there ARE some things that i think need to full power and might of the United States exceptionalism thrown behind them. Like Green Energy. I'm on board with Warren there. We need to be the best. The fastest, the smartest and leaders of the rest of teh world there.
We put a goddamn human on a different celestial body not once, not twice, but so many times we got bored and stopped.
If you are very conservative, a progressive tax would be “far left”
I suspect to most of this board, Sanders and Warren are further left than any major candidate for president in our lifetimes, but that is not a bad thing
I also suspect you would need to veer into full-blown communism for much of this board to be uncomfortable with any leftward movement
But if you look at it from a global perspective instead of one that has roots in American exceptionalism, no Democratic candidate is further left than slightly left of center
Their proposals are not significantly out of the norm from things many nations already do
They are only considered radical because we have been center-far right for our entire lives
While that is true, they certainly have a fair share of issues, AND a lot of it was "rebuilt" in the shadow of WW2, when they had no choice but to rebuild. We are too far entrenched to make massive disruptive changes. We can get to a better place with slow deliberate choices and a gentle but constant coarse correction. Additionally, we are massive in both size and scope so we will face far different challenges when enacting things like healthcare reform.
now, there ARE some things that i think need to full power and might of the United States exceptionalism thrown behind them. Like Green Energy. I'm on board with Warren there. We need to be the best. The fastest, the smartest and leaders of the rest of teh world there.
We put a goddamn human on a different celestial body not once, not twice, but so many times we got bored and stopped.
No excuse not to be the best here.
I understand the tension here.
I will say that this is actually a misstatement of history especially the developing of UHC around the Western world. Especially in places with similar for profit systems which have swapped in the last few decades like Switzerland and the Netherlands. Both of which changed there systems well post WW2.
Radical reforms to systems, such as developing a medicare for all, has been done successfully in recent times in countries with entrenched for profit systems.
Already about 1/3rd of the US pop is in a government health program.
This by the way doesn't include IHS, the military, or the VA which are also large government run health programs. In this area the US does run programs already as large or larger than most countries. And while they aren't perfect at least folks don't go bankrupt using them most of the time.
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Remember how we were arguing that Bernie could not particularly articulate why he was distinct from Warren beyond saying he was a socialist? Remember how interminable that was? It's because we don't really have a far left with any political power in this country. New Deal Democrats are not particularly far left, but the popularity explosion is encouraging.
I would argue that the a lot of the positions held by the Dems are closer to a new version of the war on poverty or the New Deal. Both were huge overhauls of the US socially and economically.
+3
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Ninjeff I was mostly with you until this paragraph
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering
It is our responsibility to educate Midwestern voters about these issues, not pander to bigotry.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Ninjeff I was mostly with you until this paragraph
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering
It is our responsibility to educate Midwestern voters about these issues, not pander to bigotry.
Which works better if you're slightly less condescending about it.
+5
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I was trying to be non-hostile and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry if that came across as condescension.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
"Identity politics" as a concept is like 60 years old and was coined by black feminists.
Identity politics just is politics. The GOP is all about identity politics. It's just that said identity is a specific american conception of white identity.
+34
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"Identity politics" as a concept is like 60 years old and was coined by black feminists.
Identity politics just is politics. The GOP is all about identity politics. It's just that said identity is a specific american conception of white identity.
Democrats don't complain about identity politics, because they tend to realize identity is important.
+1
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
Ninjeff I was mostly with you until this paragraph
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
Both of these things existed before any political group decided to cop-opt them for messaging purposes. I've seen everyone from all sides of the political spectrum use them. The former in particular is used in the same way that Dunning-Kruger is used by people to denote stupidity when it means nothing of the sort. The latter has existed for literally decades.
"Identity politics" as a concept is like 60 years old and was coined by black feminists.
Identity politics just is politics. The GOP is all about identity politics. It's just that said identity is a specific american conception of white identity.
Democrats don't complain about identity politics, because they tend to realize identity is important.
The GOP does, too. That's why they spend so much time talking about white, straight, Christianity.
+15
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Ok I see where I made a mistake.
I meant to write “framing those concepts as negative is a right wing talking point”
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Ninjeff I was mostly with you until this paragraph
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering
It is our responsibility to educate Midwestern voters about these issues, not pander to bigotry.
Which works better if you're slightly less condescending about it.
I'm not sure there's a better way. It's like saying you used to take vaccines but now you think they are very dumb. It means you didn't understand what vaccines were for in the first place so any post-hoc analysis is still like ???? re: what actual politics are. Voted for Bernie but doesn't want a virtue signal race with McCarthyism? That's major low information voting.
Ninjeff I was mostly with you until this paragraph
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering
It is our responsibility to educate Midwestern voters about these issues, not pander to bigotry.
Which works better if you're slightly less condescending about it.
I'm not sure there's a better way. It's like saying you used to take vaccines but now you think they are very dumb. It means you didn't understand what vaccines were for in the first place so any post-hoc analysis is still like ???? re: what actual politics are. Voted for Bernie but doesn't want a virtue signal race with McCarthyism? That's major low information voting.
To put this even more thread appropriate: this is why trying to understand Obama-Trump voters will never seem particularly fruitful. If someone voted for Obama and then Trump, they probably have some incredibly fluid concepts of what politics mean for them or have no concept of what politics historically represent. We are far better encouraging base turnout and fighting voter fatigue and voter apathy than dealing with whatever labyrinthine set of requirements lies in the mysterious minds of these voters.
Ninjeff I was mostly with you until this paragraph
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering
It is our responsibility to educate Midwestern voters about these issues, not pander to bigotry.
"And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering"
= "For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism."
I know you dont mean it that way. But this is what people in "the village of..." hear with that sentence:
"In case you didnt know, your opinion means you are a bigot and susceptible to right wing propaganda and fear tactics. Also, you cant think for yourself. Also Also, I must educate you, you poor simple sap"
Ninjeff I was mostly with you until this paragraph
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering
It is our responsibility to educate Midwestern voters about these issues, not pander to bigotry.
"And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering"
= "For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism."
I know you dont mean it that way. But this is what people in "the village of..." hear with that sentence:
"In case you didnt know, your opinion means you are a bigot and susceptible to right wing propaganda and fear tactics. Also, you cant think for yourself. Also Also, I must educate you, you poor simple sap"
What do you want out of conversing and talking to others about topics then?
Posts
Macomb County, MI was a significant one. Mostly in "blue wall" states. NYT had a piece about it, and a retrospective from voters who now regret it.
I know that doesn't make me super popular on these forums, but it's true. I'll openly vote for anyone against Trump. However, i will not be voting for far left reaching candidates in the primaries. I do want a moderate, and here in farm country that's pretty par for the course. (in my experience anyhow)
It's almost 10% of Obama voters.
That's a lot of votes. Especially since they were probably heavily localized in the Midwest.
I apologize if this opens up a can of worms. I hope we can all be respectful here.
What's sorts of values or policies do you consider "far-left"?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Meh theres not much evidence for that really. Just do the math. Obama got 65m voters in 2012. Clinton got 65m voters in 2016. If there are about 12 million obama trump voters there at least 12 million Romney Clinton voters
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Where they got the votes matters.
It was still dwarfed by the number of people who stayed home or voted 3rd party
Catalist is the gold-standard for this kind of analysis from anything I've ever heard. This is them on 2018:
https://medium.com/@yghitza_48326/revisiting-what-happened-in-the-2018-election-c532feb51c0
Not quite, perhaps, what you are looking for but there's a bunch in there about the question you are asking in general.
The overall point is this:
I'll see if I can dig up a 2016 analysis anywhere for more specifics on that.
But basically, yeah, it happened and it was substantial as such things go. I believe it was also important geographically because of where those shifts occured, which is why the top-line numbers aren't that useful.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/28/fact-checking-first-democratic-debate-night/?utm_term=.d205ab695fb4
Medicare4All (at least as laid out in Bernie's plan {full disclosure i voted for Bernie in the 16 primaries}), FREE College, and raising the minimum wage too high. Transgender competition in female sports.
I certainly support the IDEALS of these, but almost all of these are "a bridge too far" for me. Myself, along with a lot of the late 30s/early 40s voters i've come in contact with, might even think some of these things are good "in spirit" but -speaking for myself- see them as far too disruptive and damaging to implement in the current American state.
Example, Illinois past a $15/hour minimum wage. Which certainly makes sense in Chicago. But, there is a whole state attached to Chicago that it DOES NOT WORK IN. When it takes full effect my small business (paintball field) alone will have to cut employees, and i know there are a number of other small businesses who are in danger of the same. A lot of which are usually staffed by part timers, college kids, or high school teenagers working on the weekend. Just "boots on the ground" here, but in order to not cut staff we'd 100% have to raise prices. I was with the Democrats that minimum wage needed increasing, right up until they increased it so high it will absolutely harm small businesses. An $11 an hour minimum wage for down state would have been perfect.
Public Option? I'm 100% on board. Medicare for all? Cant do it. (personal opinion) it cant be done in this country in the current state we are in.
College 100% needs to be cheaper (seriously wtf is with the costs?) but i dont agree free.
I only type those things as an example. And -of course- everyone is different. For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism. Identity politics bother me as well. (in so far as they become the sole metric for movement)
For most of the stuff i think I'm still in the "progressive camp" (fix health care industry, pro choice, help the poor rise up to be independent, dont fight fucking wars, and let anyone love any other consenting adult however they want) but a large portion of the "far left" is trying to achieve some utopia that -in my opinion- not only doesnt exist, but will crash the middle class even further than it is if implemented.
I think the left has a great opportunity to snag a TON of midwest voters that are usually moderate republican so long as they dont try and force far left ideas.
Is this the guy who said that "millions" to describe 8 million people is "misleading?"
Fake edit: yes, yes it is.
(Parker Molloy is a trans activist and writer.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Idgi
Kessler is a centrist editorializing against leftist causes under the guise of fact checking.
If you are very conservative, a progressive tax would be “far left”
I suspect to most of this board, Sanders and Warren are further left than any major candidate for president in our lifetimes, but that is not a bad thing
I also suspect you would need to veer into full-blown communism for much of this board to be uncomfortable with any leftward movement
But if you look at it from a global perspective instead of one that has roots in American exceptionalism, no Democratic candidate is further left than slightly left of center
Their proposals are not significantly out of the norm from things many nations already do
They are only considered radical because we have been center-far right for our entire lives
He's basically arguing that because so much of the bottom 50% have no wealth, it's an unfair comparison. "Of course the wealthiest person in the US has more money then so many people, they all have 0 wealth! All those wealthless people are just inflating the numbers on one side!"
It's not even technically correct, it's just stupid op-ed writing pretending to be fact checking.
Short answer put as delicately as i can (because we simply cannot have full conversation about this online, and because how you read it will inevitably be tainted by the fact that you dont know me. So you'll read it in the least altruistic way possible. That isnt a slight on you or anyone else, its just the nature of online discussion)
But the answer is I no longer trust the leftward movement to stop at -what i feel- is a reasonable outcome. Instead, i feel like they are just as caught up in "winning" as the right and far to addicted to the fight. I no longer trust many people on the left to be the party of logic and reason the way i did 4 years ago.
I was 100% totally and amazingly on board with Obama. He was exactly the type of Democrat I support. I thought Bernie might only pull slightly more to the left at the time, but now i see that -for me- he is too interested in smashing the system than making it better.
Personal opinion with grace, of course.
While that is true, they certainly have a fair share of issues, AND a lot of it was "rebuilt" in the shadow of WW2, when they had no choice but to rebuild. We are too far entrenched to make massive disruptive changes. We can get to a better place with slow deliberate choices and a gentle but constant coarse correction. Additionally, we are massive in both size and scope so we will face far different challenges when enacting things like healthcare reform.
now, there ARE some things that i think need to full power and might of the United States exceptionalism thrown behind them. Like Green Energy. I'm on board with Warren there. We need to be the best. The fastest, the smartest and leaders of the rest of teh world there.
We put a goddamn human on a different celestial body not once, not twice, but so many times we got bored and stopped.
No excuse not to be the best here.
I understand the tension here.
I will say that this is actually a misstatement of history especially the developing of UHC around the Western world. Especially in places with similar for profit systems which have swapped in the last few decades like Switzerland and the Netherlands. Both of which changed there systems well post WW2.
Radical reforms to systems, such as developing a medicare for all, has been done successfully in recent times in countries with entrenched for profit systems.
The US on size thing is an interesting argument. And one I know is brought up and I get as someone who studies demographics for a living. And it does produce complications but at the same time the US's economy is much larger than even our closest competitor, China. And a lot could be moved towards reducing health cost instead of funneling into there. But we for a fact run a successful government run UHC already for 58 million people already. Medicare is already a rather large part of the market and growing with the rise Boomers. It is expanding that across more age groups, as it was designed for actually, that is just finishing the original idea. And technically state run 77 million are medicaid.
Medicare numbers from CMS: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/CMSProgramStatistics/2017/Downloads/MDCR_ENROLL_AB/2017_CPS_MDCR_ENROLL_AB_1.pdf
Medicaid numbers from CMS:https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/report-highlights/index.html
Already about 1/3rd of the US pop is in a government health program.
This by the way doesn't include IHS, the military, or the VA which are also large government run health programs. In this area the US does run programs already as large or larger than most countries. And while they aren't perfect at least folks don't go bankrupt using them most of the time.
“Virtue signaling” and “identity politics” are rightwing buzzwords and have no place in a Democratic primary
And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering
It is our responsibility to educate Midwestern voters about these issues, not pander to bigotry.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Which works better if you're slightly less condescending about it.
Sorry if that came across as condescension.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Identity politics just is politics. The GOP is all about identity politics. It's just that said identity is a specific american conception of white identity.
Democrats don't complain about identity politics, because they tend to realize identity is important.
Both of these things existed before any political group decided to cop-opt them for messaging purposes. I've seen everyone from all sides of the political spectrum use them. The former in particular is used in the same way that Dunning-Kruger is used by people to denote stupidity when it means nothing of the sort. The latter has existed for literally decades.
The GOP does, too. That's why they spend so much time talking about white, straight, Christianity.
I meant to write “framing those concepts as negative is a right wing talking point”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
pleasepaypreacher.net
Criticizing the DNC's overeliance on idPol is a left wing talking point too.
It's also a way to demonize and dismiss empathy for others, which is definitely a right wing thing.
"And I’m not sure you realize this, but your little aside about “transgender competition in female sports” is either parroting TERF rhetoric or simple right wing scaremongering"
= "For me its the virtue signal race that smells like flip side McCarthyism."
I know you dont mean it that way. But this is what people in "the village of..." hear with that sentence:
"In case you didnt know, your opinion means you are a bigot and susceptible to right wing propaganda and fear tactics. Also, you cant think for yourself. Also Also, I must educate you, you poor simple sap"