As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Sorry for [Party] Rocking

Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT.normal (not weird)Registered User regular
Elections are temporary, disappointment is eternal.

Lets talk about the ways in which "our" parties have fucked up, enriched themselves, let us down, or anything related that is kinda funny.

wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
DJ Eebs on
DarkPrimusFANTOMASHacksawLucedesEddy
«13456733

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?

    Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*

    EDIT: Actually correction, it starts in 1992. Then starts the sharp plummets in ‘96.
    EDIT: Hmm, I wonder what happened between 1992 and 1996 that could precipitate that drop and eventual decades long downward trend
    EDIT: *
    Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).

    Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980

    I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.

    You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.

    If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support

    Since you might have missed the post directly in front of the one I am quoting.

    No I did not read the graph wrong. The graph lied to you. Almost certainly intentionally by starting in 1980, right after union support for Dems cratered. And also by omitting that in 1992 and 1996 there was a Republican splitting of the vote because of Perot. And so there wasn’t actually a downward slope as the graph said.

    Here is the actual relevant information.

    Union.jpg

    Note how all the things I am saying show up in the graph when the graph is not designed to lie.
    I see an initial shift after the civil rights movement followed by a recovery to very nearly pre civil rights numbers and then a second longer and deeper collapse after neo liberal economics were fully entrenched.

    This chart undermines your claim.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    First, please go read Rick Pearlstein. At least Nixonland. Backlash to CRA/VRA and most especially desegregation in schools fueled the conservative movement. Much like backlash to America electing a black president is the fuel for our current insanity. The thing we fought a civil war over is the most important issue. Always has been always will be.

    Here's an obvious example from my neck of the woods. Michigan is historically the blue collar industrial state. Even more so 50 years ago before industry was completely hollowed out. You know who won the 1972 Democratic primary in this state? George fucking Wallace. With 51% of the vote. Then in the general, the two metro Detroit counties (Oakland and Macomb) where all the white autoworkers from Detroit were fleeing to? 64-34 Nixon and 63-35 Nixon. Four years earlier in a 7 point win, Humphrey won Macomb and lost Oakland by 1. In 1964, LBJ won the state by 33 and won Oakland by 23 and Macomb by 49. They split for JFK/Nixon. Dems didn't win Oakland County back until Clinton's re-elect against a dud candidate. And didn't win a majority in Oakland until 2008. It's not subtle.

    Again, no one is denying the conservative movement was fueled by backlash against black civil rights.

    We are arguing you can’t just answer “why don’t unions support democrats anymore” with “well racism,” because it’s a shallow ass response that undermines non-white Union Members and whitewashes the Democratic party’s repeated penchant for dabbling in crippling systemic racism when leadership thinks that will get the white vote back home

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Styrofoam SammichTefDee KaeYamiB.MatevHacksawBandableDamnItCohaagen
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    @enlightenedbum bringing it to the new thread and noting so in a separate post so that way no one starts batsignalljng you over and over if/when quoting the above

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    First you have to separate unions and union members. Two different things. The unions still almost always support Democrats and always have. Like Trumka always spoke at the DNC and shit.

    But membership was and is a different story. The irony is the people that Democrats were trying to appeal to with their sometimes playing footsie with racism (especially pre-'08) was the white union members who left the party in the post-Civil Rights era. That's literally who Reagan Democrats were and who the political elite think of when they think about the working class. It's white union members in the Midwest, and how Democrats do with them is an absolute obsession among political elites.

    The only vaguely convincing argument is that Taft-Hartley's bipartisan support created a hole for racism to come in, but given the time lag it's just not persuasive to me. It's much simpler to imagine that the primary force behind Americans' political identities is the thing that's dominated our politics at literally every time the two parties didn't agree to sweep it under the rug and that we fought a Civil War over. Race is the most important thing.

    Any leftist analysis of American politics has to start with race before it even thinks about class. Which is what Critical Race Theory is, interestingly. The GOP knows what's up and wants to destroy that before it becomes a useful tool. Right now a lot of its scholarship is a little too nihilistic to be workable as a framework to actually solve things, but it's getting there and they know it.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    jmcdonaldMarathonNobeardBigJoeMzagdrobLord_AsmodeusiTunesIsEvilDoctorArchStabbity StyleMillsarukunTheBlackWindQanamilshrykeJusticeforPluto
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?

    Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*

    EDIT: Actually correction, it starts in 1992. Then starts the sharp plummets in ‘96.
    EDIT: Hmm, I wonder what happened between 1992 and 1996 that could precipitate that drop and eventual decades long downward trend
    EDIT: *
    Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).

    Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980

    I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.

    You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.

    If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support

    Since you might have missed the post directly in front of the one I am quoting.

    No I did not read the graph wrong. The graph lied to you. Almost certainly intentionally by starting in 1980, right after union support for Dems cratered. And also by omitting that in 1992 and 1996 there was a Republican splitting of the vote because of Perot. And so there wasn’t actually a downward slope as the graph said.

    Here is the actual relevant information.

    Union.jpg

    Note how all the things I am saying show up in the graph when the graph is not designed to lie.
    I see an initial shift after the civil rights movement followed by a recovery to very nearly pre civil rights numbers and then a second longer and deeper collapse after neo liberal economics were fully entrenched.

    This chart undermines your claim.

    It is not nearly that simple, because the membership of unions changed in those times. The old private sector industrial unions lost membership and sway and now the majority of union membership is in the service sector unions. And given government jobs were (and are) the pathway to the middle class for people of color (especially black people, especially the post office, which is why the GOP has been trying to murder it), those memberships were WAY less white. Which conflates the union membership numbers with the racial numbers and we know how that vote goes.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    jmcdonaldzagdrobLord_AsmodeusButtersshryke
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?

    Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*

    EDIT: Actually correction, it starts in 1992. Then starts the sharp plummets in ‘96.
    EDIT: Hmm, I wonder what happened between 1992 and 1996 that could precipitate that drop and eventual decades long downward trend
    EDIT: *
    Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).

    Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980

    I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.

    You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.

    If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support

    Since you might have missed the post directly in front of the one I am quoting.

    No I did not read the graph wrong. The graph lied to you. Almost certainly intentionally by starting in 1980, right after union support for Dems cratered. And also by omitting that in 1992 and 1996 there was a Republican splitting of the vote because of Perot. And so there wasn’t actually a downward slope as the graph said.

    Here is the actual relevant information.

    Union.jpg

    Note how all the things I am saying show up in the graph when the graph is not designed to lie.
    I see an initial shift after the civil rights movement followed by a recovery to very nearly pre civil rights numbers and then a second longer and deeper collapse after neo liberal economics were fully entrenched.

    This chart undermines your claim.

    It is not nearly that simple, because the membership of unions changed in those times. The old private sector industrial unions lost membership and sway and now the majority of union membership is in the service sector unions. And given government jobs were (and are) the pathway to the middle class for people of color (especially black people, especially the post office, which is why the GOP has been trying to murder it), those memberships were WAY less white. Which conflates the union membership numbers with the racial numbers and we know how that vote goes.

    Yes? But this doesnt mean putting all the blame for collapsing Dem support among unions down to the civil rights backlash a good explanation, and thats what people have been taking issue with. Dem support among union members recovered from that loss. They started losing again after Clinton.

    I mean ask old union holdouts what happened. Youll hear a lot about NAFTA and not much about the CRA.

    @Solar I noticed Labour tripped and fell onto some decent poll numbers. Think theyll do anything with a win?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?

    Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*

    EDIT: Actually correction, it starts in 1992. Then starts the sharp plummets in ‘96.
    EDIT: Hmm, I wonder what happened between 1992 and 1996 that could precipitate that drop and eventual decades long downward trend
    EDIT: *
    Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).

    Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980

    I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.

    You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.

    If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support

    Since you might have missed the post directly in front of the one I am quoting.

    No I did not read the graph wrong. The graph lied to you. Almost certainly intentionally by starting in 1980, right after union support for Dems cratered. And also by omitting that in 1992 and 1996 there was a Republican splitting of the vote because of Perot. And so there wasn’t actually a downward slope as the graph said.

    Here is the actual relevant information.

    Union.jpg

    Note how all the things I am saying show up in the graph when the graph is not designed to lie.
    I see an initial shift after the civil rights movement followed by a recovery to very nearly pre civil rights numbers and then a second longer and deeper collapse after neo liberal economics were fully entrenched.

    This chart undermines your claim.

    Lolwhut? Your argument is that Clinton and the DLC, in the 80s caused Union support to crash… but Union support crashes before that in 1980 (which we might note that is a long time after the civil rights movement but not after the souther strategy and… confirms to my thesis… in both cases). Then the “democratic abandonment” appears to increase democratic support by Unions… with only a very minor decrease in support (enough to be like… fucking error) until trump…

    wbBv3fj.png
    adytumLord_AsmodeusElvenshae
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    I’m calling shenanigans on the thread title.

    There is no way on Earth Sammich is sorry for anything political.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
    NobeardMan in the MistszagdrobStabbity StyleGaddezButtersElvenshaeLucedesHappylilElfBlameless Cleric
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?

    Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*

    EDIT: Actually correction, it starts in 1992. Then starts the sharp plummets in ‘96.
    EDIT: Hmm, I wonder what happened between 1992 and 1996 that could precipitate that drop and eventual decades long downward trend
    EDIT: *
    Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).

    Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980

    I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.

    You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.

    If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support

    Since you might have missed the post directly in front of the one I am quoting.

    No I did not read the graph wrong. The graph lied to you. Almost certainly intentionally by starting in 1980, right after union support for Dems cratered. And also by omitting that in 1992 and 1996 there was a Republican splitting of the vote because of Perot. And so there wasn’t actually a downward slope as the graph said.

    Here is the actual relevant information.

    Union.jpg

    Note how all the things I am saying show up in the graph when the graph is not designed to lie.
    I see an initial shift after the civil rights movement followed by a recovery to very nearly pre civil rights numbers and then a second longer and deeper collapse after neo liberal economics were fully entrenched.

    This chart undermines your claim.

    Lolwhut? Your argument is that Clinton and the DLC, in the 80s caused Union support to crash… but Union support crashes before that in 1980 (which we might note that is a long time after the civil rights movement but not after the souther strategy and… confirms to my thesis… in both cases). Then the “democratic abandonment” appears to increase democratic support by Unions… with only a very minor decrease in support (enough to be like… fucking error) until trump…

    To re-state from the previous Party thread:
    Union households dropped from 39 percent to 26 percent between 1976 and 1980. There were a number of aggressively anti-union measures passed during the Carter administration which would both account for a backlash against his re-election and also decrease the numbers of overall union votes.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Because they were different union members! The population changed. Democrats didn't get the old voters back. They lost those voters who used to be in private sector unions and gained members in public sector unions, who were much more likely to vote for Democrats because they were much less white. The whiteness is what was driving those decisions!

    Also again a ton of missing context where you're just looking at the gap at the bottom and not thinking about what happened.

    Union members who felt left behind (again, mostly white former Democrats) were more likely to go to Perot. That's literally why the gap changed. Clinton did slightly better in 1996 because he did slightly better with everyone in 1996 because the economy was superficially fucking great, everyone had a ton of money, they were happy, and Bob Dole was a shitty candidate who the GOP sacrificed to the bad environment. You'll note the Perot union members basically returned to the GOP in 2000. The drop in the Democratic vote share starts in 2012 and plummets in 2016. When there are all kinds of identity factors going on, obviously.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    edited April 20
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Why did Dems ever abandon unions anyway? Labor seems like it'd be real useful to you know, have on your side right now

    Other way around. A lot of the big unions were really racist and stuff like the Civil Rights Act and Southern Strategy got them voting for Reagan.

    I would love to read your sources about this.

    Reagan was a big proponent of unions back when he was an actor (hell, he was SAG president for a time), but despite the pretty words he kept saying about unions he was, in no uncertain terms, a union-buster as President.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot
    Shortly before noon, more than 400 construction workers, many of whom were building the World Trade Center, converged on the student rally at Federal Hall from four directions. Some construction workers carried U.S. flags and chanted "USA, All the way", and "America, love it or leave it". Anti-war protesters shouted, "Peace now." More than 800 office workers soon joined the construction workers' ranks. Hundreds more construction workers arrived around noon, as the lunch-time crowd and onlookers in the streets exceeded 20,000.[16][17] A thin and inadequate line of police, who were largely sympathetic to the workers' position, formed to separate the construction workers from the anti-war protesters. One spark might have been a protester, near the construction workers, who waved a Vietcong flag from the steps of Federal Hall.[18] At first, the construction workers only pushed but did not break through the police line. After several minutes, however, they broke through the police line and began chasing students through the streets. The workers attacked those who looked like hippies and beat them with their hard hats and other weapons, including tools and steel-toe boots. Victims and onlookers reported that the police stood by and did little.[19]

    Hundreds of construction workers and counter-protesters moved up Broadway, making their way to City Hall Park toward City Hall. They pushed their way to the top of the steps, singing City Hall as some chanted "Hey, hey, whattya say? We support the USA", while some held American flags, then attempted to gain entrance because they demanded the flag above City Hall be raised to full staff. Police on duty at City Hall, and reinforcement, were able to stop the men from getting inside. A few workers were asked to enter the building to calm tensions. A postal worker who was already inside went to the roof of city hall and raised the U.S. flag there to full mast. When one mayoral aide lowered the flag back down to half-mast, hundreds of construction workers stormed the area around City Hall, leading to melee like on Wall Street the hour prior. Deputy Mayor Richard Aurelio, fearing the building would be overrun by the mob, ordered city workers to raise the flag back to full mast.[20]

    [...]

    On Sunday, May 10, Nixon's Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman wrote in his diary, "The college demonstrators have overplayed their hands, evidence is the blue-collar group rising up against them, and [the] president can mobilize them".[33]

    Several thousand construction workers, longshoremen and white-collar workers protested against the Mayor on May 11, holding signs reading "impeach the Red Mayor"[34] and chanting "Lindsay is a bum".[35] They held another rally May 16, carrying signs calling the mayor a "rat", "commy rat" and "traitor".[36]

    [...]

    Brennan later organized significant labor union political support for Nixon in the 1972 election. Nixon appointed Brennan as his labor secretary after the election as a reward for his support and he was retained by President Gerald Ford into 1975, following Nixon's resignation.

    This seems more tied to tribalism or identity politics than the support for or against labor unions.

    Politicians using culture differences to turn what should be ostensible allies against each other is an old tactic, of course.

    Yes, race trumps class in America. Always has. A 19th century European analysis of society does not map well to our society, strangely enough.

    I been trying to come up with a good response but the intersectionality of race and class in America is kind of a deep well. The most I can confidently say is that the wealthy owner class care less (but not none at all) about race than they do about class and the wealth that defines their class.

    WRT current discussion in this thread, while much about The Left, both in general and espoused on this board, appeals very much to me, I think leftist tend to have a blind spot when it comes to racism. There’s a picture of a young Bernie Sanders being arrested at a civil rights rally and I don’t know why that wasn’t plastered all over the south in the last two elections. As much as it galls me to say it, there’s a lesson to be learned from Bill Clinton playing saxophone on Arsenio Hall.


    EDIT: I looked it up and Clinton’s GA prison visit and Arsenio hall appearance were only 3 months apart. Slick, indeed.

    Nobeard on
    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    Smrtnik
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Does anyone have decent numbers tracking demographics of US labor unions?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    That is a supremely disingenuous graph…. But it does imply that Clinton won back the unions… and it was t until trump that we lost them again? so how did he abandon them again?

    Goum that Downward trend starts in 1996, 20 years before Trump ran for president.*

    EDIT: Actually correction, it starts in 1992. Then starts the sharp plummets in ‘96.
    EDIT: Hmm, I wonder what happened between 1992 and 1996 that could precipitate that drop and eventual decades long downward trend
    EDIT: *
    Below we display exit poll results from every presidential race dating back to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980.[1] The figure shows the Democratic candidate advantage over the Republican candidate in the union household vote. In Reagan’s first victory, there was hardly any Democratic advantage: In 1980, Reagan managed 45% of the union household vote, compared to 48% for Jimmy Carter (the rest went largely to the 3rd party candidate in that race, John Anderson).

    Oh my god the graph starts in 1980… Jesus Christ you cannot compare to pre 1980 if the graph starts in 1980. The downward slide doesn’t “start in 1992” it recovered from cratering around 1980

    I feel like you are not reading this graph correctly.

    You will notice that there is a downward line, starting from 1992 and running to 1996. This begins a trend that continues downward up to the end of the graph, in 2016. At no point does the graph ever again reach the height of 1992. It makes a brief climb back up for 2008 with Obama’s campaign… before again crashing very much.

    If only we could figure out what happened after 1992 to cause a resurgent support for Democrats by unions to give way to a decades long downward trend regarding support

    Since you might have missed the post directly in front of the one I am quoting.

    No I did not read the graph wrong. The graph lied to you. Almost certainly intentionally by starting in 1980, right after union support for Dems cratered. And also by omitting that in 1992 and 1996 there was a Republican splitting of the vote because of Perot. And so there wasn’t actually a downward slope as the graph said.

    Here is the actual relevant information.

    Union.jpg

    Note how all the things I am saying show up in the graph when the graph is not designed to lie.
    I see an initial shift after the civil rights movement followed by a recovery to very nearly pre civil rights numbers and then a second longer and deeper collapse after neo liberal economics were fully entrenched.

    This chart undermines your claim.

    Lolwhut? Your argument is that Clinton and the DLC, in the 80s caused Union support to crash… but Union support crashes before that in 1980 (which we might note that is a long time after the civil rights movement but not after the souther strategy and… confirms to my thesis… in both cases). Then the “democratic abandonment” appears to increase democratic support by Unions… with only a very minor decrease in support (enough to be like… fucking error) until trump…

    To re-state from the previous Party thread:
    Union households dropped from 39 percent to 26 percent between 1976 and 1980. There were a number of aggressively anti-union measures passed during the Carter administration which would both account for a backlash against his re-election and also decrease the numbers of overall union votes.

    Yea I mentioned this in the previous thread. It’s probably still in the quote tree that sammich quoted

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Why did Dems ever abandon unions anyway? Labor seems like it'd be real useful to you know, have on your side right now

    Other way around. A lot of the big unions were really racist and stuff like the Civil Rights Act and Southern Strategy got them voting for Reagan.

    I would love to read your sources about this.

    Reagan was a big proponent of unions back when he was an actor (hell, he was SAG president for a time), but despite the pretty words he kept saying about unions he was, in no uncertain terms, a union-buster as President.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot
    Shortly before noon, more than 400 construction workers, many of whom were building the World Trade Center, converged on the student rally at Federal Hall from four directions. Some construction workers carried U.S. flags and chanted "USA, All the way", and "America, love it or leave it". Anti-war protesters shouted, "Peace now." More than 800 office workers soon joined the construction workers' ranks. Hundreds more construction workers arrived around noon, as the lunch-time crowd and onlookers in the streets exceeded 20,000.[16][17] A thin and inadequate line of police, who were largely sympathetic to the workers' position, formed to separate the construction workers from the anti-war protesters. One spark might have been a protester, near the construction workers, who waved a Vietcong flag from the steps of Federal Hall.[18] At first, the construction workers only pushed but did not break through the police line. After several minutes, however, they broke through the police line and began chasing students through the streets. The workers attacked those who looked like hippies and beat them with their hard hats and other weapons, including tools and steel-toe boots. Victims and onlookers reported that the police stood by and did little.[19]

    Hundreds of construction workers and counter-protesters moved up Broadway, making their way to City Hall Park toward City Hall. They pushed their way to the top of the steps, singing City Hall as some chanted "Hey, hey, whattya say? We support the USA", while some held American flags, then attempted to gain entrance because they demanded the flag above City Hall be raised to full staff. Police on duty at City Hall, and reinforcement, were able to stop the men from getting inside. A few workers were asked to enter the building to calm tensions. A postal worker who was already inside went to the roof of city hall and raised the U.S. flag there to full mast. When one mayoral aide lowered the flag back down to half-mast, hundreds of construction workers stormed the area around City Hall, leading to melee like on Wall Street the hour prior. Deputy Mayor Richard Aurelio, fearing the building would be overrun by the mob, ordered city workers to raise the flag back to full mast.[20]

    [...]

    On Sunday, May 10, Nixon's Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman wrote in his diary, "The college demonstrators have overplayed their hands, evidence is the blue-collar group rising up against them, and [the] president can mobilize them".[33]

    Several thousand construction workers, longshoremen and white-collar workers protested against the Mayor on May 11, holding signs reading "impeach the Red Mayor"[34] and chanting "Lindsay is a bum".[35] They held another rally May 16, carrying signs calling the mayor a "rat", "commy rat" and "traitor".[36]

    [...]

    Brennan later organized significant labor union political support for Nixon in the 1972 election. Nixon appointed Brennan as his labor secretary after the election as a reward for his support and he was retained by President Gerald Ford into 1975, following Nixon's resignation.

    This seems more tied to tribalism or identity politics than the support for or against labor unions.

    Politicians using culture differences to turn what should be ostensible allies against each other is an old tactic, of course.

    Yes, race trumps class in America. Always has. A 19th century European analysis of society does not map well to our society, strangely enough.

    I been trying to come up with a good response but the intersectionality of race and class in America is kind of a deep well. The most I can confidently say is that the wealthy owner class care less (but not none at all) about race than they do about class and the wealth that defines their class.

    WRT current discussion in this thread, while much about The Left, both in general and espoused on this board, appeals very much to me, I think leftist tend to have a blind spot when it comes to racism. There’s a picture of a young Bernie Sanders being arrested at a civil rights rally and I don’t know why that wasn’t plastered all over the south in the last two elections. As much as it galls me to say it, there’s a lesson to be learned from Bill Clinton playing saxophone on Arsenio Hall.

    For the big GOP donors, I don't agree. They have basically the same political attitude of plantation owners. So keeping workers in general but especially black workers down is the most important thing to them.

    For the big Democratic donors, yes. They care much more about preserving their wealth than anything else. This creates obvious problems.

    The civil rights arrest was the main thing Bernie had to say about race in 2016, which was the problem. Everything about solving the problems of race in 21st century America got merged in with the class arguments, which doesn't work. He was MUCH better about this in 2020, but it was too late for him branding wise.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    NobeardLabelzagdrobLord_AsmodeusStabbity StyleMillQanamil
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    First you have to separate unions and union members. Two different things. The unions still almost always support Democrats and always have. Like Trumka always spoke at the DNC and shit.

    But membership was and is a different story. The irony is the people that Democrats were trying to appeal to with their sometimes playing footsie with racism (especially pre-'08) was the white union members who left the party in the post-Civil Rights era. That's literally who Reagan Democrats were and who the political elite think of when they think about the working class. It's white union members in the Midwest, and how Democrats do with them is an absolute obsession among political elites.

    The only vaguely convincing argument is that Taft-Hartley's bipartisan support created a hole for racism to come in, but given the time lag it's just not persuasive to me. It's much simpler to imagine that the primary force behind Americans' political identities is the thing that's dominated our politics at literally every time the two parties didn't agree to sweep it under the rug and that we fought a Civil War over. Race is the most important thing.

    Any leftist analysis of American politics has to start with race before it even thinks about class. Which is what Critical Race Theory is, interestingly. The GOP knows what's up and wants to destroy that before it becomes a useful tool. Right now a lot of its scholarship is a little too nihilistic to be workable as a framework to actually solve things, but it's getting there and they know it.

    The problem here though is that if it was just Racism at play, then the Democratic efforts to regain those lost voters should have worked and then stuck though. And it didn’t. The 90s were replete with the Democrats trying to court whites so racist they’d call a policeman on their own shadows, full of policy decisions to crack down on crime that of course were just methods to throw the weight of the carceral state against America’s black populace and yet… they didn’t come back. Like the charts posted indicate, they start coming back after Reagan fucks the unions in the 80s, and then around the time NAFTA passes and capital realizes it can start exploiting foreign labor to meet US consumer demand without those arduous things like “worker rights” or “living wages,” you see that support slipping off again despite, again, explicitly anti-black crime policy.

    So either then the answer is “well, the democrats just weren’t racist enough to get the working class back,” or we have to acknowledge that the DLC’s pursuit of neoliberal economic policy does have some play in the divide between the party and the working class, particularly given that, again, the working class is not a white monolith and is heavily made up of BIPOC and other minority groups in addition to straight white cis folks (to note as well: according to EPI in a decade we are on trend to a majority POC working class; Latino, Black and Asian American seems to be the general breakdown expected on current trends).


    I’d also disagree with the idea that the reason the GOP is attacking critical race theory is because they see it’s utility; we know this because the guy who started the moral panic over to chose it because, to him, it was a scary to reactionaries academic phrase that he realized that the GOP and the conservative movement could attach any and every boogeyman they wanted to to it:
    We have successfully frozen their brand—"critical race theory"—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.

    Via the New Yorker:
    As Rufo eventually came to see it, conservatives engaged in the culture war had been fighting against the same progressive racial ideology since late in the Obama years, without ever being able to describe it effectively. “We’ve needed new language for these issues,” Rufo told me, when I first wrote to him, late in May. “ ‘Political correctness’ is a dated term and, more importantly, doesn’t apply anymore. It’s not that elites are enforcing a set of manners and cultural limits, they’re seeking to reengineer the foundation of human psychology and social institutions through the new politics of race, It’s much more invasive than mere ‘correctness,’ which is a mechanism of social control, but not the heart of what’s happening. The other frames are wrong, too: ‘cancel culture’ is a vacuous term and doesn’t translate into a political program; ‘woke’ is a good epithet, but it’s too broad, too terminal, too easily brushed aside. ‘Critical race theory’ is the perfect villain,” Rufo wrote.

    He thought that the phrase was a better description of what conservatives were opposing, but it also seemed like a promising political weapon. “Its connotations are all negative to most middle-class Americans, including racial minorities, who see the world as ‘creative’ rather than ‘critical,’ ‘individual’ rather than ‘racial,’ ‘practical’ rather than ‘theoretical.’ Strung together, the phrase ‘critical race theory’ connotes hostile, academic, divisive, race-obsessed, poisonous, elitist, anti-American.” Most perfect of all, Rufo continued, critical race theory is not “an externally applied pejorative.” Instead, “it’s the label the critical race theorists chose themselves.”

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

    They don’t know what CRT actually is; they just stole a term and projected their own bullshit paranoia onto it, just like they did with political correctness and woke. It’s what they do.

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    Man in the MistselectricitylikesmeTefDarkPrimusDee Kaedispatch.oBloodsheedMatevButtersHacksawHefflingDamnItCohaagen
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Why did Dems ever abandon unions anyway? Labor seems like it'd be real useful to you know, have on your side right now

    Other way around. A lot of the big unions were really racist and stuff like the Civil Rights Act and Southern Strategy got them voting for Reagan.

    I would love to read your sources about this.

    Reagan was a big proponent of unions back when he was an actor (hell, he was SAG president for a time), but despite the pretty words he kept saying about unions he was, in no uncertain terms, a union-buster as President.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Hat_Riot
    Shortly before noon, more than 400 construction workers, many of whom were building the World Trade Center, converged on the student rally at Federal Hall from four directions. Some construction workers carried U.S. flags and chanted "USA, All the way", and "America, love it or leave it". Anti-war protesters shouted, "Peace now." More than 800 office workers soon joined the construction workers' ranks. Hundreds more construction workers arrived around noon, as the lunch-time crowd and onlookers in the streets exceeded 20,000.[16][17] A thin and inadequate line of police, who were largely sympathetic to the workers' position, formed to separate the construction workers from the anti-war protesters. One spark might have been a protester, near the construction workers, who waved a Vietcong flag from the steps of Federal Hall.[18] At first, the construction workers only pushed but did not break through the police line. After several minutes, however, they broke through the police line and began chasing students through the streets. The workers attacked those who looked like hippies and beat them with their hard hats and other weapons, including tools and steel-toe boots. Victims and onlookers reported that the police stood by and did little.[19]

    Hundreds of construction workers and counter-protesters moved up Broadway, making their way to City Hall Park toward City Hall. They pushed their way to the top of the steps, singing City Hall as some chanted "Hey, hey, whattya say? We support the USA", while some held American flags, then attempted to gain entrance because they demanded the flag above City Hall be raised to full staff. Police on duty at City Hall, and reinforcement, were able to stop the men from getting inside. A few workers were asked to enter the building to calm tensions. A postal worker who was already inside went to the roof of city hall and raised the U.S. flag there to full mast. When one mayoral aide lowered the flag back down to half-mast, hundreds of construction workers stormed the area around City Hall, leading to melee like on Wall Street the hour prior. Deputy Mayor Richard Aurelio, fearing the building would be overrun by the mob, ordered city workers to raise the flag back to full mast.[20]

    [...]

    On Sunday, May 10, Nixon's Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman wrote in his diary, "The college demonstrators have overplayed their hands, evidence is the blue-collar group rising up against them, and [the] president can mobilize them".[33]

    Several thousand construction workers, longshoremen and white-collar workers protested against the Mayor on May 11, holding signs reading "impeach the Red Mayor"[34] and chanting "Lindsay is a bum".[35] They held another rally May 16, carrying signs calling the mayor a "rat", "commy rat" and "traitor".[36]

    [...]

    Brennan later organized significant labor union political support for Nixon in the 1972 election. Nixon appointed Brennan as his labor secretary after the election as a reward for his support and he was retained by President Gerald Ford into 1975, following Nixon's resignation.

    This seems more tied to tribalism or identity politics than the support for or against labor unions.

    Politicians using culture differences to turn what should be ostensible allies against each other is an old tactic, of course.

    Yes, race trumps class in America. Always has. A 19th century European analysis of society does not map well to our society, strangely enough.

    I been trying to come up with a good response but the intersectionality of race and class in America is kind of a deep well. The most I can confidently say is that the wealthy owner class care less (but not none at all) about race than they do about class and the wealth that defines their class.

    WRT current discussion in this thread, while much about The Left, both in general and espoused on this board, appeals very much to me, I think leftist tend to have a blind spot when it comes to racism. There’s a picture of a young Bernie Sanders being arrested at a civil rights rally and I don’t know why that wasn’t plastered all over the south in the last two elections. As much as it galls me to say it, there’s a lesson to be learned from Bill Clinton playing saxophone on Arsenio Hall.

    For the big GOP donors, I don't agree. They have basically the same political attitude of plantation owners. So keeping workers in general but especially black workers down is the most important thing to them.

    For the big Democratic donors, yes. They care much more about preserving their wealth than anything else. This creates obvious problems.

    The civil rights arrest was the main thing Bernie had to say about race in 2016, which was the problem. Everything about solving the problems of race in 21st century America got merged in with the class arguments, which doesn't work. He was MUCH better about this in 2020, but it was too late for him branding wise.

    Given some of the shit I’ve heard about wealthy, white liberals and schooling over the past few years, I’m not so sure they’re also particularly big on racial equality either. They just get to hide behind another set of excuses to cover for the fact they don’t want their kids studying with black and latino students.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    dispatch.oMatevDamnItCohaagen
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Does anyone have decent numbers tracking demographics of US labor unions?

    Not over time but here’s 2021 data:
    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf
    Highlights from the 2021 data:
    • The union membership rate of public-sector workers (33.9 percent) continued to be more than five times higher than the rate of private-sector workers (6.1 percent). (See table 3.)
    • The highest unionization rates were among workers in education, training, and library occupations (34.6 percent) and protective service occupations (33.3 percent). (See table 3.)
    • Men continued to have a higher union membership rate (10.6 percent) than women (9.9 percent). The gap between union membership rates for men and women has narrowed considerably since 1983 (the earliest year for which comparable data are available), when rates for men and women were 24.7 percent and 14.6 percent, respectively. (See table 1.)
    • Black workers remained more likely to be union members than White, Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)
    • Nonunion workers had median weekly earnings that were 83 percent of earnings for workers who were union members ($975 versus $1,169). (The comparisons of earnings in this news release are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be important in explaining earnings differences.) (See table 2.)

    • Among states, Hawaii and New York continued to have the highest union membership rates (22.4 percent and 22.2 percent, respectively), while South Carolina and North Carolina continued to have the lowest (1.7 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively). (See table 5.)

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LabelLabel Registered User regular
    Stealing the term and then destroying the usefulness of it works, though. Really goddamn well. That's why they do it.

    electricitylikesmeThawmus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    Label wrote: »
    Stealing the term and then destroying the usefulness of it works, though. Really goddamn well. That's why they do it.

    Fun fact: they did this with “libertarian” as well

    Literally stole it from anarchists, then bragged about how they did it
    One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...”

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DoodmannDarkPrimusDee Kae
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    Behold, the democratic candidate for governor of Florida:


    Peace out to the TSA mask mandate, but also peace and respect to others, whether wearing a mask or not.

    Just love that the party is ready to go full trump on this shit

    No not love. The other thing. The thing that isn’t love.

    Oh yes, incoherent rage

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    FANTOMASdispatch.oLostNinjaBloodsheedThawmusMagellTetraNitroCubaneMatevDoodmannHacksawCidTheSquidBlameless Cleric
  • Man in the MistsMan in the Mists Registered User regular
    I really really hope we don't get a seriously deadly mutation from this.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    (Re-posting from the previous thread because like four posts after someone mentioned that Sanders supported unions, which sparked the enormous union demographic tangent that devoured the thread.)

    I'm begging people to consider the viewpoints of disillusioned voters who don't spend every day poisoning their brains with politics newsfeeds.

    They voted for Biden not because they liked Biden but because Trump was bad and Biden promised to make things better.

    There is an issue or two they feel most strongly about, but regardless of what it us they look around and see nothing has changed for them under Biden.

    Addressing climate climate change, social justice reform, pandemic response, immigration reform, marijuana legalization, protecting abortion rights, canceling student debt, protecting voting rights, on and on - it doesn't matter the issue, nothing has fundamentally changed.

    If Biden, or anyone associated with him, runs, these people are not going to turn out to vote for him. Because for them, what's the point?

    And you can try to argue with me about semantics or point to little crumbs given to us of what was promised as a feast, and it isn't going to matter to them at all because the excuses given don't change the end result of no material improvements for their lives.

    At the end of the day votes are not owed. They are earned. And Biden and his crew hasn't earned another vote from these people. They simply will not go vote if it's down to Establishment Centrist or Trump yet again.

    There's going to have to be someone running who people will believe when they say that they can improve things, if you want them to feel like it's even worth showing up at the polls.

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    DouglasDangerstopgapReynoldsDee KaeLostNinjaBloodsheedMatevMan in the MistsNobeardHacksawBrainleechHefflingCidTheSquidnever dieBlameless Cleric
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Here’s the big problem: we can’t actually improve things. Not without a massive turnover that can’t actually be managed.

    NobeardSmrtnik
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    The problem of white workers identifying more on race lines than class lines is indeed a major problem. EBum is not wrong to say that class has trumped race on many occasions in the US, although I do not think it should be taken as an absolute rule. One of our main goals as socialists is to oppose this and to encourage class consciousness as opposed to racial consciousness (regarding white workers, I mean). For the sake of loose analogy, in Europe the tension between national identity and class identity has been a historical problem for socialists, and nationalism has often won out, to disastrous effect - the European socialist parties rallying around their respective flags at the start of WWI being probably the most tragic example.

    Edit - to keep things related to the topic of political parties, fuck the SPD for voting for the war bonds in Germany

    Kaputa on
    Eddy
  • JokermanJokerman Everything EverywhereRegistered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Here’s the big problem: we can’t actually improve things. Not without a massive turnover that can’t actually be managed.

    He could cancel Student Loan Debt through Executive orders, but the Administration hasn't even tried. That's not going to cut it come 2024.

    All at once.
    MagellMatevMan in the MistsGnizmoReynoldsnever die
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Here’s the big problem: we can’t actually improve things. Not without a massive turnover that can’t actually be managed.

    He could cancel Student Loan Debt through Executive orders, but the Administration hasn't even tried. That's not going to cut it come 2024.

    Or use the so called Bully Pulpit to bully his own party into extending child tax credits and monthly stimulus checks!

    JokermanDarkPrimusBloodsheedThawmusFANTOMASMagellKristmas KthulhuMatevMan in the MistssarukunDee KaeHacksawBrainleechHefflingReynoldsCidTheSquidnever die
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Here’s the big problem: we can’t actually improve things. Not without a massive turnover that can’t actually be managed.

    He could cancel Student Loan Debt through Executive orders, but the Administration hasn't even tried. That's not going to cut it come 2024.

    Or use the so called Bully Pulpit to bully his own party into extending child tax credits and monthly stimulus checks!

    Neither Biden nor Harris are able to do this

  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Here’s the big problem: we can’t actually improve things. Not without a massive turnover that can’t actually be managed.

    He could cancel Student Loan Debt through Executive orders, but the Administration hasn't even tried. That's not going to cut it come 2024.

    Or use the so called Bully Pulpit to bully his own party into extending child tax credits and monthly stimulus checks!

    Neither Biden nor Harris are able to do this

    Are you suggesting they cannot do public speaking?

    DoodmannMan in the MistsCidTheSquidnever die
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    I’m suggesting they are uncharismatic, noncredible, unpopular leaders who also suck at public speaking yes

    DouglasDangerBloodsheedFANTOMASThawmusMagellDoodmannMatevMan in the MistsZonugalElvenshae38thDoeNobeardHacksawHefflingReynoldsFoolOnTheHillCidTheSquidnever die
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Jesus Christ himself could show up on Manchin's houseboat and tell him to pass the child tax credit, and Manchin would tell him to cut his hair and get a job.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    ronzoBigJoeMCaptain InertiaMonwynMarathonelectricitylikesmeNobodyDoctorArchzagdrobiTunesIsEvilStabbity StyleThawmusA Dabble Of TheloniusSleepForarLabelMillMan in the MistsZonugalButtersElvenshae38thDoeLord_AsmodeusSkeithHefflingFoolOnTheHillshrykenever dieJusticeforPlutoSmrtnikBlameless Cleric
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Pete is probably the admin’s best bet for bully pulpiting but he probably hates all those policies

  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    Jokerman wrote: »
    Sleep wrote: »
    Here’s the big problem: we can’t actually improve things. Not without a massive turnover that can’t actually be managed.

    He could cancel Student Loan Debt through Executive orders, but the Administration hasn't even tried. That's not going to cut it come 2024.

    Or use the so called Bully Pulpit to bully his own party into extending child tax credits and monthly stimulus checks!

    Neither Biden nor Harris are able to do this

    Are you suggesting they cannot do public speaking?
    I’m suggesting they are uncharismatic, noncredible, unpopular leaders who also suck at public speaking yes
    Pete is probably the admin’s best bet for bully pulpiting but he probably hates all those policies

    Yeah, they all suck, and these things would be against their interest, but this is the thread to complain about the current state of the Democratic party and dream of a better democratic party and a better future

    Thawmus
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Yeah my point is a complaint that the people we put at the head of the executive are shitty, not that the bully pulpit is worthless

    DouglasDangerMan in the MistsNobeardCidTheSquid
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited April 20
    Also, while I'm at it, I wish people would stop trying to make Pete a face of the Democratic party

    He sucks, he's unlikeable, he's a stock photo model who entered politics, someone in the media somewhere really likes the idea of him or some reason, but he's won two elections for mayor, please let him alone , stop trying to make President Pete happen

    DouglasDanger on
    YamiB.ThawmusFANTOMASMagellDoodmannMatevDarkPrimusMan in the MistsGnizmoMonwynZonugal38thDoeSkeithHacksawCidTheSquid
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 20
    I’m suggesting they are uncharismatic, noncredible, unpopular leaders who also suck at public speaking yes

    But also they don't want to put public pressure on about these issues because their care is purely performative.

    Fucking hell, Biden doesn't even come out and say that people should wear masks on airplanes when asked by a reporter the other day. Either he doesn't give a shit about mitigating the pandemic or he is too fearful of making a divisive statement. Either option makes for a shitty president.

    See also Psaki calling on "business leaders"to take Gov. Abbot to task over intentionally delaying shipping through the Texas-Mexico border. Literally unconstitutional behavior and he doesn't even have the spine to make a statement directly about it.

    DarkPrimus on
    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    DouglasDangerBloodsheedYamiB.Man in the MistsZonugalDee KaeReynolds
  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »
    Here’s the big problem: we can’t actually improve things. Not without a massive turnover that can’t actually be managed.

    Even though the vax mandate was shot down the CDC pandemic guidelines that every company follows continued to diminish to the point that medical professionals (and everyone else) fully questioned it’s motives.

    That was fully in the administration’s control and what has left me disillusioned the most. Yeah we can blame Sinema and Manchin for a lot of the admins failures, but not that one.

    ThawmusFANTOMASMagellLabelMan in the MistsButtersDee Kae
  • A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius It has been a doozy of a dayRegistered User regular
    Ok I truly understand that we don't want to get into this again

    And I promise I will try to only post if I have a nice, substantive thing from here on

    However comma

    I desperately need to share the perfect headline

    te4by24p3d2g.png

    vm8gvf5p7gqi.jpg
    Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
    mrpakuFANTOMASDouglasDangerelectricitylikesmeBigJoeMCaptain InertiaSleepBloodsheedKristmas KthulhuDoodmannTetraNitroCubaneOghulkMatevThawmusLabelNobodyMagellMan in the MistsGoumindongMonwynZonugalElvenshaeKwoaru38thDoeNobeardsarukunSummaryJudgmentEtiowsaLord_AsmodeuszepherinDee KaeSkeithtyrannusHacksawMechMantisKruiteSyngyneHefflingNiryadispatch.oFoolOnTheHillCidTheSquidnever dieDark Raven X
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Jesus Christ himself could show up on Manchin's houseboat and tell him to pass the child tax credit, and Manchin would tell him to cut his hair and get a job.

    [jesus sits down and begins to braid some leather straps]

    “What’s that for”

    “Be patient.”

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
    DouglasDangerKayne Red RobeBigJoeMThawmusMagellZonugalNobeardMatevsarukunzepherinSkeithHacksawLucedesnever die
  • proxy_hueproxy_hue Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Behold, the democratic candidate for governor of Florida:


    Peace out to the TSA mask mandate, but also peace and respect to others, whether wearing a mask or not.

    Just love that the party is ready to go full trump on this shit

    No not love. The other thing. The thing that isn’t love.

    Oh yes, incoherent rage

    Christ this is so depressing. We're gearing up for the fight of our lives against De Santis down here and we got this or Charlie Nancy-Pelosi-Endorsed, Former-Republican Crist... and I guess there's still Charlie Crist's former running mate, Annette Taddeo, who is a pretty long shot but at least she hasn't stepped on any rakes lately.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    The poll finds that despite vocal opposition to the requirement, 56% of Americans favor requiring people on planes, trains and public transportation to wear masks, compared with 24% opposed.

    The Republicans are, of course, the ones loudly outspoken against masks, to the delight of that 24%.

    But... where is the political party that is willing to make a strong messaging stance that is supportive of that 56% of Americans?

    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    destroyah87MatevKristmas KthulhuMan in the MistsBloodsheedElvenshaemrpakuLabelLostNinjaHachfaceSkeithHacksawNobeardHefflingdispatch.o
Sign In or Register to comment.