LaserGuy wrote:Government itself is probably a possibility. Instead of shutting down the EPA, put their head office in rural Minnesota. Put the Department of Energy in Ohio, and the CIA in Kentucky. There's too many towns for the government to be able to do something with all of them, but you could probably at least start building up some hubs in targeted areas. This is one of a few things that the government actually has the power to do as well. At the very least any new government offices should be placed in depressed areas where they can stimulate some economic benefit.
In terms of value for money, it might even not be terrible if you can buy into areas with low land values and sell off properties in areas with much higher values.
That's not a bad idea. It might also somewhat help with people distrusting the government and feeling excluded from it. It's easy to blame government when they're all in DC. It's a bit harder when it's the office job next door.
elasto wrote:If an industry is in terminal decline, the politicians have a choice to be honest or dishonest about that.
If honesty gets punished in the ballot box as Clinton seemingly was, politicians have no choice but to be dishonest. That may win them votes in the short term, but adds to voter apathy and anger over the longer term.
Personally I think politicians should lead not follow and hence should be honest, but overall we get the politicians we deserve. Politics is subject to a kind of Darwinian evolution like that.
The difference between honesty and dishonesty is moot if neither results in anything getting done.
morriswalters wrote:You need to have the ability to appreciate irony. The people in Eastern Kentucky aren't stupid. A lot have left. This train wreck isn't new. There was a Diaspora from Eastern Kentucky in the 50's and 60's. A lot of them moved to Detroit. Do you see the irony?
The main irony I see is that the answer is improved social safety nets: Better unemployment payouts, free adult education and retraining and so on. In society, the 'haves' should be supporting the 'have nots' because anyone can become a 'have not' through no fault of their own - simply through their skillset becoming obsolete.
And yet these voters would regard any politician that advocated that as a pinko commie...
These have been advocated as a solution for decades now. People in these communities are not unaware of, or somehow rejecting these things without trying. They've been tried, and done nothing.
Retraining doesn't work out well if there's no industry in the area to retrain to. More unemployment, well...that can bandaid over the issue a little bit. But, eventually that ends, and anyways, there's still no actual industry created, jobs aren't really actually doing any different. It's literally just throwing money at the problem instead of solving it.
Moving people out can help, to some degree. But many people see this happening in a broad swathe of areas like where they now live. So, it's not "live somewhere else rather like here, but with jobs", it's "your old life is gone forever. Enjoy moving to the city and making shit as unskilled labor", which isn't very attractive either, and again, it's not like we've embraced vast resettlement programs in a while. And, with those kinds of outcomes, any attempt at it would also likely be a godawful mess.
CorruptUser wrote:Trump may be the first American president that gets praised for breaking campaign promises.
We knew he was lying about most things, but we don't know what he wasn't lying about. He's probably lying about everything, and then pretend the stuff he did get done was part of his original plan. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/we- ... trump-era/
538 is divided on how much trouble Democrats are in. They do agree that white identity politics is a dangerous force, and that it can win elections.
How concerned should nonDemocrats be about those people? It seems easier to point out the hyper racists, and ignore the minor racism that exists in most people.
At this point, nonDemocrats basically don't care about any of this. Democrats will yell at absolutely everyone not in their club as racists, and everyone is just fatigued with the whole thing. Point at whoever, say what you want. It doesn't much matter. Who you point the racist-finger at will not win you back anybody at all. The hyper racists are out in force simply because the social stigma has been destroyed by the Democrats.
The Midwest does have a Repblican bent. It is very, very slow, and thus, has a lot of inertia behind it. It isn't all education. That feeds into the self-congratulatory Democratic self-image, but a lot of it is straight up just labor unions. They used to be a really powerful force for the Democrats in industrial areas. Now, they're not. Note that the Republican message was that the unions were killing businesses. In areas where the industry did indeed die, regardless of why it happened, that's a really, really compelling reason to blame Democrats, together of course with foreign trade. It's not so much that people hate unions, as that the industries crumpled, and the unions steadily lost power and became non-entities. This can get worse. Much of MN is still on this track, for instance.
I don't think the Feminism point matters much. It's just such a secondary concern. Yeah, maybe if you had two similar candidates, one of which was female, you could tease out how much bias is at play, but in practice, we are highly partisan, and the candidates usually support one of the opposed platforms. Conservatives cheerfully line up behind female politicians like Palin, after all. Yeah, they may not seek them out to begin with, but if that's the race, they're obviously not going to cross party lines to avoid voting for a woman. So, it's almost a non factor.
Trump being good for the party...uhh. That's...that's really hard. I mean, it's great for them in terms of getting power now. In terms of them learning the right lessons, and improving ideologically...very, very mixed. They're right about it stemming elitism, and on some issues, Trump is actually surprisingly centrist. Those are good. I'm concerned, however, that people will attempt to adopt Trump's coarser aspects as if these are what caused him to win. Cargo cult ideology.
Obama's legacy...well, The Affordable Care Act is fucked. That's mostly his legislative legacy. That said, I think he'll be remembered as a decent president. Not top ten or anything, but history probably won't judge him too harshly. Look at Jimmy Carter. Even people who hated his policy ideas have to recognize that the guy meant well, and he's done a lot of good as an ex president. Obama's probably going to outperform Carter, but it's a somewhat similar legacy thing.
Liri wrote:Sanders would not have needed to win many, if any, of Trump's voters. The enthusiasm he generated with younger voters would almost certainly have been enough. Provided he held it together through the debates and all that.
It's hard to say what would have happened in an alternative timeline, because a Sanders v Trump campaign would have been different. As pointed out earlier, Sanders had some skeletons that woulda come out, and it would have gotten messy. I think he would have had several edges that Clinton lacked, though. That said, I think there are valuable lessons to take from Sanders, at least. He did appeal to demographics that Clinton just didn't. He made some efforts to see the point of view of people who were down and out. These are things that can be adapted to the next campaign.
Sanders probably ain't gonna run in 2020. He'll be up there in age by then. But there's lots of potential learning from it. The question is, will anyone on the very slim Democrat bench put the pieces together in time?