2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(Also, while there obviously are differences between urban and rural poverty, I mostly haven't seen it brought up with respect to any of the fundamental differences that make rural poverty inherently different from urban poverty. Instead, "rural" means white while "urban" means not white.)


This particular keyword does not seem to be universally accepted. Often, they literally mean rural to mean "not in a city". Frequently, this is the context when they're making classist arguments, describing liberals as urban elites. They don't literally mean that liberals are all minorities, they are specifically contrasting rural problems with urban problems, such as when describing coal mining areas and the like. The usage is almost invariably "they don't understand our problems", with the implication that this is so because they live in the city.

There's a common sentiment on the right that Democrats ascribe everything to identity, race, etc, and often do so mistakenly when no such implication is intended. Yeah, sure, maybe some of the time, they're being unintentionally racist or whatever, but I definitely don't think you can blow off the rural/urban divide as always being a race thing. Cities that are way less diverse are still mocked as being liberal hellholes(or whatever the appropriate epithets are), just like the ones that are. The obvious correlation is that rural areas are generally Republican, whereas urban areas are generally Democrat. Party and where you live seem to have a pretty significant connection, when we're talking about urban/rural differences, and it's quite common for the two to be connected.

In short, it *still* comes across as dismissing those concerns as irrelevant or invalid, and you're literally not speaking the same language as the people you're dismissing.

KnightExemplar wrote:Besides, Carrier moving their HVAC factory to Mexico applies to all races and creeds. The core fact is that the Democrats this year did not have an adequate response to address that concern. Donald Trump's message "I'm an asshole businessman and I'll force Mexico and Carrier to pay for their mistake" wins by default, as Clinton just didn't have any message at all from this perspective.


As mentioned earlier, Clinton basically offered nothing to the coal mining towns, manufacturing areas, and similar. Nothing at all that they were concerned about. I mean, even aside from the obvious tone deafness of being anti-coal in a coal mining area, you still need to actually offer something positive. Something they value. Trump did, Clinton didn't.

So, what do you offer them in the future? Do you just tell them, as Sardia seems to believe, that their jobs are ultimately doomed, and nobody can fix it? How exactly will that work? Do you tell them that other people have it worse, because of racism or whatever, and ultimately offer them nothing? That already doesn't work.

What positive thing are people willing to offer?

First, Clinton did offer them stuff, but you can't beat a fantasy. Trump said they'd get everything back, like it was the boomer years.
Secondly, am I wrong? If so, how wrong(as in what percentage of x can be saved,) what do you think should be done with them?

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1076
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby freezeblade » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:As mentioned earlier, Clinton basically offered nothing to the coal mining towns, manufacturing areas, and similar. Nothing at all that they were concerned about. I mean, even aside from the obvious tone deafness of being anti-coal in a coal mining area, you still need to actually offer something positive. Something they value. Trump did, Clinton didn't.


The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Trump promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away. Manufacturing jobs went away not because of immigrants, but because of automation and technology (We produce more in manufacturing than in the 80's, with 1/3 less people). Nobody wants to hear these hard truths, but I blame a lack of critical thinking and education on people not realizing this. Identity politics is killing us, and the public is dangerously gullible.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:42 pm UTC

Sardia, what, exactly, did Clinton offer them?

That's where I grew up, too. Farm in mining country. They were all excited about two years back, when the town got...a video rental store. Great future there, I'm sure.

Like, the whole area is depressing as fuck. You go back there, and main street looks like a ghost town, and the paint has peeled off everything a little more. People like me moved out. People who stayed...crap. They pretty much just perpetually try to figure out how to live on less. This is a chunk of rural MN. The whole state ain't like that, some of it's fine, but there are swathes with just about nothing.

I mean, if you can get some other hub, that might work, but...what do you put there? Who would want to invest in that, and why? I mean, I do computer shit and retail. I don't know how I could make either of those work there. There isn't the technical knowledge base for the former, and the latter doesn't work when nobody has money. You basically need manufacturing or resource harvesting.

freezeblade wrote:The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Trump promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away. Manufacturing jobs went away not because of immigrants, but because of automation and technology (We produce more in manufacturing than in the 80's, with 1/3 less people). Nobody wants to hear these hard truths, but I blame a lack of critical thinking and education on people not realizing this. Identity politics is killing us, and the public is dangerously gullible.


If you don't fix it, then that's a real cost to green initiatives and the like that isn't ever really being taken responsibly. Nobody really mentions the human cost to these towns.

I don't deny that the automation trends in manufacturing exist, but...the problem at these places isn't that the plant is still there, but two thirds of the jobs are automated. The problem is that the plant isn't there anymore at all. That's much harder to work with. You can build at least something of a service economy around a few well paid workers, but if there's no core of productive jobs at all...nothing really works.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:55 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Trump promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away.


In coal country, people are keenly aware of Obama's plan to use the EPA to create a carbon-dioxide tax.

They're not gullible or dumb. Any man can tell you that burning coal creates carbon dioxide, no matter how strongly you try to make it "clean", you simply can't get away from the basic equation of "coal == carbon" + "Oxygen" == "CO2". And Clinton was pro-Carbon Dioxide taxes btw.

That ain't "Market Forces". That's the administration setting policy in the EPA. Trump has already announced his plans to roll back these regulations.

-------

But we know why Obama did it. Because of Global Warming. Trump's answer to the whole conundrum was simple: Global Warming is a Hoax, I'm getting rid of the regulations.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:59 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
freezeblade wrote:The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Drumpf promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away.


In coal country, people are keenly aware of Obama's plan to use the EPA to create a carbon-dioxide tax.

They're not gullible or dumb. Any man can tell you that burning coal creates carbon dioxide, no matter how strongly you try to make it "clean", you simply can't get away from the basic equation of "coal == carbon" + "Oxygen" == "CO2". And Clinton was pro-Carbon Dioxide taxes btw.

They're still in denial about what releasing all those tons of CO2 actually does though. That's where the breakdown happens.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:00 am UTC

Liri wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
freezeblade wrote:The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Drumpf promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away.


In coal country, people are keenly aware of Obama's plan to use the EPA to create a carbon-dioxide tax.

They're not gullible or dumb. Any man can tell you that burning coal creates carbon dioxide, no matter how strongly you try to make it "clean", you simply can't get away from the basic equation of "coal == carbon" + "Oxygen" == "CO2". And Clinton was pro-Carbon Dioxide taxes btw.

They're still in denial about what releasing all those tons of CO2 actually does though. That's where the breakdown happens.


I dunno anybody from Coal Country. But chances are, if you make a living from mining Coal, you're not going to like the message of Global Warming.

Of course, you're not going to like the fact that Fracking for Natural Gas is cleaner and cheaper than Coal as well... but lets not talk about that either.

---------

At the end of the day, Democrats need to come up with a valid answer to the problem in coal country. Not just coal mind you, but the various manufacturing facilities that have been moved out of the USA and to other countries. Remember: Twinkies and Oreos are now made in Mexico (Grupo Bimbo for Twinkies. Nabisco still owns Oreos: http://www.delish.com/food-news/a43504/ ... es-mexico/)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:02 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:00 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sardia, what, exactly, did Clinton offer them?

That's where I grew up, too. Farm in mining country. They were all excited about two years back, when the town got...a video rental store. Great future there, I'm sure.

Like, the whole area is depressing as fuck. You go back there, and main street looks like a ghost town, and the paint has peeled off everything a little more. People like me moved out. People who stayed...crap. They pretty much just perpetually try to figure out how to live on less. This is a chunk of rural MN. The whole state ain't like that, some of it's fine, but there are swathes with just about nothing.

I mean, if you can get some other hub, that might work, but...what do you put there? Who would want to invest in that, and why? I mean, I do computer shit and retail. I don't know how I could make either of those work there. There isn't the technical knowledge base for the former, and the latter doesn't work when nobody has money. You basically need manufacturing or resource harvesting.

freezeblade wrote:The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Trump promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away. Manufacturing jobs went away not because of immigrants, but because of automation and technology (We produce more in manufacturing than in the 80's, with 1/3 less people). Nobody wants to hear these hard truths, but I blame a lack of critical thinking and education on people not realizing this. Identity politics is killing us, and the public is dangerously gullible.


If you don't fix it, then that's a real cost to green initiatives and the like that isn't ever really being taken responsibly. Nobody really mentions the human cost to these towns.

I don't deny that the automation trends in manufacturing exist, but...the problem at these places isn't that the plant is still there, but two thirds of the jobs are automated. The problem is that the plant isn't there anymore at all. That's much harder to work with. You can build at least something of a service economy around a few well paid workers, but if there's no core of productive jobs at all...nothing really works.

Clinton pretty much said they should retire. She didn't say it, but she offered retraining, increased safety nets, etc etc increased education opportunities. Do any of these give them the old boom times jobs back? No. What would you done?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:03 am UTC

Democrats need to get rid of minimum wage laws and create low-regulation economic zones for rural America. Yeah, just throw money at the problem, but it'd actually be a solution. Tech can start moving their call-centers to rural America, instead of relying on India and/or China (Rural Americans definitely have better English skills. Why are the tech-support jobs outsourced to India???)

BRAC (Base-realignment and Closures) probably weren't good for Rural America either. Towns also rely upon the military as their primary source of jobs, services... even tourism.

Retraining doesn't help when there's no jobs in the area you live in. And people don't like moving out of places. You gotta find a solution that works without forcing people to move.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:06 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:06 am UTC

sardia wrote:Clinton pretty much said they should retire. She didn't say it, but she offered retraining, increased safety nets, etc etc increased education opportunities. Do any of these give them the old boom times jobs back? No. What would you done?


Retiring is something people with money do. It doesn't fix a complete lack of jobs in an area. Retrain to...what, exactly? When there are literally no industries there, what does going back to school get you, save more student loans? Even if some or all of the training is comped, you gotta eat and pay your utilities. If there's no job at the end of the tunnel, you've just invested more time and money to...not get anything out.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:18 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:Clinton pretty much said they should retire. She didn't say it, but she offered retraining, increased safety nets, etc etc increased education opportunities. Do any of these give them the old boom times jobs back? No. What would you done?


Retiring is something people with money do. It doesn't fix a complete lack of jobs in an area. Retrain to...what, exactly? When there are literally no industries there, what does going back to school get you, save more student loans? Even if some or all of the training is comped, you gotta eat and pay your utilities. If there's no job at the end of the tunnel, you've just invested more time and money to...not get anything out.

And your ideas?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25788
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:22 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:While I am able to read your argument and hear you out... the general public will not be so keen on listening to the nuance of this argument. I don't think that playing this tune to the general public is a winning strategy for 2018 or 2020.
Where have I given you the impression that my goal in this discussion is to convince the general public in 2018 or 2020? If I have given that impression, I apologize, for it is a false one.

Its hard enough to get people to believe Donald Trump is a racist asshole. I think we should set our sights a bit lower than shoving the message of "white privilege" down on the masses.
I'm not talking to "the masses", though. I'm talking to the people reading this thread.

Besides, Carrier moving their HVAC factory to Mexico applies to all races and creeds. The core fact is that the Democrats this year did not have an adequate response to address that concern. Donald Trump's message "I'm an asshole businessman and I'll force Mexico and Carrier to pay for their mistake" wins by default, as Clinton just didn't have any message at all from this perspective.
You keep bringing this up as if it's in response to something I've said, but I'm a loss as to what that might be.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:27 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Democrats need to get rid of minimum wage laws and create low-regulation economic zones for rural America. Yeah, just throw money at the problem, but it'd actually be a solution. Tech can start moving their call-centers to rural America, instead of relying on India and/or China (Rural Americans definitely have better English skills. Why are the tech-support jobs outsourced to India???)

BRAC (Base-realignment and Closures) probably weren't good for Rural America either. Towns also rely upon the military as their primary source of jobs, services... even tourism.

Retraining doesn't help when there's no jobs in the area you live in. And people don't like moving out of places. You gotta find a solution that works without forcing people to move.


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.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2474
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:47 am UTC

freezeblade wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:As mentioned earlier, Clinton basically offered nothing to the coal mining towns, manufacturing areas, and similar. Nothing at all that they were concerned about. I mean, even aside from the obvious tone deafness of being anti-coal in a coal mining area, you still need to actually offer something positive. Something they value. Trump did, Clinton didn't.


The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Trump promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away. Manufacturing jobs went away not because of immigrants, but because of automation and technology (We produce more in manufacturing than in the 80's, with 1/3 less people). Nobody wants to hear these hard truths, but I blame a lack of critical thinking and education on people not realizing this. Identity politics is killing us, and the public is dangerously gullible.

Indeed, and in response to my bolding, above...
Clinton spoke, rather than wrote:So for example, I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country. Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?

And we're going to make it clear that we don't want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories.

Now we've got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels, but I don't want to move away from the people who did the best they could to produce the energy that we relied on.

And that's in the speech selectively quoted by Trump and/or his agitators (seemingly to his advantage) to say that Hillary just said that she'd be closing down coal and putting coal-workers out of jobs.

(I know about coal industries being shut down. I've experienced the epicentre of that process in the Thatcher years, in the UK, before it was even an environmental issue. And whatever the likelihood that they could or could not have continued through those later social pressures to change the solid carbon culture, and maybe also those secondary market forces, that was an injury against communities whose effects have not yet healed.)

ETA: In response to concerns voiced later on from where I replied, a further extract says:
So I am passionate about this, which is why I have put forward specific plans about how we incentivize more jobs, more investment in poor communities, and put people to work.

While it's still available, I suspect this covers those plans that will now probably not happen, and that few people will have read or acknowledged.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:20 am UTC

I seem to recall a story of a steel mill in Utah that was complaining about the state enacting some new legislation that threatened the existence of the mill. So the boss paid his workers in cash one week. In $2 bills exclusively. Just to remind the people in the entire state where that money originally came from.

KnightExemplar wrote:Of course, you're not going to like the fact that Fracking for Natural Gas is cleaner and cheaper than Coal as well... but lets not talk about that either.


Not to mention the fact that wind power works better with gas plants as a backup rather than coal...

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:39 am UTC

freezeblade wrote:The problem is that those coal jobs, no matter how much Trump promises, are not coming back. Market forces, not "green energy" drove those jobs away. Manufacturing jobs went away not because of immigrants, but because of automation and technology (We produce more in manufacturing than in the 80's, with 1/3 less people). Nobody wants to hear these hard truths, but I blame a lack of critical thinking and education on people not realizing this. Identity politics is killing us, and the public is dangerously gullible.
I've never understood why telling someone to get over it because they are fucked either way is a good strategy for winning hearts and minds. But oddly enough I think a lot of miners would agree with you, despite their lack of education. It might have been better had she given that speech to coal miners in Harlan, Kentucky though. But they have been listening to promises for years. And if you can't work in the mines you don't work. So telling them those jobs aren't coming back, and that we have a plan, is something they have heard more than once. And nothing ever got better. Trump hasn't fucked them over yet. He will IMO, but until then. Well. They've been fucked over by regular politicians.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:59 am UTC

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.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:09 am UTC

...or maybe you can say "Listen, the industry is declining, but we can provide you with job training and placement assistance. And none of that crap you get from the unemployment office. Look under your seats... YOU go to college! YOU go to college! YOU go to college!"

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:27 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:...or maybe you can say "Listen, the industry is declining, but we can provide you with job training and placement assistance. And none of that crap you get from the unemployment office. Look under your seats... YOU go to college! YOU go to college! YOU go to college!"

For free. And you pay for moving costs. You pretty much eminent domain half of the countryside. Where were the fairy god Senators? This all sounds like stuff for the appropriations committee or pork for Congress to send back.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/edu ... for-trump/
In short, it appears as though educational levels are the critical factor in predicting shifts in the vote between 2012 and 2016. You can come to that conclusion with a relatively simple analysis, like the one I’ve conducted above, or by using fancier methods. In a regression analysis at the county level, for instance, lower-income counties were no more likely to shift to Trump once you control for education levels.11 And although there’s more work to be done, these conclusions also appear to hold if you examine the data at a more granular level, like by precinct or among individual voters in panel surveys.
Image
But although this finding is clear in a statistical sense, that doesn’t mean the interpretation of it is straightforward. It seems to me that there a number of competing hypotheses that are compatible with this evidence, some of which will be favored by conservatives and some by liberals:

Education levels may be a proxy for cultural hegemony. Academia, the news media and the arts and entertainment sectors are increasingly dominated by people with a liberal, multicultural worldview, and jobs in these sectors also almost always require college degrees. Trump’s campaign may have represented a backlash against these cultural elites.
Educational attainment may be a better indicator of long-term economic well-being than household incomes. Unionized jobs in the auto industry often pay reasonably well even if they don’t require college degrees, for instance, but they’re also potentially at risk of being shipped overseas or automated.
Education levels probably have some relationship with racial resentment, although the causality isn’t clear. The act of having attended college itself may be important, insofar as colleges and universities are often more diverse places than students’ hometowns. There’s more research to be done on how exposure to racial minorities affected white voters. For instance, did white voters who live in counties with large Hispanic populations shift toward Clinton or toward Trump?
Education levels have strong relationships with media-consumption habits, which may have been instrumental in deciding people’s votes, especially given the overall decline in trust in the news media.
Trump’s approach to the campaign — relying on emotional appeals while glossing over policy details — may have resonated more among people with lower education levels as compared with Clinton’s wonkier and more cerebral approach.

So data like this is really just a starting point for further research into the campaign. Nonetheless, the education gap is carving up the American electorate and toppling political coalitions that had been in place for many years.

If this is true, Democrats are fucked for 8 years. You can't change education rates that fast. This doesn't change the strategy, but it makes the partisan divide much stronger than anticipated.
Last edited by sardia on Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:20 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:38 am UTC

elasto wrote:If an industry is in terminal decline
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?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9418
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:01 am UTC

Sardia; I like the track your train is on.
Education levels have strong relationships with media-consumption habits, which may have been instrumental in deciding people’s votes, especially given the overall decline in trust in the news media.

Trump’s approach to the campaign — relying on emotional appeals while glossing over policy details — may have resonated more among people with lower education levels as compared with Clinton’s wonkier and more cerebral approach.

So data like this is really just a starting point for further research <snip> (?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6K3AV-eudsU
I would have read the Pale Blue Dot.
That would have been a mistake.

The American people have an attention span of 8 minutes or less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBNzuCjlwec

I tend to be a @#&%$#, on That side.
Fucking willing to compromise and work With the other.

If we work together maybe we can compromise:
Let's Make America Smart, Again!
Spoiler:
Not likley. For all the jobs talk.
We are, when we gaze upon ourselves, looking at a lazy and illiterate people
I'll bow out, now.
I can't help.
Last edited by addams on Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:22 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:17 am UTC

Trump in NYTimes interview

After a chat with a Marine corps general he is now convinced that waterboarding isn't that useful so there is not point in reinstating it, and also condemned at least one alt-right / white nationalist group but on the other hand defended Breitbart as a "conservative" media.

edit. Looks like elasto already posted the same news on the previous page and I somehow missed it.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:48 am UTC

Trump may be the first American president that gets praised for breaking campaign promises.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:32 am UTC

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...

-----

Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politicall.y correct environmental monitoring”.


Indeed. Global warming is just politica.l correctness gone mad. Everyone knows gay people cause tornadoes.

Trump! Trump! Trump!

link

[Mods: Can we remove the word filter on those words now please..?]

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:34 pm UTC

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.

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:01 pm UTC

elasto wrote:And yet these voters would regard any politician that advocated that as a pinko commie...
No they would regard them as liars. Because they have been promising that for years.
sardia wrote:We knew he was lying about most things, but we don't know what he wasn't lying about.
He's an empty suit. People are able to fill that suit however they want. They supply their own interpretation of what he says. Maybe a helpful starting point to understand him is to understand the idea of being a brand. What Trump is about is selling Trump.

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:14 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
elasto wrote:And yet these voters would regard any politician that advocated that as a pinko commie...
No they would regard them as liars. Because they have been promising that for years.

Who has?

So far as I know, neither party has promised to raise social security payouts, eliminate university tuition fees, institute a universal taxpayer funded health service, create a citizens wage, and raise taxes on the rich to pay for it all which is what would help blue collar workers stay afloat while they retrain for a new career.

Your 'left wing' party is to the right of most European right wing parties and that's how the working classes in the US like it.

That's the irony here: They'd never vote for any politician capable of making the quantum leap necessary to actually improve their quality of life.

Mind you, the US is hardly unique in that respect. UK voters likewise like to cut off their own nose to spite their face.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:16 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
elasto wrote:And yet these voters would regard any politician that advocated that as a pinko commie...
No they would regard them as liars. Because they have been promising that for years.

Who has?

So far as I know, neither party has promised to raise social security payouts, eliminate university tuition fees, institute a universal taxpayer funded health service, create a citizens wage, and raise taxes on the rich to pay for it all which is what would help blue collar workers stay afloat while they retrain for a new career.


pretty sure that was Sanders' entire platform.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

elasto
Posts: 3102
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:17 pm UTC

And I'm certain he'd have been wiped out in the election.

Heck, he didn't even win the popular vote amongst left-wingers, so what chance vs a much more right-wing electorate..?

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:24 pm UTC

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.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1697
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: disoriented

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:30 pm UTC

elasto wrote:And I'm certain he'd have been wiped out in the election.

Heck, he didn't even win the popular vote amongst left-wingers, so what chance vs a much more right-wing electorate..?


I think you're mistaken. Personal anecdote suggests that a fair number of people who voted for Trump would've voted for Sanders instead (indeed, several family members refused to vote for Clinton, for whatever reasons, but admitted they would've preferred Sanders. Including several die-hard, Fox News kool-aid drinkers).

Not that any of it matters now, since we have to face the Drumpf residency.

EDIT: autocorrect has a good sense of humor, apparently.
"Trying to build a proper foundation for knowledge is blippery."
"Squirrels are crazy enough to be test pilots."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

morriswalters
Posts: 6900
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:34 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Who has?
Everybody. We could start with Lydon Johnson's war on poverty. But that is for a subsection that I'm familiar with. Eastern Kentucky. The problem I suppose is how do you do anything for a rural population in terms of jobs, The current world revolves around population centers. Hillary more or less won those.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25788
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:36 pm UTC

elasto wrote:And I'm certain he'd have been wiped out in the election.

Heck, he didn't even win the popular vote amongst left-wingers, so what chance vs a much more right-wing electorate..?

In the primaries, Sanders did worst in states that were solidly red and would have been in any case. He also likely would have gotten higher turnout than she did, and distasteful as it may be to admit, he would have also retained the misogynist white male vote he got in the primaries but which went to Johnson or Trump in the general election.

He was also polling consistently higher against Trump than Clinton was, right up until pollsters stopped asking about him.

I have no doubt the GOP would have tried to smear him same as they did Clinton, but I don't think they would have been nearly as successful, especially as he was appealing to many of the same voters that switched to the GOP (compared to 2012) in the general election.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3663
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:46 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I have no doubt the GOP would have tried to smear him same as they did Clinton, but I don't think they would have been nearly as successful, especially as he was appealing to many of the same voters that switched to the GOP (compared to 2012) in the general election.
Ehhh.. I'm not convinced. I think Biden would have won here, but Sanders has baggage that really never came out in the primary. The GOP reportedly has video of him marching with Sandinistas while they were shouting "kill the yankees". That looks incredibly bad, especially to the voting demographic we are discussing here. Not to mention his weird erotic fiction etc. which I am sure would be highlighted.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

commodorejohn
Posts: 958
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:02 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:Not to mention his weird erotic fiction etc. which I am sure would be highlighted.

Finally, a President I can relate to!
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:04 pm UTC

I dunno. I think a lot of the wind would have been taken out of the sails of the rabidly anti-Hillary Clinton faction, which was quite a large faction. Assuming the same things were released about Trump, a fairer comparison of their "scandals" (quotes for Bernie) would have happened.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:07 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Kevin Drum notes that Trump's primary trait he looks for in a candidate is that they are people that he sees as enemies of his enemies. If that is going to be his main objective for his Presidency, I am fucking scared for this country.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/201 ... mp-roundup


I know you were talking about the Adm. Rogers thingy back when you posted this. But Washington Post has looked into the "New York Post" thing-a-magig (the other half of that Mother Jone's article). Here's Washington Post's conclusion (or at least, one conclusion from one column writer):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html

Brandon Friedman, a Virginia-based public relations executive, offered his theory on Twitter: “They walked into an ambush, agreed not to talk about it, then Trump went straight to the Post with his version.”

Then it was just a hop, skip and jump to a big headline on the Drudge Report, with its huge worldwide traffic: “Trump Slams Media Elite, Face to Face.” As Business Insider politics editor Oliver Darcy aptly put it, that is “how a lot of America will see this.”


-------------

Which is certainly a strategy I've seen Trump use before (See the whole Cruz thingy. Trump used his connections to the National Inquirer to manipulate the story vs Cruz into his favor). Motherjones.com was part of the group duped by the NYPost... and is a demonstration why I look at the sources of news now.

Remember to check your sources people!
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:47 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
elasto wrote:And yet these voters would regard any politician that advocated that as a pinko commie...
No they would regard them as liars. Because they have been promising that for years.
sardia wrote:We knew he was lying about most things, but we don't know what he wasn't lying about.
He's an empty suit. People are able to fill that suit however they want. They supply their own interpretation of what he says. Maybe a helpful starting point to understand him is to understand the idea of being a brand. What Trump is about is selling Trump.

I like how you cut out the part where I answer my own question. And then you imply as if you had insight into Trump's plans. We know Trump is in it for himself, that doesn't tell us shit. Will he declare a reign of terror, because it sells Trump? Will he be the best Republican president ever because it sells Trump? Will he be impeached like Nixon because he is selling Trump? It's a very meaningless statement.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

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.

elasto wrote:
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.

sardia wrote:
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?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8733
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:29 pm UTC

Obama's foreign policy track record is better than Carter's, I'll grant you that. Under Obama, we helped take down Gaddafi, only to have no followthrough whatsoever and let that turn into a brutal civil war that's been going on for half a decade now, currently involving ISIS strongholds and such. We then decided to copy this idea in Syria by backing "moderate" Islamist terrorist nutjobs, and now that country is basically Libya but with millions of refugees pouring into Europe, which basically led to Brexit and the return of the Far-Right into Europe (ok, there were more factors in play for those, but the refugees were definitely a major component). That's just how low my view of Carter's foreign policy was.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:46 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:Seems along the same lines of poll taxes and voter ID laws.
That flavor of BS is certainly present, but the situation analogous to what the article presented was "Black people are arrested for attempting to register to vote" versus "black people are turned away when attempting to register to vote"
sardia wrote:You're arguing they don't get white privilege when applying for jobs, interacting with police and civil rights? How recent is This? How widespread is this portrayal?
Privilege is not an either/or thing, nor is it a competition; it's a way of looking at specific problems.

Black people are disproportionately mistreated by the police? That's a problem, and not having to deal with that is a privilege of white people.

A regional accent tends to be regarded as a developmental disability? That's a problem, and not having to deal with it is a privilege of people from certain regions.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests