Has right wing media pushed conservatives further right

[superrific]

Where do I fall on the spectrum? I consider myself fairly conservative

Things I support:

First trimester abortion - abortion at any time if mother's health in jeopardy or fetus with serious birth defects, incest / rape
Stem Cell Research
Strong border security - legal immigration overhaul to expedite citizenship process / merit based immigration citizenship
Strong national defense (much more so than where we stand today)
Prison reform
Term Limits for congress and SCJ
Strong election security overhaul
Balanced Budget Amendment
Making Daylight Saving Time permenant
Global Warming & common sense environmental control measures
Some gun control measures
Death Penalty
America First initiatives
Personal and Corporate tax code reform
welfare reform
obamacare (with some modifications) I admit I was wrong when I initially opposed it
Harsh penalties for abusive cops/those in public trust jobs including politicians
State control of education with school choice and free community college tuition
Limited Deregulation of businesses (compared to where we are right now)

Ah yes. The classic Republican potpourri. Balanced Budget Amendment + a whole Christmas tree worth of additional spending.

What you have laid out is impossible. Scratch the Balanced Budget Amendment (which is truly one of the worst ideas in American politics of this generation, at least prior to 2016) and maybe.

 

[superrific]

I really think it boils down a lot to personality types and indoctrination these days. You are either more comfortable with a paternalistic religion that tells you what is right and what to believe and give you a hierarchy of advancement and improvement to follow.

The authoritarian personality has been a thing for a century. It contributed to fascism's rise in Europe in the 20s. It has contributed to fascism's rise in America in the 20s.

I've recited studies showing that racial attitudes and racial geography are by far the most predictive indicators of Trump support -- except I left out one. It seems minor, but it's not and I can't remember if it sits just below the racial attitudes or on par. It's how a person answers this question:

If you had to choose, would you rather your children be creative or obedient? [or other versions of that question, like which is more important to you for your kids, creativity or obedience]

If you answer that question in favor of obedience, you are very likely to be Trumplican.

 

[finesse]

The authoritarian personality has been a thing for a century. It contributed to fascism's rise in Europe in the 20s. It has contributed to fascism's rise in America in the 20s.

I've recited studies showing that racial attitudes and racial geography are by far the most predictive indicators of Trump support -- except I left out one. It seems minor, but it's not and I can't remember if it sits just below the racial attitudes or on par. It's how a person answers this question:

If you had to choose, would you rather your children be creative or obedient? [or other versions of that question, like which is more important to you for your kids, creativity or obedience]

If you answer that question in favor of obedience, you are very likely to be Trumplican.

I knew so many of my kids' relatives that obedience never crossed my mind.

 

[Paine]

It wasn't a terrible campaign strategy. If it had been the strategy from the beginning, maybe so. But they didn't start campaigning together until the last couple of weeks, and that was an attempt to pick off as many straggling votes as possible.

I think the campaign knew better than we did that it was behind. nycfan said David Plouffe seemed nervous on TV the day before. I didn't see it, but maybe she was right. Maybe the emails about being behind -- the ones that we thought were running through the tape -- were not.

Anyway, if people were really voting on economic issues, it was baked a long time ago. Inflation is gone. The economy is great. People were voting based on 2022. There's nothing we can do about that now.

As you know, I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that it was the economy that sunk her. This election was all about cultural shit -- racism, trans, etc. That "Kamala is for they/them" ad was unfortunately very well done, in that it resonated with people who don't know better.

The biggest mistake Dems made was going all-in on trans rights. I said as much a while ago. I completely understand that we feel that it's important to stand up for everyone's rights, but the reality is that now everyone has fewer rights and will be in much worse shape than if we had shut up about trans. We should have at least been like, "no biological males in women's sports." Draw a line. Yes, it's ridiculous but if we want votes of idiots then we have to speak to them in their language.

Please explain to me how Dems went “all in on trans rights.” Harris said nothing about trans people at all. This is a fabrication by the same consultant class that has now lost two elections against Trump. They’re looking for a scapegoat.

 

[superrific]

Please explain to me how Dems went “all in on trans rights.” Harris said nothing about trans people at all. This is a fabrication by the same consultant class that has now lost two elections against Trump. They’re looking for a scapegoat.

Not Harris. Dems. Liberals.

Look, IDGAF about trans women in women's sports. But obviously some of the voters do. It's the whole "out of touch liberal" thing. We could have sponsored a "no trans in girl's sports" type of regulation, while preserving trans access to education. Biden extended full Title IX protections to trans individuals, which was dumb because it was obvious that it would just get swatted by the courts so it would help nobody and possibly cost us at the ballot box.

We seemed to get a lot of mileage out of "weird" but that probably would have landed more cleanly if we weren't defending people that voters deem far more weird.

 

[Paine]

Not Harris. Dems. Liberals.

Look, IDGAF about trans women in women's sports. But obviously some of the voters do. It's the whole "out of touch liberal" thing. We could have sponsored a "no trans in girl's sports" type of regulation, while preserving trans access to education. Biden extended full Title IX protections to trans individuals, which was dumb because it was obvious that it would just get swatted by the courts so it would help nobody and possibly cost us at the ballot box.

We seemed to get a lot of mileage out of "weird" but that probably would have landed more cleanly if we weren't defending people that voters deem far more weird.

So you argument for how Democrats went “all in” is that Biden extended Title IX protections to trans people and then it wasn’t even upheld? And that’s why they lost the election?

If the party comes away with same conclusions that you have then God help us. We’re not going to win working class people back over by dehumanizing trans people more than the right.

The transphobia of the average person is only an issue insofar as it cements the notion that Democrats are out of touch. The way you combat this is through authentic, working-class candidates and a Democratic Party that is focused on bread and butter economic issues. You don’t have to talk about trans people at all when you talk about rights for everyone.

 

[superrific]

So you argument for how Democrats went “all in” is that Biden extended Title IX protections to trans people and then it wasn’t even upheld? And that’s why they lost the election?

If the party comes away with same conclusions that you have then God help us. We’re not going to win working class people back over by dehumanizing trans people more than the right.

The transphobia of the average person is only an issue insofar as it cements the notion that Democrats are out of touch. The way you combat this is through authentic, working-class candidates and a Democratic Party that is focused on bread and butter economic issues. You don’t have to talk about trans people at all when you talk about rights for everyone.

Did I say dehumanize people more than the right? I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. Give up the extreme case to protect the middle.

You say that you can combat this with bread and butter issues but there's really not a lot of evidence for that at all. Read about the 2004 election. How did Bush win, even though he took us into a war that everyone knew was a fiasco? He ran against gay marriage. The Pubs ran against gay marriage everywhere. That is why, if you recall, Obama was reluctant to come out in favor of gay marriage. It was a political nightmare.

The right-wing strategy forever, and I'm sure you know this, has been divide and conquer. You're likely familiar with the Hofstatder thesis (which has aged quite well) that American presidential elections are almost never fought over the important issues of the day. That's not entirely true any more; Obama in 2008 ran on health care, as did Bill Clinton to a lesser extent in 1992. But Republicans ALWAYS try to make elections about meaningless symbolic bullshit. Flag burning. Patriotism. Someone getting a sex change operation while in prison. And they do it because it works. Because bread and butter issues are boring.

Of course, the other reason that bread-and-butter issues rarely win is that they just don't motivate people the way outrage over cultural things do.

We live in a world where Bud Light hired a trans influencer to be among one of many, many marketing personalities, and the conservatives boycotted. And for the first time in recent memory, their boycott worked.

 

[Callatoroy]

Ah yes. The classic Republican potpourri. Balanced Budget Amendment + a whole Christmas tree worth of additional spending.

What you have laid out is impossible. Scratch the Balanced Budget Amendment (which is truly one of the worst ideas in American politics of this generation, at least prior to 2016) and maybe.

There is no additional spending or reprioritized spending. I can assure you I'm not for spending more.

 

[Paine]

Did I say dehumanize people more than the right? I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. Give up the extreme case to protect the middle.

You say that you can combat this with bread and butter issues but there's really not a lot of evidence for that at all. Read about the 2004 election. How did Bush win, even though he took us into a war that everyone knew was a fiasco? He ran against gay marriage. The Pubs ran against gay marriage everywhere. That is why, if you recall, Obama was reluctant to come out in favor of gay marriage. It was a political nightmare.

The right-wing strategy forever, and I'm sure you know this, has been divide and conquer. You're likely familiar with the Hofstatder thesis (which has aged quite well) that American presidential elections are almost never fought over the important issues of the day. That's not entirely true any more; Obama in 2008 ran on health care, as did Bill Clinton to a lesser extent in 1992. But Republicans ALWAYS try to make elections about meaningless symbolic bullshit. Flag burning. Patriotism. Someone getting a sex change operation while in prison. And they do it because it works. Because bread and butter issues are boring.

Of course, the other reason that bread-and-butter issues rarely win is that they just don't motivate people the way outrage over cultural things do.

We live in a world where Bud Light hired a trans influencer to be among one of many, many marketing personalities, and the conservatives boycotted. And for the first time in recent memory, their boycott worked.

You need to take my posts in context all together. You tend to respond to the points in making in individual posts instead of taking everything I’ve said together in terms of parsing my argument.

It’s not like Democrats in 2004 were running the kind of campaign I’m talking about. Perhaps they would’ve won in 2004 if they had. John Kerry is not a populist, and the Democratic Party of 2004 wasn’t a populist party.

The Republican Party is, once again, able to win on cultural issues because the Democrats don’t address the economic issues that are at the base of people’s situation.

You just made a post about a trans kid getting bullied and committing suicide. The Democratic Party passing a bill to prevent trans kids from playing in sports would be a major othering of them. How many trans kids are playing sports? It’s not a real issue.

We shouldn’t give oxygen to this anymore than we should the immigrants eat cats and dogs bs. It is all a distraction.

 

[NCK9]

Please explain to me how Dems went “all in on trans rights.” Harris said nothing about trans people at all. This is a fabrication by the same consultant class that has now lost two elections against Trump. They’re looking for a scapegoat.

Exactly - she had to address her comments from the interview in the 'trans prisoner' commercial that ran 4x an hour and never did.

 

[Lando]

Listen to his shows recently. He’s always been a reactionary but he’s taken it to a new level the past few years. Just an elitist ass.

He’s a pizza cutter, all edge and no point.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

Exactly - she had to address her comments from the interview in the 'trans prisoner' commercial that ran 4x an hour and never did.

Um, the fact that her campaign was so surprised that ad was so effective is symbolic of the Democratic Party leadership being out of touch with what's happening outside of reliably blue states. Given how much Republicans hate transgenders it should not have been a surprise at all to any Democrat that the ad would be effective, especially if there was no rebuttal whatsoever from the Harris campaign. It doesn't surprise me that Bill Clinton advised the Harris campaign that they had to respond - he was always a shrewd and effective politician - but the fact that they apparently didn't listen is concerning. It does seem as if much of the party leadership is just clueless as what moves voters in much of the country.

 

[superrific]

You need to take my posts in context all together. You tend to respond to the points in making in individual posts instead of taking everything I’ve said together in terms of parsing my argument.

It’s not like Democrats in 2004 were running the kind of campaign I’m talking about. Perhaps they would’ve won in 2004 if they had. John Kerry is not a populist, and the Democratic Party of 2004 wasn’t a populist party.

The Republican Party is, once again, able to win on cultural issues because the Democrats don’t address the economic issues that are at the base of people’s situation.

You just made a post about a trans kid getting bullied and committing suicide. The Democratic Party passing a bill to prevent trans kids from playing in sports would be a major othering of them. How many trans kids are playing sports? It’s not a real issue.

We shouldn’t give oxygen to this anymore than we should the immigrants eat cats and dogs bs. It is all a distraction.

1. Of course trans kids playing sports isn't a real issue. It's a wedge. But I'll bet that kid doesn't commit suicide if she wasn't allowed to play sports but Kamala won. These days, winning is the only thing that matters, because the other side is inhumane. For the other side -- and most of the voters who you think are gettable and I'm not sure are -- cruelty is the point.

You say it's a distraction, but look at the posts around this one. I've been reading about how devastating that ad was. Now, was it really devastating? No idea. I'm not sure how they are measuring that. Maybe they are focus grouping it. But if Kamala is now saying they really needed to counter it, maybe we should have not let them make it into a major issue.

2. I get that you're a materialist in politics, but there is really not much evidence that, in post-industrial societies and especially in post-internet society, economic issues motivate people more than cultural issues. "It's the economy" stupid was the famous line, but cultural issues loomed large in that election as well. And of course what that line really meant was, "hammer the Pubs on the recession."

And the reason that economic policy doesn't really matter is outrage and negative partisanship. The economy isn't something that happens. It's something you experience. Even when it's going poorly for you, it's more of a daily slog than an "OMG I hate this" sort of thing. The cultural stuff engages and outrages people. "OMG they are letting men play women's sports" or "OMG they are vandalizing the library" or "OMG some migrant killed a girl in Georgia." That's what gets people going.

3. American politics has centered around race, and to a lesser extent gender, ever since 1968. That's what has defined the parties. That is what caused the great realignment. If black people could not vote, then the Dems would run on the Jacksonian white man's democracy populist line as they did for a century. New Deal programs would be popular. Great Society programs would be popular. I mean, I used to agree with your take when I was your age. And then in the last 30 years I have seen ugly racial politics over and over and over again. That's how it works.

4. I just saw that the Pubs won the state house in Michigan. As far as I know, the Michigan Dems have been pursuing a vehement pro-worker policy ever since 2022. They got rid of the right-to-work law, for one thing. And how well did that work? It didn't.

And the EV plant up in the north of Michigan. The Gotion plant. I don't think that project is a go anymore. They attracted a huge investment from an EV battery manufacturer, that would have created a lot of mfg jobs with good wages. Exactly the sort of thing the Pubs say they want. Rural area, factory, solid work. But OMG it's got ties to communist China!!!! And so they have been trying to defeat it.

This is what we are up against, and it's why I get tired of the complaints that "Dems don't care or understand working people." I mean, WTF? Every time we do help those communities, they punch back at us for it. Did they appreciate Obamacare? They did not. Even now a lot of them complain about it. What about all the manufacturing plants and subsidies in the IRA and CHIPs acts, which are now going to be killed? Did that help us? No, because brown people.

5. And another anecdote. I recently got solar panels. The solar installer had a Trump flag on his vehicle. I mean, what does he think is going to happen when Trump pulls all support for solar. He literally voted to eliminate his job, or at least jobs like it. I just don't understand why people think bread-and-butter will work when it so obviously and commonly fails.

 

[superrific]

Um, the fact that her campaign was so surprised that ad was so effective is symbolic of the Democratic Party leadership being out of touch with what's happening outside of reliably blue states. Given how much Republicans hate transgenders it should not have been a surprise at all to any Democrat that the ad would be effective, especially if there was no rebuttal whatsoever from the Harris campaign. It doesn't surprise me that Bill Clinton advised the Harris campaign that they had to respond - he was always a shrewd and effective politician - but the fact that they apparently didn't listen is concerning. It does seem as if much of the party leadership is just clueless as what moves voters in much of the country.

So apparently the Dems are out of touch because we don't understand cultural issues. And also because we don't understand the financial struggles. Gee, I guess we just suck all around, huh? I know that you're here talking about trans and not inflation, and I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy. I'm just saying, oof. Why do we flagellate ourselves like this? If we must, can we just use a single-lash whip and not a cat o' nine tails?

I'm guessing that the reason Kamala didn't respond is that there's no good option there. If she had responded, then trans would be the issue people were talking about, which is inherently favorable to Pubs. There's no way to rebut that without throwing trans kids under the bus, and maybe we should have done that a little bit. Give up 20% to save the other 80. But that would have created a lot of pushback from other Dems and really wouldn't have needed to be a larger conversation.

 

[Paine]

1. Of course trans kids playing sports isn't a real issue. It's a wedge. But I'll bet that kid doesn't commit suicide if she wasn't allowed to play sports but Kamala won. These days, winning is the only thing that matters, because the other side is inhumane. For the other side -- and most of the voters who you think are gettable and I'm not sure are -- cruelty is the point.

You say it's a distraction, but look at the posts around this one. I've been reading about how devastating that ad was. Now, was it really devastating? No idea. I'm not sure how they are measuring that. Maybe they are focus grouping it. But if Kamala is now saying they really needed to counter it, maybe we should have not let them make it into a major issue.

2. I get that you're a materialist in politics, but there is really not much evidence that, in post-industrial societies and especially in post-internet society, economic issues motivate people more than cultural issues. "It's the economy" stupid was the famous line, but cultural issues loomed large in that election as well. And of course what that line really meant was, "hammer the Pubs on the recession."

And the reason that economic policy doesn't really matter is outrage and negative partisanship. The economy isn't something that happens. It's something you experience. Even when it's going poorly for you, it's more of a daily slog than an "OMG I hate this" sort of thing. The cultural stuff engages and outrages people. "OMG they are letting men play women's sports" or "OMG they are vandalizing the library" or "OMG some migrant killed a girl in Georgia." That's what gets people going.

3. American politics has centered around race, and to a lesser extent gender, ever since 1968. That's what has defined the parties. That is what caused the great realignment. If black people could not vote, then the Dems would run on the Jacksonian white man's democracy populist line as they did for a century. New Deal programs would be popular. Great Society programs would be popular. I mean, I used to agree with your take when I was your age. And then in the last 30 years I have seen ugly racial politics over and over and over again. That's how it works.

4. I just saw that the Pubs won the state house in Michigan. As far as I know, the Michigan Dems have been pursuing a vehement pro-worker policy ever since 2022. They got rid of the right-to-work law, for one thing. And how well did that work? It didn't.

And the EV plant up in the north of Michigan. The Gotion plant. I don't think that project is a go anymore. They attracted a huge investment from an EV battery manufacturer, that would have created a lot of mfg jobs with good wages. Exactly the sort of thing the Pubs say they want. Rural area, factory, solid work. But OMG it's got ties to communist China!!!! And so they have been trying to defeat it.

This is what we are up against, and it's why I get tired of the complaints that "Dems don't care or understand working people." I mean, WTF? Every time we do help those communities, they punch back at us for it. Did they appreciate Obamacare? They did not. Even now a lot of them complain about it. What about all the manufacturing plants and subsidies in the IRA and CHIPs acts, which are now going to be killed? Did that help us? No, because brown people.

5. And another anecdote. I recently got solar panels. The solar installer had a Trump flag on his vehicle. I mean, what does he think is going to happen when Trump pulls all support for solar. He literally voted to eliminate his job, or at least jobs like it. I just don't understand why people think bread-and-butter will work when it so obviously and commonly fails.

You’re completely missing the point about bread and butter issues when it comes to the messaging around it. The Democratic Party’s brand and authenticity is absolutely shot. They are not trusted messengers for a lot of voters on these issues. We have to win back trust that the Democratic Party once had to handle these issues. You do that by running the correct candidates who can connect with people. I know it’s not about issues, I’ve said that repeatedly. It’s about optics.

Look, it’s getting frustrating to continue responding to your same points in post after post. I’m just going to hope the party does not take away the same conclusions you have because I think you’re flat wrong on this, frankly. The way you think about these issues is how the party has thought about them for at least 40 years. And we have zilch to show for it.

 

[Calheel]

Exactly - she had to address her comments from the interview in the 'trans prisoner' commercial that ran 4x an hour and never did.

Agreed.

She should have pulled a JD Vance and said she was wrong then and she has since changed her mind. I thought ignoring it was a terrible strategy. Not outcome determinative, but bad politics.

 

[Calheel]

It wasn't a terrible campaign strategy. If it had been the strategy from the beginning, maybe so. But they didn't start campaigning together until the last couple of weeks, and that was an attempt to pick off as many straggling votes as possible.

I think the campaign knew better than we did that it was behind. nycfan said David Plouffe seemed nervous on TV the day before. I didn't see it, but maybe she was right. Maybe the emails about being behind -- the ones that we thought were running through the tape -- were not.

Anyway, if people were really voting on economic issues, it was baked a long time ago. Inflation is gone. The economy is great. People were voting based on 2022. There's nothing we can do about that now.

As you know, I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that it was the economy that sunk her. This election was all about cultural shit -- racism, trans, etc. That "Kamala is for they/them" ad was unfortunately very well done, in that it resonated with people who don't know better.

The biggest mistake Dems made was going all-in on trans rights. I said as much a while ago. I completely understand that we feel that it's important to stand up for everyone's rights, but the reality is that now everyone has fewer rights and will be in much worse shape than if we had shut up about trans. We should have at least been like, "no biological males in women's sports." Draw a line. Yes, it's ridiculous but if we want votes of idiots then we have to speak to them in their language.

And I’ve seen nothing to show that it wasn’t the economy.

The fact that Trump didn’t campaign very heavily on the economy doesn’t tell us anything. Until I see some detailed political science analysis on the 2024 Latino working class vote switch, I am going with the assumption that it was the economy stupid.

I also think there was a segment of the Latino voting population that was still upset about Covid shutdowns, which manifested itself a bit in 2020 exit polling. That population needs the economy to be open to make ends meet. And they think the democrats don’t care about the working person because of Covid shutdowns.

 

[Paine]

And I’ve seen nothing to show that it wasn’t the economy.

The fact that Trump didn’t campaign very heavily on the economy doesn’t tell us anything. Until I see some detailed political science analysis on the 2024 Latino working class vote switch, I am going with the assumption that it was the economy stupid.

I also think there was a segment of the Latino voting population that was still upset about Covid shutdowns, which manifested itself a bit in 2020 exit polling. That population needs the economy to be open to make ends meet. And they think the democrats don’t care about the working person because of Covid shutdowns.

There’s a ton of evidence that it was the economy, but super will ignore all that since the GDP was high and unemployment is low.

Child poverty up, income inequality up, wage growth barely outpacing price increase if at all. There are a number of indicators that people are struggling in this economy, but a lot of wealthy liberals are insulated from this.

 

[superrific]

You’re completely missing the point about bread and butter issues when it comes to the messaging around it. The Democratic Party’s brand and authenticity is absolutely shot. They are not trusted messengers for a lot of voters on these issues. We have to win back trust that the Democratic Party once had to handle these issues. You do that by running the correct candidates who can connect with people. I know it’s not about issues, I’ve said that repeatedly. It’s about optics.

Look, it’s getting frustrating to continue responding to your same points in post after post. I’m just going to hope the party does not take away the same conclusions you have because I think you’re flat wrong on this, frankly. The way you think about these issues is how the party has thought about them for at least 40 years. And we have zilch to show for it.

Sure, you're allowed to think I'm wrong. But maybe, maybe, it's worth wondering WHY the Democrats have thought this way for 40 years. Maybe everyone in the party is just an idiot. We do win the popular vote most of the time, but whatever, they are all idiots. Or maybe they know more than we do. That isn't to say that they will always get everything right, or that they don't have blind spots, or that they can't improve. But I just don't understand your strident insistence that everyone is corrupt and/or stupid.

There was a time, of course, when the Dems ran on almost nothing BUT bread-and-butter issues for the working class. That was called the 80s, and it went badly for us. Bill Clinton didn't form the DNC because he was on the take and was just dying to get his greedy hands on corporate donations. They formed the DNC because we won 173 EVs COMBINED in the three presidential elections before WJC. Kamala is getting 220 EVs at least this cycle, and we're talking about a rout. She is literally doing four times better than Mondale, Carter and Dukakis.

The reason the Dems tacked to the center is that we were getting absolutely pummeled by staying left. This is the part of the political history that the progressives just gloss over or forget. The world didn't start in 1992.

 

[superrific]

There’s a ton of evidence that it was the economy, but super will ignore all that since the GDP was high and unemployment is low.

Child poverty up, income inequality up, wage growth barely outpacing price increase if at all. There are a number of indicators that people are struggling in this economy, but a lot of wealthy liberals are insulated from this.

Wage growth barely outpacing price increases if at all? Oh, wonderful. Now we're hearing this disinformation from you as well? Why?

My primary data points are not GDP or unemployment. It's consumer spending and consumer confidence. How much economics did you study in college? I take you to be a history/poli sci type of guy. Are you familiar with the idea of revealed preferences? When I see that data, I'm looking at revealed preferences. Preferences that are harder to lie about. But even what people say casts doubt on this narrative. In polls, a large majority of people say a) their finances are great and b) the economy sucks. Idk.

Obviously people are struggling, because there are always people who are struggling. But in 2016, Trump voters were by and large not struggling, and I have a feeling we're going to find out the same thing this time around.

And if they are struggling so much, why are they fighting new manufacturing investment so vehemently?