- Messages
- 2,769
First female president will be a transgender lesbian Democrat...deal with it
Is this why Dem’s Approval Rating Polls are so bad?
- Thread starter Centerpiece
- Start date
- Replies: 340
- Views: 9K
- Politics
- Messages
- 3,158
Roy says hold my beer (hopefully)
- Messages
- 2,769
Roy runs and Thom is toast
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,112
I seriously doubt whether Republicans will be willing to nominate a woman for POTUS anytime soon. Given the unhappy experiences of Hillary and Kamala, I now wonder if the first woman to become POTUS will be a Vice-President who takes over when the POTUS dies or is forced to step down for some reason. And that could happen in either party, although the Democrats have certainly been more willing to nominate women for veep (and president) as opposed to Republicans.First female president will be a transgender lesbian Democrat...deal with it
- Messages
- 3,949
I think most purple states aren't strictly purple, they're often closer to magenta (more red than blue) or violet (more blue than red). I think of NC as a magenta state in that it leans red while having a real opportunity to go blue in most elections.
- Messages
- 3,949
My hunch on this is that we have a small but significant group of Pub/Pub-lean voters - likely urban, pro-business Pubs - who tend to vote centrist Dem for governor as a firewall against what they know will be a fairly conservative GA due to the votes of the rural areas around NC. They want an overall conservative state government, but they want the governor to be a check against the worst impulses of NC Pubs. Pubs in the GA have completely obliterated the strength of that firewall by restricting the powers of the governor, but it was probably a good balance for more centrist Pubs in NC.
Of course, they don't do the same thing in national elections (POTUS, Senate) because they fear a Dem-led federal government and prefer crazy Pubs to centrist Dems at that level.
Centerpiece
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,711
That’s a stretch too far… if we did that we might turn more blue than purple. Right now we seem more red than anything. Except the white milquetoast and of course Dems as Superintendent of DPI, Atty Gen., Sec. State and a newly certified SSCJustice… that’s a lot of blue right there…. To counter balance the flaming red House, Senate and State legislatures.
- Messages
- 3,949
A little feedback that's meant to be positive and not critical..you read into my posts a lot of assumptions that are not only not there, but are incorrect. (That's not just true in this post, in nearly all of our discussions over time. It really makes it difficult to hold a discussion with you.) I'll address a few of those first...
1) I don't "reject the idea that politics can be about building trust, changing minds, or shifting emotional terrain". But I think it is very tough for politicians or political parties to connect with voters in a way that actually accomplishes this goal/action. And it's rare enough that you can't reliably build political campaigns - in one election or across elections - on the idea of doing so. If a political party is relying on that level of connection to voters, I think that political party is more far more likely to lose more elections than they win. Having that kind of connections to voters would be great, it's the kind of thing that changes society, but it's not a reliable way to win elections or impact society because of how rare it is.
2) I don't think that populism is inherently authoritarian. I do think that authoritarianism is one of the greatest dangers of populism because once a group has decided that their goals are "just" and believe the majority agrees with them, then it is very easy to justify authoritarian means to achieve those goals. Let's face it, most folks just don't operate at the philosophical level where the "rights of those who disagree with me" are valued highly if it means that I don't get what I perceive as my "rights". And that is a recipe for authoritarianism because from there it is but a short stroll to using force to achieve my "rights" against those who would keep them from me.
3) It's not that I don't assume that others can't change from their bigoted/retrograde views, it's that I think the process of doing so is difficult to create and therefore most people aren't going to do it. It happened for me because I was smart enough to be taken from BFE rural NC to Chapel Hill and exposed to a completely different world plus I was open to the ideas being espoused. I know plenty of conservative folks from rural areas of NC who went through CH and didn't change their views because they weren't open to the ideas being presented, they remained surrounded by other conservatives in CH, and/or because they left CH to go right back to conservative areas of the state/country. The kind of change I made is not atypical for rural conservatives that go to Carolina, but it is atypical for all of the conservatives that live in rural areas as most remain in their conservatism in their rural areas. There's a good analogy to this from The Simpsons in S8E15 "Homer's Phobia". In the episode, the Simpson family meets "John" (voiced by John Waters) who owns the local kitschy antiques store. John is gay and once Homer realizes this, he is against the family continuing to socialize with John. Homer is also concerned that John will turn Bart gay and take steps to prevent this, which all go hilariously wrong, and eventually lead to a situation where Homer & Bart are in significant physical danger from one of the efforts Homer takes. John ends up saving both of them (plus Barney and Moe) from injury/death, leading to Homer accepting John. John then quips back: "Homer, I won your respect, and all I had to do was save your life. Now, if every gay man could just do the same, you'd be set." If only every rural conservative were to spend 4 years in Chapel Hill open to the competing views around them, maybe we could drastically change society.
4) It's not that I don't think folks in rural communities won't help their neighbors, it's that I think they tend to be really, really narrowly biased about who is their "neighbor". Most of the ones I know would give their neighbor the shirt off their back and would provide significant resources to help their neighbor...but they don't see the black/brown person, the LGBTQ person, or other marginalized folks at their "neighbor". They tend to live in very, very homogenous neighborhoods surrounded by folks like themselves and so the black/brown, LGBTQ, and other folks are viewed as outsiders and therefore not deserving of their help. It's not that most of conservative working class folks won't help their neighbor fix their car or that they disagree their kid or the kid next door should be able to go to the doctor without going bankrupt; it's that they don't care if the black man that lives 10 miles away in a different neighborhood gets his car fixed and they certainly don't care if his kid gets to go to doctor without him going bankrupt. I work in the non-profit sector in smaller NC counties and a major thing I repeatedly hear is about how "those people" take all the resources and "don't leave help for those that really need it"...and if you ask a few questions, "those people" are inevitably folks who don't look, believe, and behave like the speaker. One of the things that amazes me most about a large number of Christians, largely conservatives ones, is how they inevitably miss the point of the story of the Good Samaritan. It could not be any clearer, but nearly all the ones I know either never get it or completely ignore it. And it could not be clearer how much they miss it when you look at their voting patterns and see how they inevitably choose to be the Priest & Levite in that story rather than the Samartian.
I think a large thing that separates us is how likely we think your type of approach to be successful vs creating a situation where Pubs are actually the beneficiaries of such an effort. It's not the main reason I think we have Trumpism, but I do think that efforts by Bernie and other progressives to say that government, especially Dem-led government, isn't sufficiently effective contributed to the rise of Trumpism. I also think that the distinct advantages that Pubs hold due to geography and having a more homogenous party make it so that Dems start with an electoral disadvantage and therefore it is highly unlikely that Dems can create a sweeping electoral victory that would allow for real changing of our government. Dems got that situation in 2008 and still got a government that only created 1 lasting change...Obamacare/ACA. The idea that Dems can overcome their electoral disadvantages to create the successive electoral victories needed to establish a "change-making" government seems highly, highly unlikely to me. And so I will not support efforts in that direction that also create a greater chance that Pubs win significant elections that enable them to not only thwart Dem initiatives but also enact initiatives that harm groups Dems seek to protect. In essence, I'm not willing to swing for the fences of "institutional change" when I think the likelihood of success is very low and the likelihood of disasterous results (like Trumpism) are much higher.
So, yes, I will continue to advocate for "triangulation" and narrow wins (and hopefully narrow losses) that keeps government focused on a rather centrist, slow-changing path as opposed to a "go for broke" strategy that also increases the likelihood of significant electoral victories by opponents. And the rise of Trumpism is exactly why I will continue to do so, in that I think progressive actions over the last 25 years have done more to assist Trumpism than it has to bring about the results they're seeking. Imagine where we'd be if Hillary losing in 2016 would have led to a Mitt Romney-like Republican POTUS rather than Trump; it would have stunk to have lost, but we wouldn't be in midst of fascist authoritarian revolution in the US.
Last edited:
Callatoroy
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,514
Interesting stuff. Were you not jaded by the experience? What’s a congressional campaign cost? Did the incumbent win the general election?
The incumbent, David Price, won the General Election 65-35; he won the primary 90-6-4.
He often was unopposed in primaries; he often won 58-65 percent of the vote in General Elections.
How much does a congressional campaign cost? It depends.
HeelYeah2012
Honored Member
- Messages
- 847
You basically described me to a tee in this post. And I’m not alone!
- Messages
- 3,949
I'll do my answers by number, since it works so well.
1) I don't reject outright "that politics can be about building trust, changing minds, or shifting emotional terrain", but I do have deep reservations that it is an effective on-going political strategy, especially if we're talking about the kind that creates movements. I know that it can work, and when it does work it is often capable of making the greatest political change, but I don't think it is reliable way of generating positive electoral results and therefore wouldn't build political efforts around it. There's a reason that someone like Obama, who had that ability, is called a "generational" politician. I guess my take would be...when an Obama comes along, take full advantage of the moment, but build your greater electoral efforts around figuring out how to consistently elect Bidens or Harrises or even Betos.
2. The mistake you made here was assuming that "worst suited" equaled authoritarian. It certainly includes authoritarians, but it also includes folks that can't effectively use government structures, can't make necessary compromises with opposition parties, and let personal ambitions/failings compromise them (among other potential issues). Essentially, the issue here is that movement leaders don't always (or even often) make great political leaders and movement goals often are opposed to political realities.
3. I've said consistently that I don't think (white) working class folks are reachable on a grand scale. You tried to use my individual story to challenge that assertion. I merely showed why I don't think my story is likely to be replicated on a mass level. This is essentially a repeat of number 1 in that while I recognize that certain outcomes can happen in small numbers, I am highly skeptical they can be effective on a mass scale. So I don't reject these things (emotional appeals or changing minds) at a philosophical level, but I am unwilling to build a political strategy on them at a pragmatic level.
4. You were the one that suggested that folks being willing to help their neighbors meant they were capable and willing to change their views away from bigotry. My explanation that many of them don't consider minorities their "neighbor", which is why I don't think they'll give up their bigotries at the ballot box...especially if the Republican Party is offering them economic policies that appeal to them (rugged individualism with them given special status) AND continued bigotry.
5. We simply disagree at the larger causes of Trumpism. I'm not sure that either of us can prove our views, as the causes of Trumpism are multiple and varied. I simply acknowledge that our differences mirror our different beliefs about the best solution.
I've already addressed the issue of the movements you describe. I fully admit that these movements helped lead to political changes. However, they were part of greater actions - political, governmental, religious - that also helped lead to the permanent changes in our society. These movements, alone, did not create the change that we have today and they weren't the political basis for the permanent change. Your goal is to create a social/issue movement that acts as a political party, which isn't what the examples you list show. Additionally, there are plenty of social movements that did not create political advancement for those issues; one recent prominent example is that BLM had some significant success as a movement, but the political outcome may very well be the anti-DEI actions we currently see from the Republican Party. There is no guarantee that social movements will have political success nor do you have examples of social/economic movements that effectively function as political parties (or effective political parties built upon movement principles). That is why I find your examples unpersuasive and disagree about "movement" actions as the basis of an entire political party.
Last edited:
eternalheel
Exceptional Member
- Messages
- 127
For the love of God.
It's about white supremacy. We'll set racism and universal anti-blackness to the side and lump the non ethno Europeans in with the white supremacists.
For immigrants, the path to the American dream and acceptance is embracing the most toxic aspects of white supremacy.
I've seen it. I've seen swarthy eastern European, African, Latin and Indian immigrants twist themselves into logic pretzels defending white supremacy.
It ain't the dems. They're essentially Republicans. If the elections haven't been rigged, the problem is the ppl. They're unreachable. This is why I personally ignore ppl. I also feel the utmost sympathy for regular white ppl that aren't anti black or practice white supremacy. They get lumped in with the trash.
It's about white supremacy. We'll set racism and universal anti-blackness to the side and lump the non ethno Europeans in with the white supremacists.
For immigrants, the path to the American dream and acceptance is embracing the most toxic aspects of white supremacy.
I've seen it. I've seen swarthy eastern European, African, Latin and Indian immigrants twist themselves into logic pretzels defending white supremacy.
It ain't the dems. They're essentially Republicans. If the elections haven't been rigged, the problem is the ppl. They're unreachable. This is why I personally ignore ppl. I also feel the utmost sympathy for regular white ppl that aren't anti black or practice white supremacy. They get lumped in with the trash.
- Messages
- 2,769
The cost for me was a $1500 filing fee and another $5000 in yard signs which included my name and " Protect the Constitution "
So my ROI was $1 per vote
... I used to joke that if I had kicked in another million dollars I would be in Congress today ( before you respond, Zoo, it was a joke )Was I jaded by the experience ? Somewhat...I thought with an off year election with no statewide races that the press might see some value in my primary race as a narrative in an otherwise blah political campaign. They did not get it.
I was also disappointed that progressive chat groups/blogs had a mixed response. I remember a thread on Orange Politics which was an Orange County progressive message board. There was a thread addressing whether my run against the meek incumbent was a positive or a distraction. The responses were about 50/50
I do remember one suggesting forming a PAC on my behalf despite me refusing to accept direct contributions
So to sum up my experience, I made the mistake of assuming those Dems who opposed the Iraq war and believed the president had committed impeachable acts eg. illegal war, torture/war crimes would express their concern by voting for me to send a message to the incumbent and maybe be a vote that would be additive to the growing national concern about our actions in Iraq and waterboarding captives.
Was the campaign inartful on my part ? Was the stereotypical tunnel vision notion of a horse race election to blame ? Maybe a combo ? I guess 20 years later it doesn't really matter other than my contention that "everything old is new again"
ETA : My campaign may have scared the incumbent a bit. The usual construction of a ballot was to be in alphabetical order which would have placed my name at the top, but that changed that year and the incumbent's name was placed at the top.
Why is name placement important ? because voters tend to vote for the top name on the ballot in off year elections.The incumbent may have been a meek back bench rep. but he did understand election politics
Last edited:
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,112
As someone who also grew up in rural, small-town NC (in the foothills) I can say that this is also 100% my experience in dealing with working-class rural white Trumpers and Republicans generally. My parents and some relatives still live in my old hometown, and so I still have frequent contact with these people. And they do see themselves as kindly people who love to help their neighbors - as long as said neighbors look like them and think like them and come from the same demographic group (tribe, really) as they are. Once you move beyond that group, though, their compassion and concern quickly disappears. The community I grew up in was remarkably homogeneous - nearly all white, native-born (as in born and raised in that area), Baptist, and with few outsiders of any kind. And those are the people they care about and are comfortable being with. Once you move beyond that narrow group their friendliness and interest tends to evaporate and is replaced by suspicion, awkwardness, and even fear. And yes, they do talk often (usually based on what they see and hear on Fox News) about how dangerous and fearsome the world outside their little community or region is - too many immigrants and minorities and people who are not like them, nobody goes to church apparently, big cities are dangerous, crime-ridden hellholes, and so on. And "those people" need to be kept under control by police and have their welfare cut because they're living it up on welfare while good people like them are struggling to get by. It's like a broken record, really.
- Messages
- 3,158
And these folks represent a LOT of voting precincts-magnified greatly by Gerrymandering...
HintonJamesHeel
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 727
Any political party has to win the middle.
When you see someone with an American flag, you know they aren’t Democrats.
When you see someone with a tshirt that supports the military, not Democrats.
When you see someone saying the country is evil and a huge problem for the world, Democrats.
Rightly or wrongly, these things do not capture the middle. The Democrats come off as a party that doesn’t like where they live.
When you see someone with an American flag, you know they aren’t Democrats.
When you see someone with a tshirt that supports the military, not Democrats.
When you see someone saying the country is evil and a huge problem for the world, Democrats.
Rightly or wrongly, these things do not capture the middle. The Democrats come off as a party that doesn’t like where they live.
Mulberry Heel
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,112
Oh, bullshit. I see plenty of Democrats who fly the American flag, Trumpers hardly have a monopoly on the American flag. And I know plenty of military vets who are Democrats and proudly wear their uniforms and such when it's appropriate. And plenty of Trumpers complain about the country all the time, especially when Democrats are in office. Trump himself has said the country was going to hell under Biden (or would have under Hillary or Kamala) and that if he didn't win then the country was finished. Republicans trash America all the time whenever a Democrat is in office. And using your analogy what do all those Trumpers who fly the Confederate flag indicate? Neither Republicans nor Democrats have a monopoly on these sorts of things, unless you're a Republican (not the middle, but a Republican) who is looking for something to justify your dislike of Democrats.
You sound like my son.
- Messages
- 3,419
The rural white southern working class was never organized, and there was sure as hell no civil rights-labor coalitions in the communities Snoop and Mulberry are describing. In the Piedmont mill town where I grew up, there was no dirtier word than “union.”