Where do we go from here?

[superrific]

I’m talking specifically about working class Latinos. Men and women. They moved away from Democrats in 2024. As did Black men to a lesser degree.

I’ve listened to and read countless interviews with working class voters who voted for Democrats in the past but Trump in 2024. The underlying piece of it all is economic issues. Again, I don’t really care to rehash the argument about this again because I’m made my points and people here can take them or leave them.

Did you see that piece in the Times talking with 24 Trump voters about Trump's cabinet choices? I will try to link it if I can find it. Not a one mentioned economic issues. Now, the interview questions weren't exactly on point, but it was striking to me that every single one of them cited a non-economic reason for voting Trump. Maybe not every single one. I'm vaguely recalling maybe a couple who did, but it was a small minority.

We need to pay zero attention to polls that ask questions in the following way: "which of the following issues is the most important to you: a) . . b) . . . c) . . ." People don't necessarily know what the terms mean, and they find it hard to cabin their ideas into small descriptors. For instance, in that set of interviews, the most commonly expressed idea was that Trump was going to end our foreign wars and keep our troops at home. Yes, that doesn't distinguish Trump from the status quo (sigh), but anyway, let's suppose you're a Dominican voter with a high school education. You want not to send Americans into war. Do you consider that to be "foreign policy?" Probably not. I mean, what the fuck is foreign policy anyway? That's a hard term even for us to define. It's certainly not self-evident that "foreign policy" means "keep our troops home."

So it's not a surprise that "foreign policy" ALWAYS ranks low on voters' priorities. Maybe that's because people don't think it's that important, but maybe it's because nobody knows what it actually refers to. So they go with the choice that's easier to grasp: economic issues.

 

[finesse]

The Civil Rights Movement was pernicious? The abolitionist movement was pernicious? Independence for India was pernicious.

The vast majority of successful social movements in the modern world have been inflected with religion, with religious appeals at the heart of the messaging. I mean, he was the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, after all.

And MLK's successor (not direct, of course) is Raphael Warnock, who is a pretty good politician and a guy I'm really happy to have in the Senate. He's great. I think we need more of him. He shouldn't be all of us.

At no point did I suggest that religion should not be a consideration in politics or politics in religion. I'm all for working together when we have mutual interests. I just very strongly resist the idea that either drives the other. That, to my mind, is an infringement of the separation of church and state. And yes, that infringement is pernicious. It's also very present in our society and getting worse. I really don't want to add to it. Religion as part, absolutely. Religion as a feature, not so much.

 

[Paine]

Did you see that piece in the Times talking with 24 Trump voters about Trump's cabinet choices? I will try to link it if I can find it. Not a one mentioned economic issues. Now, the interview questions weren't exactly on point, but it was striking to me that every single one of them cited a non-economic reason for voting Trump. Maybe not every single one. I'm vaguely recalling maybe a couple who did, but it was a small minority.

We need to pay zero attention to polls that ask questions in the following way: "which of the following issues is the most important to you: a) . . b) . . . c) . . ." People don't necessarily know what the terms mean, and they find it hard to cabin their ideas into small descriptors. For instance, in that set of interviews, the most commonly expressed idea was that Trump was going to end our foreign wars and keep our troops at home. Yes, that doesn't distinguish Trump from the status quo (sigh), but anyway, let's suppose you're a Dominican voter with a high school education. You want not to send Americans into war. Do you consider that to be "foreign policy?" Probably not. I mean, what the fuck is foreign policy anyway? That's a hard term even for us to define. It's certainly not self-evident that "foreign policy" means "keep our troops home."

So it's not a surprise that "foreign policy" ALWAYS ranks low on voters' priorities. Maybe that's because people don't think it's that important, but maybe it's because nobody knows what it actually refers to. So they go with the choice that's easier to grasp: economic issues.

Again, not interested in rehashing this argument. I’ll just say, Trump not focusing on economic issues at all once in office doesn’t disprove that a lot of voters voted for him based on their economic concerns.

All of us here know that Trump doesn’t give a shit about that stuff and that he won’t help. People know what it means when they say they voted on economic issues. It means that prices are too high, rent is too high, and people are struggling to pay off debt and bills.

 

[superrific]

I think what you say about uncertainty makes sense in a certain era. I don’t think that dynamic necessarily holds today.

Says every young activist ever.

That's a joke, but it's also true. The humor is actually at my expense: the old man looking down on activists as if my experiences are always going to reflect realities at all times. At least some of the time, the activist's claim will be correct. Maybe more often than not.

But it's also true that a lot of young activists assume (subconsciously and through deed more than as an expressed thought) that the past is the past and the future will be new. At least some of the time, it's not.

 

[Paine]

Says every young activist ever.

That's a joke, but it's also true. The humor is actually at my expense: the old man looking down on activists as if my experiences are always going to reflect realities at all times. At least some of the time, the activist's claim will be correct. Maybe more often than not.

But it's also true that a lot of young activists assume (subconsciously and through deed more than as an expressed thought) that the past is the past and the future will be new. At least some of the time, it's not.

Yeah, I just don’t think telling people: “you will no longer pay at the point of service and you won’t have to worry about going broke from medical debt” is going to scare people and make them not want to change from our current system.

Of course Republicans and business interests will fear monger about it. They did that under Truman and Clinton. But we have to present the case based on values and morals.

 

[superrific]

Religion as part, absolutely. Religion as a feature, not so much.

I don't understand this distinction but it's all good. I'm not envisioning our candidates for office be Bible thumpers. After all, MLK never held elected office; he never wanted to; and I have my doubts that he ever would. Gandhi was not a part of the post-colonial British government.

 

[heelinhell]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/income-fall-americas-lower-middle-122100515.html

 

[rodoheel]

I think what you say about uncertainty makes sense in a certain era. I don’t think that dynamic necessarily holds today.

I mean 15 years ago we had people violently and negatively reacting to what became a fairly incremental step in Obamacare, all because people were worried they would lose their current health insurance. EVERYBODY hates health insurance and dealing with insurance companies. Patients hate it. Doctors hate it. Hell, most of the people that work at the insurance company probably hate it. Yet still, people were so worried that what Obamacare would bring would be worse than what they had, that they were scared to give up what they had. Scared that it would bring all the worst parts of socialized medicine from places like Canada and the UK (Long wait times for procedures! Less incentive for smart people to be doctors! Insertion of more government bureaucracy!). What do you think is different now, versus then, that you don't think that sort of instinctive fear of change would still be the primary reaction of a lot of people?

 

[superrific]

Yeah, I just don’t think telling people: “you will no longer pay at the point of service and you won’t have to worry about going broke from medical debt” is going to scare people and make them not want to change from our current system.

Of course Republicans and business interests will fear monger about it. They did that under Truman and Clinton. But we have to present the case based on values and morals.

Well, Clinton did present the case based on values and morals.

I was a young guy when Hillarycare was rolled out. True story: I had an internship set up on the Hill to help sell Hillarycare in summer 93. But Hillarycare didn't show up; my internship vanished; and then it was rejected by the public.

I couldn't believe it. Why would voters hate universal health care? Why would voters -- who after all elected Clinton by a healthy margin after he talked so much about universal health care -- not want less expensive insurance? Portable health insurance (this was before HIPAA and COBRA)? No denials for pre-existing conditions? What about two people sitting at a kitchen table saying, "I don't know if we can afford this" convinced people that the thing that was going to reduce their costs was actually worse for them? The effectiveness of that ad made no sense to me, and to be honest, I still don't get it. Hey people, it's a fucking ad. It's not the truth. Those are actors, not real people. Sigh.

Maybe you're right and things are different now. But my advice is: prepare yourself for things that do not make sense. Like what we just saw in this election. People complaining about inflation lining up to vote for more inflation. People thinking Trump was their champion, or a man of his word, or a man of principles, or any number of bizarro sentiments I've seen expressed. People thinking that trans prisoners getting sex change operations was affecting their life.

I guess this is my main message to young activists (it's what I was referring to in my PM about the New Left). If you assume that people are rational, you will be disappointed and you will make mistakes. It's better to assume that people are partly rational some of the time. And thus things that should work sometimes won't.

 

[Paine]

Well, Clinton did present the case based on values and morals.

I was a young guy when Hillarycare was rolled out. True story: I had an internship set up on the Hill to help sell Hillarycare in summer 93. But Hillarycare didn't show up; my internship vanished; and then it was rejected by the public.

I couldn't believe it. Why would voters hate universal health care? Why would voters -- who after all elected Clinton by a healthy margin after he talked so much about universal health care -- not want less expensive insurance? Portable health insurance (this was before HIPAA and COBRA)? No denials for pre-existing conditions? What about two people sitting at a kitchen table saying, "I don't know if we can afford this" convinced people that the thing that was going to reduce their costs was actually worse for them? The effectiveness of that ad made no sense to me, and to be honest, I still don't get it. Hey people, it's a fucking ad. It's not the truth. Those are actors, not real people. Sigh.

Maybe you're right and things are different now. But my advice is: prepare yourself for things that do not make sense. Like what we just saw in this election. People complaining about inflation lining up to vote for more inflation. People thinking Trump was their champion, or a man of his word, or a man of principles, or any number of bizarro sentiments I've seen expressed. People thinking that trans prisoners getting sex change operations was affecting their life.

I guess this is my main message to young activists (it's what I was referring to in my PM about the New Left). If you assume that people are rational, you will be disappointed and you will make mistakes. It's better to assume that people are partly rational some of the time. And thus things that should work sometimes won't.

There was more wrapped up in Hillarycare besides it just being a debate about universal coverage vs. the system we had at the time.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

I mean 15 years ago we had people violently and negatively reacting to what became a fairly incremental step in Obamacare, all because people were worried they would lose their current health insurance. EVERYBODY hates health insurance and dealing with insurance companies. Patients hate it. Doctors hate it. Hell, most of the people that work at the insurance company probably hate it. Yet still, people were so worried that what Obamacare would bring would be worse than what they had, that they were scared to give up what they had. Scared that it would bring all the worst parts of socialized medicine from places like Canada and the UK (Long wait times for procedures! Less incentive for smart people to be doctors! Insertion of more government bureaucracy!). What do you think is different now, versus then, that you don't think that sort of instinctive fear of change would still be the primary reaction of a lot of people?

It isn’t just instinctive fear. There is a minority that stands to lose a lot when the majority gains a little and they’ve been given outsized voices, the benefit of anonymity, and they stoke that instinctive fear very effectively. This is the problem I see with all the lamentations that “Dems just need better messaging and to get back to the basics.” These things don’t happen in a vacuum. There is a machine on the other side that is unfettered by accuracy, honesty, integrity, morality.

 

[Paine]

I mean 15 years ago we had people violently and negatively reacting to what became a fairly incremental step in Obamacare, all because people were worried they would lose their current health insurance. EVERYBODY hates health insurance and dealing with insurance companies. Patients hate it. Doctors hate it. Hell, most of the people that work at the insurance company probably hate it. Yet still, people were so worried that what Obamacare would bring would be worse than what they had, that they were scared to give up what they had. Scared that it would bring all the worst parts of socialized medicine from places like Canada and the UK (Long wait times for procedures! Less incentive for smart people to be doctors! Insertion of more government bureaucracy!). What do you think is different now, versus then, that you don't think that sort of instinctive fear of change would still be the primary reaction of a lot of people?

I think the difference is in the policy of Medicare for All vs the policy of the ACA. Just go for it. I don’t understand how it failing in the 40s and 90s means Democrats should stop trying to achieve the goal of universal coverage. Just call it expanding the ACA if you have to.

The slogan Medicare for All does some of the heavy lifting in and of itself.

 

[superrific]

I think the difference is in the policy of Medicare for All vs the policy of the ACA. Just go for it. I don’t understand how it failing in the 40s and 90s means Democrats should stop trying to achieve the goal of universal coverage. Just call it expanding the ACA if you have to.

The slogan Medicare for All does some of the heavy lifting in and of itself.

Of course we shouldn't stop trying. We just need to understand that the issue doesn't sell itself, and it might never be popular. It might never be a winning campaign issue. Or it might. I can't tell you that.

Relatedly, understand that "universality" in policy isn't necessarily attractive. I understand the theory; social security, medicare -- because everyone is invested in the system, everyone supports it. But they also predated drained-pool politics (SS was established long before Civil Rights Act; Medicare before the upheavals created by the Civil Rights Act were fully felt). Drained pool politics is strong. Too many people on the left, in my view, ignore it at our peril. I'm not saying universality can't work, but it's not a magic bullet.

 

[Paine]

Of course we shouldn't stop trying. We just need to understand that the issue doesn't sell itself, and it might never be popular. It might never be a winning campaign issue. Or it might. I can't tell you that.

Relatedly, understand that "universality" in policy isn't necessarily attractive. I understand the theory; social security, medicare -- because everyone is invested in the system, everyone supports it. But they also predated drained-pool politics (SS was established long before Civil Rights Act; Medicare before the upheavals created by the Civil Rights Act were fully felt). Drained pool politics is strong. Too many people on the left, in my view, ignore it at our peril. I'm not saying universality can't work, but it's not a magic bullet.

Fair enough. I’d like to see us try out a campaign in the modern era that focuses on these things. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn’t. At least then we’d have a test case.

 

[rodoheel]

I think the difference is in the policy of Medicare for All vs the policy of the ACA. Just go for it. I don’t understand how it failing in the 40s and 90s means Democrats should stop trying to achieve the goal of universal coverage. Just call it expanding the ACA if you have to.

The slogan Medicare for All does some of the heavy lifting in and of itself.

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that anyone stop trying, I was just saying that the baked-in resistance to change of any kind (combined with the American suspicion of anything characterized as "socialism") is very much still present.

 

[Paine]

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that anyone stop trying, I was just saying that the baked-in resistance to change of any kind (combined with the American suspicion of anything characterized as "socialism") is very much still present.

I got you. I think some elected Democrats have stopped trying, though. I understand this kind of baked-in resistance. That has to be considered for any policy or politician in this era. That being said, Sanders got a Fox News town hall to cheer Medicare for All.

I think things have changed because people are just pissed and looking to shake things up.

 

[hedge]

Bill Maher continues to be one of the few folks on the left who gets it.

You think that he gets it when he's railing on liberals. He gives more than equal time to the other side, particularly Trump, but I doubt you think he "gets it" in that regard. Well, not enough to influence your political leanings and decisions anyway...

 

[LeoBloom]

Going back to the notion of identity politics and how it is basically all identity politics - so much of political discourse now is "I am this...I am not that."

"I'm a regular working class person, not some egg head elite."
"I'm a hard working person, not some illegal trying to live off the government."

Republicans tap into that basic identity: "You are this and not that." That's identity politics.
Part of the issue is that Pubs have framed the discussion so that too many people claim identity politics are only about race and gender. "I'm a working class person, a Christian, and I'm tired of the Democrats always talking about race and identity politics." The person talking like that completely fails to see the irony of the statement.

 

[superrific]

Fair enough. I’d like to see us try out a campaign in the modern era that focuses on these things. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn’t. At least then we’d have a test case.

And the fucking problem is that, running against Trump, we don't feel as though we can afford a lab experiment. Risk aversion is a natural response to high stakes, even if it's somewhat irrational.

 

[korgguy1971]

Hilarious that republicans are still so fixated on who uses what bathroom. These people really have nothing better to do than whine and cry like babies about the most inconsequential shit.

Ask, and you shall receive. Nobody picks gnat shit out of pepper better than MAGA. Nobody.