The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[Patroklos]

I'm also not college educated or an idiot racist. But the "non-college-educated whites" Trump is leading among aren't you or I. They're dumb racists. College degrees are one of many asshole filters. You get some false positives, but if you're a white man of a certain age without a college degree, it likely says something about you judging by their Trump support. Jut not definitely.

And the mystery of why the Dems are failed to help the working class all these decades, and now can't get their votes, Is solved. Its good to have hate and contempt for your constituents.

[FireNexus]

I'm not a Democratic politician. I'm a Democratic voter who has a specific opinion about a segment of the population I belong to based on a ton of experience with it. So... go fuck yourself?

[Q99]

And the mystery of why the Dems are failed to help the working class all these decades, and now can't get their votes, Is solved. Its good to have hate and contempt for your constituents.

Why the Democrats failed to help the working class more: Not lack of trying. Indeed, they're rarely in the states where the working class most needs them.

The last couple decades, the Republicans have had more sway over such measures, and successfully demonized unions towards a lot of people they'd help.

And part of how Republicans got the power to have this sway is the Southern Strategy.

[Terralthra]

The mythmaking regarding Mr. Trump's supporters being economically disadvantaged is getting tiresome. Trump supporters tend to be better off, not worse. His primary voters are substantially better off than e.g. supporters of Sec. Clinton or Sen. Sanders, and marginally better off than his primary rivals such as Sen. Cruz, with a median household income of $72,000. Support for Mr. Trump is correlated with higher income, lower unemployment, and lower effect from manufacturing slowdown or Chinese competition. Rather than economic concerns, Mr. Trump's support is much more highly correlated with racial resentment, xenophobia, and white nationalist attitudes.

Those are not "hate" or "contempt". Those are just facts.

[TithonusSyndrome]

And why should this surprise anyone? The petty bourgeois have somewhere to fall in the event of a social disruption, unlike the working class who are already at the bottom of the strata. They're the ones who are most rapidly and reflexively mobilized to defend their class interests, arguably moreso than the very wealthy.

[maraxus2]

I'm also not college educated or an idiot racist. But the "non-college-educated whites" Trump is leading among aren't you or I. They're dumb racists. College degrees are one of many asshole filters. You get some false positives, but if you're a white man of a certain age without a college degree, it likely says something about you judging by their Trump support. Jut not definitely.

And the mystery of why the Dems are failed to help the working class all these decades, and now can't get their votes, Is solved. Its good to have hate and contempt for your constituents.

Trump voters aren't white working class in the sense most people think. During the primary, Trump's voters were solidly middle class/upper middle class. In fact, a lot of the really reactionary Republicans are middle upper-management types with a solid income and lots of commitments. The most reliable Republicans, by far, are upper-middle class whites living in suburbs outside of major cities. I think there are parts of Wisconsin that haven't ever voted for a Democratic president.

Then again you don't have to be poor to be terrified that you're losing everything.

Also, fuck you. The Democratic Party did more to help poor people live better lives than the Republicans did since Reconstruction. And the Republicans fought against most of those efforts. They fought Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the ACA, and literally everything Obama's done since he became President.

And the Republicans are actively harmful to working class people as we speak. Look at Kansas, or Kentucky, or North Carolina. Those states actively make it difficult to be poor.

They're just Black and Brown out in those states, and conservatives have a pretty abominable track record against them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Polls-only now has the Republicans slightly more likely to win the Senate. But its basically a coin toss in all fivethirtyeight models.

The single most likely outcome is a 50-50 Senate, with the VP being the tie-breaker. So it may be that winning the Presidency and winning the Senate are now effectively one and the same.

Edit: This also makes me suspect that the "Clinton is a weak, unpopular candidate" narrative is overstated. Because if their were a lot of people who would otherwise vote Democrat not doing so because Clinton is the nominee, then you'd think that the Democrats would be doing better in the Senate races, not worse.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Generally speaking, a weak candidate is not weak because party loyals will not vote for them, but because unaffiliated voters will not vote for them even if they usually vote for your party.

[Tsyroc]

And the mystery of why the Dems are failed to help the working class all these decades, and now can't get their votes, Is solved. Its good to have hate and contempt for your constituents.

Why the Democrats failed to help the working class more: Not lack of trying. Indeed, they're rarely in the states where the working class most needs them.

The last couple decades, the Republicans have had more sway over such measures, and successfully demonized unions towards a lot of people they'd help.

And part of how Republicans got the power to have this sway is the Southern Strategy.

It doesn't help that quite a few of the arguments against unions have enough anecdotal truth to them that the Republicans aren't totally full of shit on this one. I saw an awful lot of manufacturing jobs get run out of the Quad Cities because the unions overplayed their hand. Given what most them were making compared to other people at the time it made the union workers look really greedy.

In hindsight they might have been right in pushing to make the corporations keep "sharing the wealth" with the workers but they weren't prepared for the companies moving their operations overseas. A couple of the companies (J.I. Case and International Harvester) mostly just closed up shop via bankruptcy but parts of them are back as a parts of combined company that is mostly not in the US anymore.

[Flagg]

I'm also not college educated or an idiot racist. But the "non-college-educated whites" Trump is leading among aren't you or I. They're dumb racists. College degrees are one of many asshole filters. You get some false positives, but if you're a white man of a certain age without a college degree, it likely says something about you judging by their Trump support. Jut not definitely.

And the mystery of why the Dems are failed to help the working class all these decades, and now can't get their votes, Is solved. Its good to have hate and contempt for your constituents.

That's total bullshit. Plus you don't give a fuck about the working class. If you did you wouldn't spout rightwing talking points at every opportunity. You're like a slug, you eat and shit with the same orifice.

[Q99]

It doesn't help that quite a few of the arguments against unions have enough anecdotal truth to them that the Republicans aren't totally full of shit on this one. I saw an awful lot of manufacturing jobs get run out of the Quad Cities because the unions overplayed their hand. Given what most them were making compared to other people at the time it made the union workers look really greedy.

In hindsight they might have been right in pushing to make the corporations keep "sharing the wealth" with the workers but they weren't prepared for the companies moving their operations overseas. A couple of the companies (J.I. Case and International Harvester) mostly just closed up shop via bankruptcy but parts of them are back as a parts of combined company that is mostly not in the US anymore.

The thing about Unions is they're like companies- there's good ones and bad ones, and they can also make mistakes. But they're still, easily, as a way of doing things much better than the alternative.

Generally speaking, a weak candidate is not weak because party loyals will not vote for them, but because unaffiliated voters will not vote for them even if they usually vote for your party.

And ironically enough, Hillary's history is getting her some Republican converts as a very known quantity- including, it seems, both Bush Presidents.

Though really, where she's really cleaning up unaffiliated wise is formerly unaffiliated hispanic voters. She's got some track record reaching out to the community, focus voter outreach efforts there, combine with Trump, and there you go.

[Patroklos]

That's total bullshit. Plus you don't give a fuck about the working class. If you did you wouldn't spout rightwing talking points at every opportunity. You're like a slug, you eat and shit with the same orifice.

Your impotent frustration in the face of annoying truths is music to my ears. I only hope you get some catharsis out of it.

[Crossroads Inc.]

That's total bullshit. Plus you don't give a fuck about the working class. If you did you wouldn't spout rightwing talking points at every opportunity. You're like a slug, you eat and shit with the same orifice.

Your impotent frustration in the face of annoying truths is music to my ears. I only hope you get some catharsis out of it.

Yeah, Pat, but you see, you don't actually ADDRESS any of the points made by others related to his "frustration".
IE:

The Democratic Party did more to help poor people live better lives than the Republicans did since Reconstruction. And the Republicans fought against most of those efforts. They fought Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the ACA, and literally everything Obama's done since he became President.

And the Republicans are actively harmful to working class people as we speak. Look at Kansas, or Kentucky, or North Carolina. Those states actively make it difficult to be poor.

[Patroklos]

None of that has anything to do with what I said. How the Dems tried to help the working class is irrelevant, its how they failed (and perhaps the money they wasted in the process) along with the seething contempt for those same people typified FireNexus that matters. This election especially has been steeped in the "if only those disgusting ignorant poor people would do what their betters demand!" to a great degree but that is nothing new. What is new is just how overt that contempt is now.

Also, name dropping states is not a rebuttal unless you explain why.

[Gaidin]

Also, name dropping states is not a rebuttal unless you explain why.

You mean Kansas, the state that basically tested the idea of next to no taxes and their economy crashed? OK. If you don't remember that you got issues.

[maraxus2]

None of that has anything to do with what I said. How the Dems tried to help the working class is irrelevant, its how they failed (and perhaps the money they wasted in the process) along with the seething contempt for those same people typified FireNexus that matters. This election especially has been steeped in the "if only those disgusting ignorant poor people would do what their betters demand!" to a great degree but that is nothing new. What is new is just how overt that contempt is now.

Also, name dropping states is not a rebuttal unless you explain why.

Again, fuck off. Your worldview only works if you don't count Black and Brown poor people. They're about to kick Trump's ass on Tuesday, because he actually has contempt for them. But, hey, if we want to pretend that whites are the only working class/poor people in this country, that's fine too. Says a lot more about you than it does about the Democratic Party.

[The Romulan Republic]

I have a question:

Suppose the Republicans control the Senate, and simply refuse to confirm anyone Clinton appointees.

Could she just keep Obama's cabinet in their current posts indefinitely?

Yeah, it may be an unlikely hypothetical, but I'm just curious.

[Gaidin]

I have a question:

Suppose the Republicans control the Senate, and simply refuse to confirm anyone Clinton appointees.

Could she just keep Obama's cabinet in their current posts indefinitely?

Yeah, it may be an unlikely hypothetical, but I'm just curious.

Hot take: Acting director of the ATF has been near powerless in what they're supposed to be able to do precisely because they've never been confirmed for over a decade and not been an actual director. Picture that for the entire cabinet.

[Flagg]

That's total bullshit. Plus you don't give a fuck about the working class. If you did you wouldn't spout rightwing talking points at every opportunity. You're like a slug, you eat and shit with the same orifice.

Your impotent frustration in the face of annoying truths is music to my ears. I only hope you get some catharsis out of it.

Frustration? I get more frustrated when stubbing my toe. Your "truth" exists within your head and the rightwing echo chamber only. But keep chugging, slug.

[Q99]

That's total bullshit. Plus you don't give a fuck about the working class. If you did you wouldn't spout rightwing talking points at every opportunity. You're like a slug, you eat and shit with the same orifice.

Your impotent frustration in the face of annoying truths is music to my ears. I only hope you get some catharsis out of it.

Frankly, speaking as a newbie with no skin in the game... responses like this make them sound more right about you, Patroklos.

People trying to convince people make points. People who like to yell at people do.... that. It's really not convincing.


Also:

None of that has anything to do with what I said. How the Dems tried to help the working class is irrelevant, its how they failed (and perhaps the money they wasted in the process) along with the seething contempt for those same people typified FireNexus that matters.

Preventing things from not getting worse when someone else is actively trying to make things worse, far worse, is a success. Expanding healthcare and similar, are successes. "No, it only counts as a success once they accomplish things past a certain line..." is an arbitrary disqualification on your point.

Sure, if you discount all of what they done and ignore what the lack of their actions would've resulted in, you can call that a lack of success. Not counting successes is a way to reach a result of zero successes, who knew?

[Q99]

Ralston reports speculates a Blue Wave in Nevada downballot races


Also Comey admits his new investigation found jack, Hillary still clear

[Flagg]

Ralston reports speculates a Blue Wave in Nevada downballot races


Also Comey admits his new investigation found jack, Hillary still clear

Apparently a lot of the people in Comey's area of the FBI are Donnie Douchebag dickriders. So it's no surprise they pulled the shit they did. I'm actually surprised this announcement was made today rather than Wednesday morning. Not that it matters since you can't put the crack back in the pipe. Hopefully President Clinton won't accept their resignations, she'll just fire the 5th column bastards.

[Gaidin]

I'm not so sure she can. The only person the President can appoint(and fire only for cause as far as I'm aware) is the Director. That's the Director's House. Unless she wants to play with some fancy funding rules that straight up shrink the FBI to where they won't get to replace the personnel.

[Mr Bean]

Secretary Clinton can't fire Comey, he's got a ten year term and was appointed in 2013. That position is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate so he will almost outlast the entire potential Clinton Presidency since she can't directly remove him only ask him to step down. And for good reason she can't touch general day to day FBI people.


I find it ironic the same people clutching their pearls about Trump purging the military of Generals he dislikes (Which he can't do) are so quick to turn around and call for Clinton to purge the FBI (Which she also can't do)

For the exact reason that the US Goverment was set up with this crazy idea that purges where a BAD thing. My mistake I shall correct the record that the incoming Dear Leader should be allowed to purge the Government of Anti-American activists and traitors to Freedom. Here I was thinking that Cheney was a horrible person for try to do just that, I should have know he was a Saint.

[Gaidin]

Tell that to Sessions dude. Bill fired him for ethical reasons when he wouldn't step down.