Can Duke just die already?
CraigM
5732
Part of the problem with rural voters is they simply reject reality.
Case example, coal miners. We all know Pennsylvania coal miners got a lot of air play in 2016. Beyond their numbers sure, but still it was a talking point.
Hillary had a detailed plan for investment and job training for those communities. It looked at the reality and proposed a solution that had a chance to help them.
Donnie promised to bring coal jobs back. But this is bullshit because that was literally impossible. There is nothing that can ever increase employment to historic levels. But these communities liked The lie, didn’t want to hear the truth. The economics have changed coal production peaked in 2012, but employment peaked in the 60’s.
But they chose to ignore reality. Blame China, trade, democrats for their problems. For the consolidation of corporate farms over small family ones. For technology changes that increase per worker production many fold. But to them the enemy is not tie irreversible march of time, it is Mexicans.
They live in a lie, and they want only to ignore the truth. The simple fact is they are the problem, they are their own enemy. When they continually reject things that could help, and the evidence therin, in favor of a lie that never comes true? They are the causing their own misery through sheer stupidity and stubbornness to pretend time can be turned back to 1950 economically.
Enidigm
5733
I’ve always felt that Appalachia receives far more attention than it deserves thanks to their proximity to the East Coast - it’s basically the mountains they hit before “flyover” country and the limits of their curiousity before reaching California.
But there’s more to it than that, as CraigM said. My representative, Mike Conaway, is a decent enough guy I suppose - he does take the time to drive around to all the little places. Maybe, perhaps, to the exclusion of the urban areas. Here are some of the photos he posted to his email flyer.
See any themes? This is the district’s demographics (accordint to Wikipedia). See any absences?
The GOP - both politicians and voters - try not to see what they don’t want to see.
[edit: sorry didn’t mean to reply to Nesrie. Discourse does what it does]
And another heavyweight chimes in:
The fact that it’s quoting Glenn “I am a journalist, but yet somehow mysteriously can afford living in a mansion. Oh, and Russia did nothing wrong and the Deep State is out to get Donald Trump” Greenwald makes it perfect.
Menzo
5735
LOL, Stein v. Clinton, the debate we all deserved? What a loonybird.
Scandinavia says hi.
Scandinavia says hi again.
Ah yes, they’re not true scotsmen.
So what?
There are several hundreds of millions of people living in the EU, who live under conditions that are almost as good (in some cases better - the French healthcare system has a better reputation than any in Scandinavia, for instance). So what is the argument for why the US cannot have a system as good as France, or Germany, etc?
You know, I can respect the standpoint that trying to introduce policies that have developed over many years, and were introduced under specific historical conditions is not easy. But the knee-jerk reaction that refuses to even consider reforms on the grounds that “we can’t be Scandinavia”? That is not an argument - and it’s also disingenuous. If you don’t like her reform proposals, propose (or point to politicians who do) a reform that you do agree with. Otherwise, you might as well just say “I’ve got mine”, because that’s all the argument really is.
Oghier
5737
That’s a great post, Trigger. Thanks. I assume some of this is poll watching, and some of it is related to your day job.
It’s hard for QT3 to understand the idea that rural voters are very important, as we seem to have very few who live in those areas. It’s even harder to understand that Dems don’t need to win central PA, the FL panhandle and similar areas, but they can’t get completely blown up there either.
All that said, though, I’m honestly not sure which candidate is best suited to do that. Maybe it’s Joe, maybe it’s the schoolteacher from Oklahoma. A lot of it will have to do with their message and where they focus their time and resources.
This would be fascinating and fun to watch if it weren’t life or death for our democracy.
Oghier
5738
Right, but that’s not how it looks to them. No voters are actually thinking “Trump may destroy the country and the economy, but team loyalty is more important than the welfare of me or my family.” That may be the effect of what they’re doing, but that’s not the narrative they tell themselves.
We need to change at least some of their minds, either to switch their vote or to just stay home. You can’t do that without understanding the story from their standpoint. Even if (especially if) they’re wrong on the facts.
It’s funny how that you can’t scale small country politics and economics to large countries argument only works in one direction. Like e.g. when the IMF is telling Ecuador that they have to have the politics and economics of the US, there’s never a conservative in the background shouting wait, Ecuador is tiny, how can they possibly be like the US?
The point is an interesting one (triggercut’s point about controlling margins in rural districts), but like other posters I’m skeptical about whether Biden is the way to do that. A big portion of his strength is the support he gets from Black voters, which is partly because of his centrism and partly because of his ties to Obama. Warren has relatively more support from white voters, but they are white voters who might vote in the democratic primary, so will they help in the panhandle or central PA?
Would be interesting to see polling on how different policies play in those regions. Economic populism seems like it would play well, especially when it’s specifically an anti-elite latte-swilling Apple Watch-wearing Silicon Valley message. Though maybe it needs the insults to actually play well.
Timex
5742
I think that you need to dig a bit deeper, and look at more nuanced element’s of those issues. Complexity comes from the fact that every Democratic candidate says they support “Medicare for all”, but they have dramatically different interpretations of what that means. When you specifically state that it means ending your current healthcare, support is significantly lower (although still a slight majority in some polls now).
I’m not saying that the Democratic party as a whole is significantly further left than the majority of the country, but Warren is one of the furthest to the left of all the candidates except maybe Bernie
I mean, no one here is going to deny that, right? That’s why she had so much support from this group.
Alstein
5743
She’s left in some areas, not others, and the areas she’s left in are areas rural America tends to like.
Timex
5744
What areas is Warren further right on than another candidate, and what candidate would that be? For the sake of discussion, let’s not count Bernie since he’s not even a Democrat.
Yes … but she’s running on stuff Teddy Kennedy ran on in 1980, not some sort of radical Leninism that’s never been heard before in American politics.
What’s happened is that political discourse has lurched so far to the extreme right in the decades since 1980 that “healthcare for all” and “corporations should be held responsible for their actions” are touted by the media as radical, never-before-heard, unthinkable ideas, and people believe it. Which is so very sad.
Timex
5746
Ted Kennedy ran on full nationalization of the health care industry? At the national level?
I’m not sure that’s actually true, but also even it was, Tes Kennedy never came close to being president. 1980 started a period where the GOP held the presidency for 12 years.
Thanks for proving my point by repeating untrue right-wing framing.
No, Teddy did not run on “nationalizing” the health care industry. Neither is Warren. Both Teddy’s 1971 plan and the Medicare For All plan endorsed by Warren (and, incidentally, Sanders, Booker, Gillibrand, and Harris) are single-payer plans, where the government uses taxes to pay for people’s health care, eliminating the need for much of the private health insurance system.
But under this system, the government does not own the hospitals, manage the doctors, etc. That’s all still done by the private sector.
The usual definition of nationalizing is that the state owns the industry - runs the hospitals, pays doctors directly, etc. - as with the UK and the National Health Service.
Edit: Just as a reminder that the health care debate in the US has been going on a long time, Harry Truman proposed a universal health care system in 1945.
I don’t want to derail the thread, to once again debate Scandinavia vs the US So I’ll be brief…
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it pretty competitive to get in to universities in Scandinavia include pass grades, like Geometry, Trigonometry, and the sciences.
There is difference between free college for all who can qualify and free college for all which is the Warren plan. You can get a 4 year degree in the US despite dropping out of high school. 6% of the US population attends college vs 3.5% for Sweden, the US among the highest percentage of bachelor degree, but we also have more college dropouts. Interesting while googling I found that Swedish students graduate with debt that is only 30% lower than US students, a reminder that free tuition doesn’t mean a free college education. Making Warren proposal to eliminate student debt even more generous than Scandinavia.
No that’s not really true there are a dozen or so EU countries (like Poland, Romania, Greece…) that have a a per capitia GDP that’s less than 1/2 the GDP of Mississippi` (the poorest state). Social services in those places aren’t all that good. In contrast, Scandivina has a per capita GDP that is higher than California one of our richest states.
I’m not rejecting any of the reforms. I"m rejecting two claims. . “The EU is the same size as the US it has all kinds of great things”. When the reality is a rich part of Europe, aka Scandinavia has all these things, the rest of Europe has pieces of these nice things. I’m also rejecting the claim, “If we just tax billionaire we can have all of these nice things. The US is rich, look at Europe they do all these great thing, we can easily do they same thing in the US”
.
I’ve spent 20 years living in Silicon Valley and now 20 years in Hawaii trying to create a tech ecosytem. Lots of US states and many countries have spent decades try to replicate Silicon Valley. “What we need is a couple of good universities, and some entrepreneurs, and viola we will become the next Silicon Forest, Silicon Paririe. or Startup paridise” as we’ve tried to brand Hawaii. They’ve all failed, because Silicon Valley is more than Stanford, Berkeley, and cool city like San Francisco, and pleasant climate.
It is similarly naive to say, hey we can just replicate all the programs that you have in Sweden, without recognizing that they are some unique aspects to Scandinavia that aren’t easy to replicate. I have no problems aspiring to these goals, just claiming that it is easy.
Timex
5749
Sure, sorry, i didn’t mean to misstate the position. Just merely a contrast between Warren’s suggestion and that of others in the field where people are still allowed to hold private insurance.
However, the fact remains:
There are notable differences between what Warren and Sanders are supporting compared to others in the Democratic field. Further, Ted Kennedy was generally regarded as one of, possibly the single most liberal member of the Senate when he was around, so he’s not really a great example of a moderate position. Finally, Ted Kennedy never win support for his position, so it doesn’t really support your notion that we were so much further left back in 1980.
Really, the idea that the country has moved to the right? I don’t think that’s an accurate depiction of reality.
RichVR
5750
Didn’t Tulsi just get an endorsement from David Duke?
