'18 Midterms: Dems win House by largest midterm raw vote margin ever

[88m3]

The New Yorker
24 mins ·
The Borowitz Report: “Our social-media trolls did some of their finest work to put Rick over the top, but, in the final analysis, we were a day late and a ruble short,” the Russian President said.


NEWYORKER.COM

Vladimir Putin Concedes Defeat in Pennsylvania Special Election
“Our social-media trolls did some of their finest work to put Rick Saccone over the top, but we were a day late and a ruble short,” the…

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[Berniewood Hogan]

 

[Dr. Acula]

Well here's the conundrum no one wants to admit, which is the basis of the "I can't fukk with Hillary" section of the Democratic part.

Policies that would need to be implemented to ensure minorities are regular voters will drive white voters away, because....white people...

It's an endless battle but I think standing on principles is the right way forward and I think the trick is that when the left has the bully pulpit and reigns of power take full advantage and leave no prisoners. That way you can make incremental changes, that are actually beneficial, during your maybe short hold and even if there is a threat of losing power afterwards and/or moves to dismantle your policies afterwards, I think if you have the better ideas and I think most people here believe the left have better ideas, while the other side may make some grounds to dismantle and interrupt what you've done, you'll win in the long term.

It's a headache in that sense but take a look at the progression of ACA and also other social programs like SS and medicare. Even if during republican reigns they come under attack, in the long term they stick around because the public overall likes them or aspects of them more than not. Whether they admit it or not. Progressive policies and ideas meet initial resistance but I think win out and stick around in the long term .

Once democrats come into power, if they are smart they will work to shore up and even make beneficial additions and adjustments on ACA, securing its existence or a stepping stone to the next evolution of the program (a public option? Medicare for all? One can hope) . Just have to wait out trump and republican rule in the mean time.

The history and issue of race in the united states is an cancer that will unfortunately be ripe for demagogues to exploit to make mostly racist whites act against their own interest in spite of whatever is the current boogeyman. It's a cancer we're never getting rid of and is firmly part of the American zeitgeist. Just something you have to work around .

 

[Pressure]

I think you read my post wrong.

Everything you just typed in the bolded is opposed by white people. The things that push black voters away brings white voters in and vice versa.

So how do you propose we engage minority voters in rural areas consistently?

Honestly, I don't find that to be the case down here strictly on racial lines and a lot of it is centered around class.

What actually hits often is a aura of helplessness and disproportionate control by the wealthy or the few large property and industry owners in rural areas.

This is nothing new, as I said in another post because this has been the case since the beginning of this country through slavery, abolition, Jim crow and present day.

But as more and more white people find themselves on the losing end you'll find more commonality.

 

[NY's #1 Draft Pick]

@Orbital-Fetus

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

@Orbital-Fetus

RIP his balls.
idk what i'm supposed to do about it?

 

[Tommy Fits]

RIP his balls.
idk what i'm supposed to do about it?

Lmfao... This is sig worthy

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Honestly, I don't find that to be the case down here strictly on racial lines and a lot of it is centered around class.

What actually hits often is a aura of helplessness and disproportionate control by the wealthy or the few large property and industry owners in rural areas.

This is nothing new, as I said in another post because this has been the case since the beginning of this country through slavery, abolition, Jim crow and present day.

But as more and more white people find themselves on the losing end you'll find more commonality.

Those two lines contradict themselves. White people have always stretched across class lines. They've always been the richest and they've always been on the losing end.

Commonality with white people correlates strongly with ethnicity and geographic location. There's a reason why european immigrants from Germany were the most vocal proponents of unions, while anglo-saxons who had been settled in this country for generations looked at it as a threat to their way of living.

Part of being poor involves a feeling a helplessness due to the disproportionate control of wealth by a few. That's not up to debate. What is up to debate is the reason you feel the wealthy exist. Poor whites are more likely to blame that on blacks, mexicans (read all hispanics), and foreign countries manipulating our policies to purposely hurt white people.

What I define as progress is not what the average white person would define as progress.

 

[Pressure]

Those two lines contradict themselves. White people have always stretched across class lines. They've always been the richest and they've always been on the losing end.

Commonality with white people correlates strongly with ethnicity and geographic location. There's a reason why european immigrants from Germany were the most vocal proponents of unions, while anglo-saxons who had been settled in this country for generations looked at it as a threat to their way of living.

Part of being poor involves a feeling a helplessness due to the disproportionate control of wealth by a few. That's not up to debate. What is up to debate is the reason you feel the wealthy exist. Poor whites are more likely to blame that on blacks, mexicans (read all hispanics), and foreign countries manipulating our policies to purposely hurt white people.

What I define as progress is not what the average white person would define as progress.

There's no contradiction here. Race and class have always been linked in the political sphere. Certainly what the average AA and the Average White american would expect from progress would be different largely due to the desperate situation of blacks. But as I said, as societies stratification represents a small portion at the top maintaining the vast majority of the wealth, with less people in the middle, regardless of whether whites find solace in surrounding themselves by other whites, politically speaking their needs remain the same. We are, once again, as a society back to gilded age levels of disparity and similar rhetoric.

Due to the interconnected nature of political thought between class, race, religion, gender, etc we often see those weighted priorities change. I'm saying, very simply, we're at a point now where wealth inequality is on full display and the majority of people are aware of this and are going to put more focus on their economic needs over some of their more superfluous cultural/racial/religious gripes if they are at all interested in changing their situation -- I believe they are.

If you want to view the analogy from a different angle, just think of a football team. There's plenty of racism surrounding it, but ultimately the common goal takes priority over more tangential goals.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

There's no contradiction here. Race and class have always been linked in the political sphere. Certainly what the average AA and the Average White american would expect from progress would be different largely due to the desperate situation of blacks. But as I said, as societies stratification represents a small portion at the top maintaining the vast majority of the wealth, with less people in the middle, regardless of whether whites find solace in surrounding themselves by other whites, politically speaking their needs remain the same. We are, once again, as a society back to gilded age levels of disparity and similar rhetoric.

Due to the interconnected nature of political thought between class, race, religion, gender, etc we often see those weighted priorities change. I'm saying, very simply, we're at a point now where wealth inequality is on full display and the majority of people are aware of this and are going to put more focus on their economic needs over some of their more superfluous cultural/racial/religious gripes if they are at all interested in changing their situation -- I believe they are.

If you want to view the analogy from a different angle, just think of a football team. There's plenty of racism surrounding it, but ultimately the common goal takes priority over more tangential goals.

None of this makes sense. This flies in the face of 400 years worth of history. Why would a more dire situation cause people to work together, when time after time it's proven to divide?

The splits have never changed. 70% of white men have always worked against the rights of minorities. I'd argue that 50% of white women have always been for or against right of minorities.

There is no reason to think things are getting better OUTSIDE of the growing influence of minorities economically and socially. We are the ones pushing the country to the left, not white people. So this idea of vast interconnectedness doesn't make sense. North Dakota is not going to become this bastion of liberal democracy any time soon.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I thought I posted this already, but just in case I didn't:

 

[StatUS]

I thought I posted this already, but just in case I didn't:

Get out and vote people.

 

[Pressure]

None of this makes sense. This flies in the face of 400 years worth of history. Why would a more dire situation cause people to work together, when time after time it's proven to divide?

The splits have never changed. 70% of white men have always worked against the rights of minorities. I'd argue that 50% of white women have always been for or against right of minorities.

There is no reason to think things are getting better OUTSIDE of the growing influence of minorities economically and socially. We are the ones pushing the country to the left, not white people. So this idea of vast interconnectedness doesn't make sense. North Dakota is not going to become this bastion of liberal democracy any time soon.

You're muddying the waters here a bit and moving the conversation but I'll continue:

1. The pure splits are largely irrelevant since that's not how representation works in this country. America isn't a pure democracy.
2. I've already said, if black people are waiting on policy that specifically targets blacks in order to come out in vote then they are wasting their time.
3. There are policies that people can be in favor of without attaching race to it or people can like despite their own racial animus
   • Tax cuts
   • medicaid/medicare
   • food stamps (despite them being labeled a black thing they actually help white women mostly)
   • social security
   • union/labor laws
   • lowering the cost of education
   • Title IX/AA despite their specific purpose they still help other groups

We have examples of policy that is popular and helps people across different races due to their other commonality. It is part of the reason people like Bernie Sanders and his "Bread and Butter" issues. We can discuss how the implementation of many of these issues don't always help to the extent we'd like or racists and conservatives against it make sure they get a bigger cut or attempt to derail, but saying there isn't policy that blacks and whites both can rally around that benefits black people just seems dishonest in this context. No one is asking us to sing songs, hang out together, or particular love the other.

The position you take, in my opinion is more in line with state and local politics more so than national politics just due to the differences in diversity.

 

[Pressure]

You don't need everyone, you just need enough to overcome the opposition and implement your policy. It's harder to take things away than it is to add them once the people get used to them.