Announcement

**astralis** · 17 Nov 16,, 17:52

probably the best way to characterize it that i've seen is that while the vast majority of Trump supporters are not racist, they just -turned a blind eye- to Trump's racist outbursts.

if they did care, there should have been a significant drop in Trump's numbers as compared to "the average Republican".

**Wooglin** · 17 Nov 16,, 19:39

Democrats and many in the media are choosing an easy myth rather than hard analysis, and in doing so are degrading many of their fellow citizens, worsening division, and missing the fact that Hillary Clinton lost, not due to racism or xenophobia, but because millions of Barack Obama's voters did not support her.

In other words, business as usual.

Originally posted by astralis

probably the best way to characterize it that i've seen is that while the vast majority of Trump supporters are not racist, they just -turned a blind eye- to Trump's racist outbursts.

if they did care, there should have been a significant drop in Trump's numbers as compared to "the average Republican".

You're right. They don't care. They're going to be called racists no matter what, so why give a shit? Maybe you're starting to catch on...

**astralis** · 17 Nov 16,, 22:32

You're right. They don't care. They're going to be called racists no matter what, so why give a shit? Maybe you're starting to catch on...

and people wonder why minorities are flocking to the Democratic Party.

we're roughly 20 years out from the US becoming a "minority-majority" country. for context, it was roughly 20 years ago that the California Republican Party committed political suicide with Prop 187.

so Republicans had better start giving a shit pretty soon. as it is, Steve Bannon as "chief strategist". the new admin talking about a Muslim registry based off the legal principle behind Japanese-American internment. these aren't things people are likely to forget anytime soon.

**tbm3fan** · 17 Nov 16,, 22:54

and it has now boiled to the surface.

With our new Minister of Propaganda not liking blacks, hispanics, muslims, gays, women and Jews he could be close to alienating 50% of the population. If the guy actually ran a retail business, with those views, he'd be out of business.

**Wooglin** · 17 Nov 16,, 23:03

Originally posted by astralis View Post

and people wonder why minorities are flocking to the Democratic Party.

we're roughly 20 years out from the US becoming a "minority-majority" country. for context, it was roughly 20 years ago that the California Republican Party committed political suicide with Prop 187.

so Republicans had better start giving a shit pretty soon. as it is, Steve Bannon as "chief strategist". the new admin talking about a Muslim registry based off the legal principle behind Japanese-American internment. these aren't things people are likely to forget anytime soon.

Well, ironically enough, as of last election that's a negative trend now, isn't it?

**astralis** · 17 Nov 16,, 23:18

Well, ironically enough, as of last election that's a negative trend now, isn't it?

it reverted to roughly 2004 levels, which isn't terribly surprising considering the Dem candidate in question is not a young, charismatic, minority candidate.

but even if Dems continue to "just" take 2004-levels of minority support...the minority percentage of the electorate goes from 30% today to 50% in 20 years. don't think those odds favor the GOP.

**Parihaka** · 18 Nov 16,, 02:05

Equally fitting in the "media bias" thread, but apropos of this conversation

If you get your “information” through Twitter, mainline print/online publications, or the netwits, you probably think that Trump’s newly appointed chief strategist Steve Bannon is the love child of Nathan Bedford Forrest* and Leni Riefenstahl. Racist. Anti-Semite. Master propagandist.

One should always be suspicious of such tendentious portraits, and that suspicion is especially warranted here. Spengler (David P. Goldman) wrote a furious and effective rebuttal of the attacks on Bannon which is worth a read, but do yourself a favor and read the man in his own words–and not the clip quotes attributed to him by his enemies on the left and among the #NeverTrump right. (One should be doubly suspicious when such disparate groups unite in an attack.)

In that 2014 speech and interview, Bannon comes off as bright, thoughtful, and articulate. Certainly he has strong views, but they are not the noxious brew that his attackers attribute to him. His main sensibility is religious. As for anti-Semitism, note that he stresses the Judeo-Christian tradition. He believes in capitalism, but he is not a “hard” libertarian or Objectivist. His brand of capitalism is of the Smith-Hayek-Friedman variety. He decries the devolution of capitalism in corporatism and crony capitalism. He attacks bailouts. He is stridently anti-jihadist. He is also a believer in national and cultural identity, and obviously a critic of globalism.

He spoke about Putin before Putin became a devil figure in the US campaign. His is a nuanced view. On the one hand, he slams Putin as a kleptocrat and ruler of an illegitimate form of capitalism–state capitalism. He also notes Putin’s deviousness and recognizes the threat he poses. But he does not exaggerate that threat, and appreciates that Putin has struck a chord among Russians by appealing to their patriotism and cultural identity.

He also discussed what is now referred to as the alt-right before it became a thing in the popular mind. He frankly admits that opposition movements like the Tea Party inevitably attract fringe elements, but believes in the end that these fringes don’t define these movements: they are free riders not drivers, and will eventually “boil off.” He is not uncritical of the European populist movements: “With all the baggage that those groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially — but we think that will all be worked through with time.” He draws distinctions between movements like UKIP or the Tea Party and continental European nationalist parties and groups, finding the latter more tinged with racism and anti-Semitism.

Reading the talk, and you will have an understanding of how Trump won. One of his key strategists had a very clear understanding of the discontent of the non-elites. He is genuinely sympathetic to the people that the left alternately scorns and claims to represent. All in all, Bannon clearly is not the man his enemies portray him to be. Methinks that the fury of their attacks reflects a deep fear that he is indeed a discerning thinker and able political strategist–and information warrior.

Spengler said that the attacks on Bannon are an example of the Big Lie. I take issue with that. What we are seeing with Bannon, and have seen and are seeing with Trump, is something different: it is the Lie Swarm.

The Big Lie is an effective propaganda tactic in a centralized, vertical media system dominated by a small number–and in totalitarian systems, basically one–of information channels. Radio or television with a small number of national stations either directly controlled by the state, or subject to substantial state pressure (e.g., the US in the days of the Fairness Doctrine). To oversimplify only a little: one message, one medium.

In the modern fractured information environment, with a proliferation of outlets and social media that allows free access to millions, coordinating on a single message is far more difficult in such a diffuse and fragmented system. But this technology is perfectly suited for unleashing a swarm of half-truths and lies that forms what can best be described as an emergent order. It is not consciously designed by anyone, but without central coordination design it does exhibit order and synergistic behaviors.

One swarm tactic that is becoming increasingly common is Six Degrees of Hitler/Putin/The KKK/etc. Target A has some connection to B who has some connection to C who has a connection with D who said something that could be interpreted as being vaguely fascist . . . so Hitler!

In some respects, it is harder to fight the Lie Swarm than it is the Big Lie in a society where there the media is not rigidly controlled. A single lie can be rebutted if the target of the lie has the ability to make the case and the access to enough eyeballs and ears to do so. It is almost impossible to swat every lie in the swarm, especially since the lies change and mutate from day to day, and since whenever you are in a position of rebutting a lie you tend to draw attention to it. But unrebutted lies are often as treated as facts, so if you don’t kill them all some damage is done.

Bannon, and especially Trump, are primary targets of the Lie Swarm, especially since Trump had the temerity to actually prevail in the election. Don’t get me wrong–there is much about Trump to criticize. But there has been a kind of Gresham’s Law at work here: the bad criticism has driven out the good. Screeching “racist!” “Anti-Semite!” “Fascist!” on the basis of the most twisted and biased interpretation of the flimsiest evidence has overwhelmed substantive argument.

And the Swarm really hasn’t figured out that their attack will do little to get Trump supporters to change their minds. If anything, it will do the opposite, because the “deplorables” know that they are being attacked and smeared as much as Bannon and Trump. Furthermore, the Swarm seems hell-bent on living out Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. Hillary’s whole campaign was based on personal attacks on Trump and his supporters, and she enlisted the Swarm in this endeavor.

And it backfired stupendously. Why should they expect that doubling down on it will work any better?

So I have mixed thoughts about this. On the one hand, the Lie Swarm’s infestation of the current public discourse is disgraceful and dispiriting. On the other hand, it has proved a spectacular failure in achieving its objective, so if they want to double down on it, why stop one’s enemies when they are making a mistake?

* For those not familiar with Civil War or Reconstruction history, Forrest was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. (It is beyond doubt that he was prominent in the KKK, but some dispute whether he was the Grand Wizard.) He also happened to be probably the only true military genius of the Civil War, in which he rose from private to Lieutenant General and earned (ironically) the sobriquet “Wizard of the Saddle.”

**GVChamp** · 18 Nov 16,, 02:25

Roflmao, it's "political suicide" to deny public benefits to illegal immigrants. Fuck it. It may be a losing fight, but it's definitely better to lose on the right side of history than be a filthy Democrat willing to pimp out your own taxpayers for more votes.

I really hope I am not on any government registries. Oh SHIT THE IRS HAS MY INFO? GOD CONSPIRACY OMG FIRST AMENDMENT JAPAN INTERNMENT CAMPS WAHHH WAHH I AM A DEMOCRAT!

**troung** · 18 Nov 16,, 03:26

Did Race or Class Doom Hillary Clinton?
It was both.
By Joan WalshTwitter
Yesterday 3:56 pm

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print

Clinton rally

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attends a campaign rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 22, 2016. (Reuters / Carlos Barria)

The Hillary Clinton campaign has reportedly told its donors, staffers, and surrogates that the Democratic nominee was beaten not by Donald Trump, but by FBI Director James Comey. The timing of her slide in the polls came after Comey made a vague and unprecedented announcement that “new” e-mails (they turned out to be duplicates) relating to the investigation into her handling of classified information had been found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Voters who made their choice in the last week went overwhelmingly for Trump.

We may never be able to conclusively prove whether that’s true. But pollster Stan Greenberg, a longtime Clinton ally, sees another factor. Perhaps partly because of Comey, the Clinton campaign stopped making a strong case for her populist economic policies in the closing weeks of the campaign, research by Greenberg’s Democracy Corps found. A poll of 1,300 voters—including 400 who are considered part of the rising American electorate of black, Latino, and other nonwhite voters plus unmarried white women (also known as the Obama coalition)—found they never heard her strongest economic pitches throughout the long campaign. (The poll was conducted on behalf of the Roosevelt Institute and Women’s Voices, Women’s Votes Action Fund.)

For Democrats, the most disturbing news in the Greenberg poll is that unmarried white women, whose support was crucial to Obama, voted for Trump 53–42, about the same as married women did. In 2008, this group went 60–40 for President Obama; in 2012, it was a narrower 52–48, while their married sisters went overwhelmingly for the GOP. Nancy Zdunkewicz of Greenberg Quinlan Rossler Research, the firm behind the poll, warns against Democrats freaking out about that shocking result; she says the comparatively small sample sizes of 519 voters means there’s a margin of error between 5.5 and 6.8 percent. She still thinks the findings are “interesting and newsworthy.”

At least three other pollsters I’m aware of have found a decline in white unmarried women’s support of Democrats (their numbers aren’t public yet), though none have seen as stark a drop as in as Democracy Corps poll. Geoff Garin, who polls for Priorities USA and Planned Parenthood, in fact saw the opposite: He found that Clinton did slightly better than Obama with unmarried women, 58–37, while slightly underperforming with married women. But Garin likewise cautions against drawing big conclusions from small samples: His firm polled 200 women voters on one night; Democracy Corps polled election eve, Election Day, and the day after, and included one and a half times the number of white women as Garin. Either way, Garin agrees with Zdunkewicz that whatever the ultimate result for white unmarried women, there’s evidence that Clinton’s economic message didn’t resonate—with many groups.

“You also have to realize: Increasingly there’s overlap between white working class women and white unmarried women,” says Page Gardner, president of the Democracy Corps poll-sponsor Women’s Voices, Women’s Vote Action Fund. Acknowledging there is some difference between the four or five polls she knows about on this issue, she says one thing is clear: “A strong economic message was not breaking through, especially at the close of the race.”

Indeed, white working-class women are another group that gave Obama a chance in 2008 and 2012; he lost, but more narrowly than other Democrats had with this group: by only 6 points in 2008 and 19 points in 2012, and much better than with their male counterparts. Democracy Corps found that Clinton lost this group by 26 points this time around. Yet Zdunkewicz notes that Clinton was neck and neck with Trump in their polling with these women at the end of October, trailing but only 43–39. What changed?

“When she was talking about the economy, she did well with this group; when she stopped, she lost a lot of them,” Zdunkewicz said.

In a fascinating but possibly overdetermined argument, the Democracy Corps report shows that Clinton’s peak poll standing with all groups came after the final debate, when she made a strong pitch for herself as an economic change agent. The report highlights her closing argument that night:

“I have made the cause of children and families really my life’s work. That’s what my mission will be in the presidency. I will stand up for families against powerful interests, against corporations. I will do everything that I can to make sure that you have good jobs with rising incomes, that your kids have good educations from preschool through college. I hope you will give me a chance to serve as your president.”

But at the campaign’s end, Clinton’s closing message was less punchy, more dreamy. In one of her final ads, Greenberg pointed out on a conference call, she asks: “Is America dark and divisive? Or hopeful and inclusive? Our core values are being tested in this election. But everywhere I go people are refusing to be defined by fear and division.” She offered no specifics about her economic plans in that particular ad.

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

Likewise, President Obama mainly stressed inclusion and tolerance in his final appeals, as well as the importance of protecting his legacy and finishing his work. His closing pitch involved highlighting the very real progress his administration made—but it was progress that perhaps didn’t resonate with voters who are still suffering economically.

“When [white unmarried women] only heard ‘unity, build on progress, acknowledge the recovery,’ and that didn’t speak to their issues,” says Zdunkewicz. She notes that of all the groups polled, white unmarried women were the most likely to say they did not have $500 to pay an unexpected bill. (White working-class men were the most likely.) “They’re in new economy low-wage jobs, maybe juggling two jobs, struggling with child care.”

But Clinton proposed to significantly hike the minimum wage, provide universal preschool, and vastly expand subsidized child care and other supports; policies that would have helped those women more than anything Trump’s policies will provide. Unfortunately, Democracy Corps found that Clinton’s very real progressive economic proposals just generally didn’t cut through the campaign noise. Among voters who did choose Clinton, the poll found, most did so because she had the right temperament, valued the country’s diversity, supported equal rights for women, and would be a strong commander in chief. Comparatively few cited her economic appeals. By contrast, Trump voters say they chose him because he was a successful businessman who would create jobs, cut taxes, and regulations to grow the economy, and repeal Obamacare—mainly economic issues.

And when polled on which Clinton proposals they knew about, voters were most likely to know about her plans to tax the rich and make college debt-free. One-third didn’t know about her infrastructure plan, and 45 percent didn’t know about her plans to protect and strengthen financial regulation.

Returning to the concerns of white unmarried women, the surprising defectors identified in this poll, anyway, a few more findings jumped out. Given a choice between explaining Trump as someone who spoke for working-class Americans who were “rightly frustrated,” vs. someone who “appealed to racial resentments more than working class problems,” those women overwhelmingly chose the first explanation, as did white non-college-educated women. Minorities and Clinton voters overwhelmingly chose the second one, believing racial resentments mattered more.

It’s certainly worrisome that Clinton’s economic appeal, and her concerns about working-class voters (of every race) didn’t come through. But there are a few obstacles to saying that if Clinton had simply preached her economic agenda louder, she’d have won over the white unmarried or working-class women who strayed from the Democratic coalition. When we look at the economic argument that Trump voters heard, as found in the Democracy Corps poll, it wasn’t mainly populist; in fact, cutting taxes, regulations, and Obamacare are explicitly the opposite. So it’s hard to argue that she might have lured a lot of Trump voters even with a louder progressive economic appeal.

On the question of the defection of white unmarried and, to a lesser extent, working-class women: Note that unmarried and working-class women of color most certainly did not drift to Trump this time around. Why did some of their white sisters go that way? We can’t leave race out of the equation. We know that the leading predictor of a vote for Trump is that a voter scores high on questions of racial resentment, such as denying that whites have advantages because of the color of their skin, or believing that black people are violent or lazy. In Trump, they finally got a candidate who spoke to the racial and gender resentments many of them feel. We have to face up to the fact that this is the first election in which many white voters voted as white people. That’s got to include white women too.

Another predictor of Trump support is gender bias: believing that women are exaggerating the discrimination they still face, or trying to use their power to get ahead of men, not pull equal. I’ve seen no polling of women alone on that question explicitly. It’s possible they’ve internalized misogyny; we all do. But it may be that struggling white women weren’t moved by complaints about Trump’s sexism; they’ve learned to deal with it. Acknowledging that is not the same thing as the Tina Brown argument: that “liberal feminists” never should have made it a big issue. The truth is the truth, even if economically struggling women may lack the time or energy to discern it, or have bigger problems to worry about.

But the muting of Clinton’s economic message matters, because it might have depressed turnout among members of the Obama coalition. Black voters ticked down from 13 to 12 percent of the electorate, while the Hispanic vote only rose from 10 to 11 percent, much less than expected. And while she won the Obama coalition overwhelmingly, her margin was down with millennials, African Americans, and Hispanics.

The media should be taking at least some of the blame for Clinton’s message not getting through, given the fact that they covered her e-mail controversy more than any policy. Nightly news shows gave it three times the attention it gave to policy issues, And in the week after the outrageous Comey letter, newspapers gave that story alone twice as much coverage as any Trump story in the closing week. Now, the media is bogged down with people tediously arguing whether the Democrats need to chase the votes of white non-college-educated voters, given Clinton’s historic loss with them, or shore up support with the Obama coalition—with way too much angst, in my opinion, going to the white-working class, especially given the suffering in store for women and people of color given Trump’s agenda.

But if this Democracy Corps poll is right, Democrats may not have to choose between them. A strong progressive economic appeal that cuts through the predictable campaign din ought to appeal to enough of both groups to pull off a win in 2020. In fact, the poll found strong support for the progressive agenda promoted by the Roosevelt Institute: Strong majorities of every group—including Trump voters—backed a massive investment in infrastructure (broadly defined; not just roads and bridges), investing in underserved communities, reforming markets, reorganizing our approach to trade, and overhauling corporate governance.

Still, now I have one more reason to wish James Comey had never sent his outrageous, ill-considered letter: The fact that these poll findings focus on the very same time period as Comey’s intervention makes it very hard to say the drop in her support was about her vague Kumbaya closing pitch, and not Comey. But either way, from a progressive point of view, the Roosevelt Institute’s recommendations are the right agenda for next time around

https://www.thenation.com/article/di...llary-clinton/

**InExile** · 18 Nov 16,, 05:11

Originally posted by Wooglin View Post

In other words, business as usual.

You're right. They don't care. They're going to be called racists no matter what, so why give a shit? Maybe you're starting to catch on...

Will you stand up again 'real' racism, I mean the David Duke variety?

I am disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Trump inspite of all the things that he said and did. But, ofcourse its stupid to write off half the US as 'deplorable' as many on the left have been doing the past week.

I accept it as the new normal now, maybe its an over correction but I think it is somewhat fair to say that the left went too far in regulating political correctness

**GVChamp** · 18 Nov 16,, 15:12

I don't think Donald Trump is a 1960s style segregationist. Donald Trump got a lot of votes in Louisiana, those people had the ability to vote for David Duke and didn't.

**Triple C** · 18 Nov 16,, 15:28

Originally posted by GVChamp View Post

Roflmao, it's "political suicide" to deny public benefits to illegal immigrants.

If it was that simple. The president-elect and his proxies had directed hateful rhetoric of every description at groups that are not white, and perpetuated complete falsehood about ethnic minorities. As of now, the Asian American community is wondering if they are next. With Bannon's comments that there are too many Asian CEOs in Tech Industry? the answer seems to be a resounding yes. The polarization and social conflict in the next 4-8 years would be very interesting from a safe distance.

**~~bfng3569~~** · 18 Nov 16,, 15:35

Originally posted by InExile View Post

Will you stand up again 'real' racism, I mean the David Duke variety?

I am disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Trump inspite of all the things that he said and did. But, ofcourse its stupid to write off half the US as 'deplorable' as many on the left have been doing the past week.

I accept it as the new normal now, maybe its an over correction but I think it is somewhat fair to say that the left went too far in regulating political correctness

and I am 'disappointed that so many thoughtful, decent people supported Clinton inspite of all the things that she said and did'.

will you stand up to the Bill Aires variety, the Sharptons, the BLM's, the Jeremiah Wright's etc etc etc. oh wait, that's been the past 8 years.

I think its a bit ironic that Obama ran on unity and bringing the country together, yet he has been one of the most divisive presidents racially in a long time, and now that divisiveness has come back to bite him and the dem's in the ass.

**Triple C** · 18 Nov 16,, 15:58

Originally posted by bfng3569 View Post

will you stand up to the Bill Aires variety, the Sharptons, the BLM's, the Jeremiah Wright's etc etc etc. oh wait, that's been the past 8 years.

I think its a bit ironic that Obama ran on unity and bringing the country together, yet he has been one of the most divisive presidents racially in a long time, and now that divisiveness has come back to bite him and the dem's in the ass.

I am never going to be able to convince you that perhaps some of those hated ethnic minority figures may have point, but which of them had ever been offered a position in the Cabinet? Is spite for minority activists your defense for electing Trump?

Announcement

Race and 2016

Race and 2016

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment