Normally I'd agree with you but this is the USA we're talking about. For the past 8 years the republicans have blocked a lot of things (including shutting down the government) to force concessions into bad policies and they were rewarded by the people in 2016 by winning every election. Apparently it's a winning strategy.
|
Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)
|
|
And I've always hated the democrats gloating about changing demographics giving them an electoral advantage, and republicans whining about non-whites voting for the democrats. The only reason why migrants and minorities gravitate towards "progressive" parties is because "conservative" parties actively enact policies that deprive them of political and economic rights in an attempt to pander towards the majority groups. Democrats are not entitled to non-white votes, so they didn't turn out, and this assumption they would was yet another factor that cost Clinton the election. Because she failed to actively campaign to enfranchise these groups (let alone address the economic concerns of everyone).
Pre-9/11, Arab-Americans were actively feted by the republicans as a religiously conservative voting bloc. That plan fell through when they became more useful as a scapegoat to turn out racist white people. (August 25th, 2017, 07:04)AdrienIer Wrote: Normally I'd agree with you but this is the USA we're talking about. For the past 8 years the republicans have blocked a lot of things (including shutting down the government) to force concessions into bad policies and they were rewarded by the people in 2016 by winning every election. Apparently it's a winning strategy. So obstructionism works fine to turn out the base when you're the opposition party. And why wouldn't you obstruct bad policy? Win win. People are pissed. Democrats conceding doesn't allow them to build political capital points they can save up to enact other policies in the future, it makes their base less likely to vote for them in the future.
DEMs won't need anything else other than minorities in 2024. Clinton thought that the year was 2016 but the DEMs strength was overestimated and the GOP was underestimated because Obama was great at turning out minorities, McCain was crippled by GWB and Romney was hated by the GOP base. If Trump cannot be the GOP nominee in 2020 the GOP is screwed anyway and it doesn't matter what the DEMs do. If Trump is the nominee than the fact that the DEMs folded on the wall won't matter for their base's motivation because Trump will motivate them just fine. The wall to stop them from using the budget to force concessions ever again is a great trade.
If you think that the GOP can build bridges to minorities then this game doesn't end in 2024 which would make my unambitious strategy a poor one. I don't think so because GWB lost to Gore Latinos by 30% points with Elian Gonzalez. Amusingly Trump actually doubled his supported to Muslims compared to Romney but that doesn't count because was trigged by Syria.
So you're asking for the democrats to continue the Clinton policy of not actually putting forward a positive message and instead assuming that minorities would turn out against Trump regardless of what the democrats say or do, or that minorities will even have the right to vote in 2020.
August 25th, 2017, 13:58
(This post was last modified: August 25th, 2017, 14:00 by TheHumanHydra.)
 (August 25th, 2017, 09:10)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: So you're asking for the democrats to continue the Clinton policy of not actually putting forward a positive message and instead assuming that minorities would turn out against Trump regardless of what the democrats say or do, or that minorities will even have the right to vote in 2020. Nicolae, maybe I've misunderstood you, but isn't it a little unlikely the United States would disenfranchise anyone based on race in the foreseeable future? I don't think anyone would be rash enough to attempt it, nor that it would pass, but if it did, wouldn't it be more likely to have a civil war than for it to take effect? Hopefully I mistook you. I just think that, while staunchly standing for inclusion, liberals also need to guard against alarmism and against building a wall in their minds between them and all of their political opponents (the broad spectrum we've prejudged as all voting for such a measure). The United States needs water thrown on its partisanship if its political situation is to improve long term. (I don't know about the larger debate you guys are having; just wanted to comment on that one thought. Sorry if I misunderstood.) (August 25th, 2017, 06:55)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: No one who isn't a gibbering racist actually wants to burn another pile of money for a stupid wall. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_barrier Lot of gibbering racists in the world  .Darrell  (August 25th, 2017, 13:58)TheHumanHydra Wrote: Nicolae, maybe I've misunderstood you, but isn't it a little unlikely the United States would disenfranchise anyone based on race in the foreseeable future? I don't think anyone would be rash enough to attempt it, nor that it would pass, but if it did, wouldn't it be more likely to have a civil war than for it to take effect? Not to mention unconstitutional due to the 15th amendment. Which, ironically, came about due to a civil war  .Darrell (August 25th, 2017, 09:10)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: So you're asking for the democrats to continue the Clinton policy of not actually putting forward a positive message and instead assuming that minorities would turn out against Trump regardless of what the democrats say or do, or that minorities will even have the right to vote in 2020. Yes. The demographics giving them the win in 2024 and Trump's lack of sophistication forcing him bash in the front door makes the best strategy to hide in the cellar for a little bit. This is usually a horrible idea but this is not a usual situation due to Trump and demographics. If your talking about a little disenfranchise (vote ID) like I think you are that would a give GOP 1-2 %. That's not enough. (August 25th, 2017, 15:05)darrelljs Wrote:(August 25th, 2017, 06:55)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: No one who isn't a gibbering racist actually wants to burn another pile of money for a stupid wall. There are the already existing non-contiguous border barriers along the land border, around chokepoints, and the giant solid see-through wall covered in solar panels. Which will have a terrible effect:cost ratio, a negative economic impact, and so serves no purpose except as a monument to xenophobia. And yes, there are alot of gibbering racists in the world. |
