And seriously, do you really think those issues I mentioned could pass? Is it worth taking a chance on them?
— Relativist

When Trump ran on building a wall and demonizing immigrants did anyone ask this? — Maw

I'll clarify my point. Those progressive policies will never be implemented no matter who is elected but people will vote against a candidate espousing them. This is like voting for Nader in 2000, which resulted in W being elected. Re:Trump, some people probably voted against him for his xenophobic positions, but obviously it didn't dissuade enough people. The "socialist" bugaboo may very well turn off swing voters- and that is exactly the strategy the Republicans are already using.

Most polls show that Medicare For All enjoys majority approval. — Maw

It will never get the needed 60 votes in the Senate, and some independents will be afraid to support a "socialist" candidate.

No Democratic candidate is supporting an open border policy so I have no idea why you mention that.

What candidate is talking about stemming illegal immigration? If they do NOT, their position will be defined by Republicans as being for open borders. (Free health care for the folks at the border? When many Americans lack health care? )

Reparations is more of a tertiary proposal rather than a focal one, but it's nevertheless has a split approval rating among Democrats, and notably has increased in popularity since 2014, even among Republicans.

A candidate supporting it it will lose more votes than he gains. This is irrespective of whether it ought to be considered.

This is basically Biden's strategy. And, it didn't work in 2016, so why would it now? — Wallows

Biden is not Hillary. Lots of people hated Hillary, but everyone likes Joe. Joe is much more popular among blue collar voters than Hillary. There's also mucho lessons learned from the 2016 campaign - in particular, take nothing for granted.

Yeah, but my main point is that hotelling's law doesn't apply to Trump, and hence you need something like a progressive or democratic socialist candidate to stir interest in the (predominantly) college educated electorate that have been sitting at home watching from the sidelines.

Anti-Trump fervor among that group will bring votes for any Democrat. We need to get back the working class, who used to be the core of the party. They care less about progressive ideals; they care about their own lives. That was Trump's appeal.

We can continue this conversation here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6273/hotellings-law-in-us-politics

The United States is great because of people like those women, who are changing what needs changed from the inside, because they love our country. Wanting change does not equate to hating one's country. — creativesoul

Indeed.

Another foreign leader has weighed in on Trump’s racist comments about “the Squad.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the president’s remarks run counter to “the strength of America.”

The German chancellor voiced her solidarity towards the Democratic politicians who were told by Trump this week to ‘go back...to the places from which they came’, saying:

‘I firmly distance myself from (the attacks) and feel solidarity towards the attacked women.’ She added: ‘the strength of America lies in the idea that people of different origins contribute to what makes the country great.’” — Kate Connolly reports

US presidential elections are not about policies. US politics will cater to the rich no matter who holds the office. It's a matter of degree how much you'll be fucked and whether you'll thank them for the privilege, depending on which party you identify with. This whole discussion about centrist or left policies totally misses the obvious point that nobody cares about them in respect to elections.

Trump was elected because he was famous and he spoke truths people wanted to hear about criminal immigrants, lost glory and he does a fair impression of an alpha male.

The Democrats won seats because enough people were actually disgusted with Trump. If you want to win from Trump in an election, you need to not be Trump in some very obvious way. I'm not convinced the US is ready for a female leader though.

If you can get a white, straight, former military man who actually speaks the truth and is an actual alpha male instead of someone faking it, the dissonance will become immediately apparent and it will be an automatic win regardless of his policies, left out centrist, or lack thereof.

This whole discussion about centrist or left policies totally misses the obvious point that nobody cares about them in respect to elections. — Benkei

They care about policies indirectly: they care about themselves, so they are attracted to policies they perceive will benefit themselves. That means that "liberal" policies that help others don't attract voters (other than a core group of liberals like me), and will actually repel voters because of the perceived cost in taxes or deficits (or even opportunity cost - spending on someone else means you aren't spending for me)

Regarding "speaking truth" - I assume you're referring to subjective truth. Trump appeals to subjective truths all the time: the subjective "truths" of racists.

Regarding your climate change thread, I came across some climatology in youtube form. It's an English guy who's talking too slowly, but it's good information and it's from PBS.

They care about policies indirectly: they care about themselves, so they are attracted to policies they perceive will benefit themselves. That means that "liberal" policies that help others don't attract voters (other than a core group of liberals like me), and will actually repel voters because of the perceived cost in taxes or deficits (or even opportunity cost - spending on someone else means you aren't spending for me) — Relativist

The assumption of considering people rational continues to astound me. Why do you believe this? Because you believe you're rational and therefore others must be too? If that were even remotely true advertisement wouldn't exist. Practically identical products wouldn't be priced wildly differently just because one of them has the right brand. Stores wouldn't try to differentiate on their "experience" for their customers. And the US presidential elections wouldn't be the nearly two year, billion dollar shit show it is now because, well, we'd only need facts and policies to decide.

My theory doesn't apply to everyone and it doesn't require anyone to be completely rational, but I don't see how you can deny that self-interest is one motivator. It's more of a challenge to obtain the vote of someone who perceives a candidate's policies will be contrary to his own best interests.

In the US, political affiliation is too closely linked to identity for people to be ready to consider policies of the other party. Then there is the issue where you mention "perception"... Try running that through in the context of what I described before.

Right now, you've got a racist and probably a rapist as the elected president and in any case a mysogynistic dick. That he was a racist and a misogynist was known when he got elected. There's no amount of good policies that should excuse such character so we already know it wholeheartedly isn't anything to do with Trump's policies that got him elected. Thinking the "right" policies are going to defeat him just misses the point entirely how US elections are decided.

Funny, while Trump's minions are out there pretending he hasn't been openly racist, one was asked by Chris Cuomo: "Well, what if he said he was actually a racist? Would you support him then?" The poor guy was stumped. "That's a tough one" was the best he could he manage.

But, yeah, Trump warned us he could take a gun out on the street and shoot someone (preferably a black or brown person, apparently) and his supporters would still cheer him on. I think his ego is leading him to test that theory re racism. He's wondering how far he can take it before Republicans refuse to continue to walk the goose-step behind him. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

I think the argument comes down to this: simply ask yourself , in your day to day life, in your reality, do YOU experience racism? Do you know anybody in their day to day lives that experience racism? Or anyone they know?
If the vast majority of people do not experience racism in THEIR day to day lives, then by definition , by sheer common sense, the race issue is leftist propaganda and in fact promoting racism by continuing suggest the idea.
Please take note that what you hear or see on television does not count, as television does not equal reality since information is deleted, ignored , focused or not focused on, or taken out of proportion.

I agree with what you said, but there's another big issue. Few actually consider themselves racists, but many have thought to themselves "they should go back where they're from" (as an example). Trump appeals to these suppressed tendencies, and emboldens them to say it out loud. Since they "know" they aren't racist, it is obviously leftist propaganda to label it such.

If the vast majority of people do not experience racism in THEIR day to day lives, then by definition , by sheer common sense, the race issue is leftist propaganda and in fact promoting racism by continuing suggest the idea.
Please take note that what you hear or see on television does not count, as television does not equal reality since information is deleted, ignored , focused or not focused on, or taken out of proportion. — halo

So when the vast majority of people see Trump encouraging racism on TV, this does not count as "day to day life" because it's not reality? I suppose you think that the film's been edited to make Trump look like he encourages racism when he really does not. Regardless, I think most of us do experience racism, outside of what we see on TV, most of us not every day, but how much is too much? And if it is observed to be on the increase, this is cause for concern.

@Relativist

many have thought to themselves "they should go back where they're from" — Relativist

You are assuming this. I'm sure some may say that to themselves. I'm sure, myself included, have said that regarding Muslims when several terrorist attacks were happening around the country and the world a few years ago. I was angry and therefore had angry thoughts. However, a passing thought does not define somebody. I like most Muslims I meet and think they add flavor to our already diverse society. But, yes, we are only human and when we see our neighbors die in vein, then its only human to be angry.

I've strayed off the subject a bit. To your point, I suppose expressing an idea that may be dormant in the collective consciousness could feed that idea , which is a dangerous and inappropriate idea, one that should not be voiced by a leader.

However, isn't it the media and the democrats that are really spreading the idea. I mean, to take a phrase, such as 'go back to where you are from' out of a sentence, out of an entire speech, out of hundreds of speeches is taking it out of proportion. They are completely taking it out of context. Not to mention, why is it that when AOC, for example, attacks Trump, she is not accused of being racist? Why are they not held to the same standard? And since it's the left that continues to voice the idea of racism, not Trump, isn't it them who are at fault if anybody?

@Metaphysician Undercover

Like I said, TV does not count because yes, its being edited for him to look like a racist. That is exactly what the right is saying!

I think most of us do experience racism, outside of what we see on TV, most of us not every day, — Metaphysician Undercover

So your answer to the question 'are you or anyone you know experiencing racism in your life (outside TV) , the answer is no. So my point is that what you are seeing on TV is propaganda because what is being portrayed on TV does not fit your reality.

They are completely taking it out of context. — halo

Really? It was a tweet. Trump doesn't make speeches. He makes sporadic remarks strategically aimed at incite.

So your answer to the question 'are you or anyone you know experiencing racism in your life (outside TV) , the answer is no. — halo

As I said, the answer is yes. I see it commonly, in my life, not on TV, not every day, but more times than I can count. And it appears to be on an increase.

Trump doesn't make speeches. He makes sporadic remarks strategically aimed at incite. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly.

Do the Democrats and other anti-Trumpers here feel worried about the national polls regarding matchups between Trump and leading Democrats? I mean, Trump is polling right now exactly where he landed at in November 2016. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, but Trump won the states he needed to. He is very popular here in Wisconsin (he is also just as unpopular I suppose). The Russians and Saudis continue to troll for him, and there is so much disinformation on the social media platforms. Not to mention that Mitch McConnell refuses to bring legislation to protect our voting systems to the floor of the Senate.

I really would not be surprised if Trump gets re-elected. And if he does, I’m afraid our country will never be the same again.

During the 1960s and into the 1970s, "Love It or Leave It" was a common taunt. It meant that you should love the country the same way the taunter did: get behind our military (even if the current war was stupid); support the troops; honor the flag; get a hair cut, get a job -- all that. I was told to love it or leave it many times.

It seems to me that "go back where you came from" or "go back home" has about the same loading as "love It or Leave It." If you don't love the country now the way the taunter does, the taunter in chief, especially, it means you don't share the dominant paradigm. Back in the day, when the Black Panther Party was in the news a lot (even though they were actually pretty small potatoes as organizations go) they incited a lot of hatred. Black activists of all sorts were told to "go back to Africa".

Love It or Leave It, Go Back Where You Came From, Go Back to Africa (or wherever), are taunts to "get with the program". More often than not the taunts come/came from working class whites who were not, when they were taunting long-haired hippies or blacks, in the armed services. Working class whites were drafted at a higher rate than white college students (who might have been working class too). They felt they were bearing an unfair 'class burden'. Their burden was lighter than the black working class who got drafted a lot more often than white working class men.

White working class men end up taking the side they do because they are more or less conventionally patriotic, and even if they have been ill served by the system, they feel they have a stake in it. Working class blacks are conventionally patriotic too, but are generally have no delusions that they have a very deep stake In the system, or that the system is on their side.

The object of Trump's taunt was no congresswoman. It was his electoral base: They, of course, like the attention Trump gives them (that's the most they're going to get out of Trump, too) and they easily respond to the resentment-pandering that Trump does. It's entertaining. "Lock her up" / "Send her back" -- are just obvious chants for Trump audiences to use.

Any speaker who so wishes can coax a crowd into a frenzy with the right suggestions. Different folks need different strokes. A Sanders crowd or a Warren Crowd or a Trump crowd can all be turned on with the right--but quite different--words. Trump seems to have a feel for his people, which is important for him since his whole strategy has been to pander.

Here's another funny/sad. The exact words Trump tweeted are quoted in federal guidelines as being a racist comment that is against the law to utter in work places. But of course I'm sure the Dems put that in because this is all their fault for pretending racism exists. :lol:

Let's all go out and tell some Jewish Americans to go back to where they came from because Republicans not at all being utter hypocrites will pat us on the back and tell us that's just fine. :confused:

The object of Trump's taunt was no congresswoman. — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately, she is now a target who might well need extra protection as a result.
Can you imagine the effect that must have on an individual - being hatefully picked on by a powerful president goading a crowd into a frenzy. It's not just a chant, it's an incitement to oppose and attack.

Sanders crowd or a Warren Crowd or a Trump crowd can all be turned on with the right--but quite different--words. Trump seems to have a feel for his people, which is important for him since his whole strategy has been to pander. — Bitter Crank

Yes. I keep thinking the Democrats should get themselves a good slogan. I liked the quote used by the congresswoman to hit back at Trump. Can't remember it but it's too wordy *
I enjoyed the sense of it - a rising into the air...
A bit like rising above it. And also an awareness arising...
It's strong but not punchy enough.

* Found it:

You may shoot me with your words,
You may cut me with your eyes,
You may kill me with your hatefulness,
But still, like air, I’ll rise. — Maya Angelou

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46446/still-i-rise

I really would not be surprised if Trump gets re-elected. And if he does, I’m afraid our country will never be the same again. — Noah Te Stroete

I have a depressing feeling you're right. The Democrats have really got to stop being a rabble and get behind a sensible centrist candidate. From 15,000 miles away it looks awfully like it ought to be a Biden-Warren ticket.

down

Trump warned us he could take a gun out on the street and shoot someone... — Baden

I don't know if you saw this last year, but it's really worth repeating from time to time.

Funny, while Trump's minions are out there pretending he hasn't been openly racist, one was asked by Chris Cuomo: "Well, what if he said he was actually a racist? Would you support him then?" The poor guy was stumped. "That's a tough one" was the best he could he manage. — Baden

Given that things are going from bad to worse, I am actually waiting for that.
So far, he seems to accept that being racist is wrong.
But being a racist, there may well come a point where he thinks he can get away with telling it like it is:
'I am a racist. So what?'

More funny/sad. But we don't have to go as far as the Guardian to highlight this kind of absurdity. Right here in this discussion you have the asinine suggestion that racism is not a problem because a poster can't see it and therefore those who object to racism are actually promoting it. How do you combat that lobotomized level of stupidity? Someone who insists on believing the 'other side' is the cause of the very thing their side is blatantly espousing or covering for is suffering from more than a defect in IQ, more than run-of-the-mill ignorance, they are on a plane of emotional blindness that regular folks just have no access to. They are beyond help. What can we do but pray for them. :pray:

From 15,000 miles away it looks awfully like it ought to be a Biden-Warren ticket. — Wayfarer

From what I have read, I would agree.