The dems will beat repubs every time the Dems offer a clear framing of a clear problem the majority faces, and a reasonable, realistic solution to that problem. They don’t even need a solution - if they clearly identify a problem the majority faces.

But instead, the Dems pick problems most people don’t really face everyday (LGBTQ issues, global environment issues, class issues, race issues), and they create solutions that are unreasonable. When it comes to actual solutions, the Dems mostly convert one problem into two other problems, occasionally don’t impact the problem at all, and less occasionally do some good. So when they pick a problem most don’t care a lot about, they look terrible. They need to identify what the real issues are that federal government has some real control over.

One major issue I see keeping people apart is that conservatives have to confess their policy positions and apologize for having them, if progressives will even entertain a discussion. Conservatives have to answer questions like “do you support white nationalism?” And “do you hate immigrants, women and LGBTQ?”

Those questions have nothing to do with most conservative policies. But for some reason, if you support republicans, you must be a racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, heartless, greedy pig. And no honest conversation can be had if the repub doesn’t first confess these truths and apologize for them.

And then progressives don’t believe the answers when the conservative says “no” to all of them. Dems are as conspiratorial as the worst maga election and vaccine deniers. They find “dog whistles” everywhere and never take things conservatives say for their face value.

(Here is a tip - Maga has no depth - it is all face value - and the Dems refuse to see this. That is what populism is - taking the populace at face value. The naive want to have the naive discussions.)

Progressives in the media have made it this way. It started in the 60’s. Progressive voices became so loud and were supported so uniformly in all forms of media (movies, TV, news, print) and college/education, now, anything that opposes progressive speech and liberal thinking is seen as only coming from a bad, backwards place. Public speech has now all become virtue signaling political correctness, and the Dems made it this way.

Dems can’t even debate differences of opinion with each other anymore.

So if a Republican wants to talk to a Dem, he or she needs to apologize for all of the wrong words they will use, and apologize for having ideas that conflict with the prevailing wisdom of the brilliant media and college professors.

Believe it or not, the vast vast majority of republicans, like the vast majority of human beings, are not racist. It’s unfortunately true and the Dems don’t want to believe that they might be the ones fomenting racism. Someone who thinks the phrase “build a border wall” is racist may have their own issues with race, and may be seeking a different conversation than border policy.

We all hate racism. It doesn’t have to be part of every discussion.

BTW, Hate and racism have a much cozier home in a party that hates white, patriarchal, colonizing profiteers. A basis for hating a whole group of people based on nothing to do with individual blame but merely because of their membership in a group exists to a much much greater degree in the Dem party (lots of groups of people the Dems sanction hating - there is no reason for a democrat to even speak with someone who likes being white, or a white male, or depending on the conversation any male, or a capitalist big business owner, or a Christian gun owner - none of these groups really deserve a fair hearing, the dems have heard enough from such people back in the 50’s and have moved on, progressed beyond all of those deplorable people.)

So conversations between progressives and conservatives never really happen - they each talk about different things and hurl their insults over each others walls and never hear each other or see each other at all.

For instance, to the average Repub, the issue at the border has nothing to do with the nationality of the people on the other side of the border. No conservative republican cares where you are from (including Trump); if you want to respect America’s laws, apply and enter the country legally, great, welcome aboard from wherever you are from. The border issue is simple: to say “America” and mean it, you need a border so you can point on a map to what you mean. We need a border first to be the country everyone can find on a map so they can leave their country’s borders and come here for a better life. We need to build a better America so that when they cross the border they find the hope they seek. Borders are real and matter for the sake of Americans and the rest of the world. Race and nationality of an individual person has nothing to do with this issue, save for one nationality - American - which nationality only exists inside a border (once there is a border). Republican policy at the border is for the sake of people of ALL nationalities creeds and colors who are legally American.

This a reasonable, debatable position. There is much to say in support and in opposition to this that need never use the word “race”. It’s insulting and betrays weak analysis to raise race with every issue.

Questions like: “why do you only want to help the rich while exploiting the poor?” Many poor people now see through this loaded question in all its forms in the media. People registered dem and repub, rich and poor, actually think that if they can make some of their own money, save to build their own security, they can freely create whatever society they want here in America, already. They don’t need or want government to figure out what bathroom signs should look like, or how many Asians or women are on boards of directors. At least not now, when they can’t save any money at all. They want to be able to run their own lives and communities.

The biggest divide between Dems and (real) Repubs is over the size and role of the federal government. Repubs are supposed to create results for people by limiting the role of federal government to its strengths (national security, foreign policy and trade, interstate issues) and cutting it down to the minimum size necessary (lower taxes) to address those limited things. Repubs try to create conditions within which people can identify and solve their own problems, not tell them what the problem is and take their money to solve it for them. Dems think the feds in Washington will be better suited to tell people in a small town in Wyoming and big city New York, and the big corporations and the mom and pop business what they need, how to get it and how much it should cost, and what is good for their business and what is good in the public square. And that has never worked once in 100 years.

The Dems over-promise and under deliver, in my view, because government is inefficient and will never provide the resources to improve society. It’s a necessary evil, not suited to knowing and managing what people need.

Progressivism really is like a secular religion, complete with the Paradise of Power to the People through Big Brother Federal Government. Republicans are the party of the immoral, selfish and stupid. Dems are the party of the morally upright, the community based, and the brilliant thinkers. Yet they still lose. Maybe they don’t understand anything at all about the people who didn’t vote for them. And God forbid, maybe their ability to identify and solve national problems aren’t as brilliant as they thought. Maybe the poor uneducated white man has a good idea once in a while.

My question is, with the media and higher education deeply in the back-pocket of progressive supporting Dems, why is it Dems could possibly lose any election? How could anyone, let alone a whole country, elect a racist, sexist, raping, felon nazi (all synonyms for Trump) if the dems are really for the people at all? It’s because Dems take the people for granted, and misjudge them. And instead of focusing on the people, they’ve given up on the people’s ability to help themselves, they don’t even want people to help themselves, and think the answer to any problem might somehow magically be found in bigger government dominance of all facets of life, as if there is one way people should be, as if the problems Dems see as priority are the biggest problems we all must see, as if the solutions they devise to address these problems are the only way.

Progressivism really is like a secular religion, complete with the Paradise of Power to the People through Big Brother Federal Government. Republicans are the party of the immoral, selfish and stupid. Dems are the party of the morally upright, the community based, and the brilliant thinkers. — Fire Ologist

It seems rather contemptuous of religion to reduce it to mere political and social philosophy.

If Dems were really out to win, then this guy Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump twice.

I wonder if anyone has the guts to just say the Dems are shit politicians.

If Dems were really out to win, then this guy Bernie Sanders would have beaten Trump — Shawn

It’s an old but persistent delusion that far-right nationalism is not rooted in the emotional needs of far-right nationalists but arises, instead, from the injustices of neoliberalism. And so many on the left insist that all those Trump voters are really Bernie Sanders voters who just haven’t had their consciousness raised yet. In fact, a similar constellation of populist figures has emerged, sharing platforms, plans, and ideologies, in countries where neoliberalism made little impact, and where a strong system of social welfare remains in place. If a broadened welfare state—national health insurance, stronger unions, higher minimum wages, and the rest—would cure the plague in the U.S., one would expect that countries with resilient welfare states would be immune from it. They are not. (Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker)

, I appreciate your ability to compromise issues to reach a larger demographic. I think that political outrage is ridiculous. Republicans and Democrats should both be more neutral and have more conversations. Civil disagreement is what would kill the two party system. If a greater portion of both groups were more open to political discourse, both sides would be less radical. I also think that focusing on economic issues more than social issues would cause more people to be democrat.

For instance, to the average Repub, the issue at the border has nothing to do with the nationality of the people on the other side of the border. No conservative republican cares where you are from (including Trump); if you want to respect America’s laws, apply and enter the country legally, great, welcome aboard from wherever you are from. The border issue is simple: to say “America” and mean it, you need a border so you can point on a map to what you mean. We need a border first to be the country everyone can find on a map so they can leave their country’s borders and come here for a better life. We need to build a better America so that when they cross the border they find the hope they seek. Borders are real and matter for the sake of Americans and the rest of the world. Race and nationality of an individual person has nothing to do with this issue, save for one nationality - American - which nationality only exists inside a border (once there is a border). Republican policy at the border is for the sake of people of ALL nationalities creeds and colors who are legally American. — Fire Ologist

Nope.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141

Poisoning the blood? Where have we heard that before...If all these illegal immigrants were lily white people from Norway, you think you'd be hearing that kind of rhetoric from Trump? And his supporters love it. And the non-racist Republicans turn a blind eye to it. That's just Trump being Trump. Trump has dinner with Nick Fuentes and there's not a peep of protest from MAGA world. They like it. That's a feature, not a bug.

A large segment of Republicans is incredibly racist.

The way Democrats can win an election is not run a woman again for the next ten years. Harris lost the battleground states by a heartbreakingly small margin. If she had been a white male, Trump would have been toast. This sexist country just can't stand the thought of a woman leader.

This sexist country just can't stand the thought of a woman leader. — RogueAI

Except that Hillary Clinton, an unimaginable hag of a woman, won the popular vote by a comfortable margin in 2016. But keep coping, I suppose..

Except that Hillary Clinton, an unimaginable hag of a woman, won the popular vote by a comfortable margin in 2016. But keep coping, I suppose.. — Tzeentch

Look who she ran against. If she had been a white male, she would have clobbered Trump. Women and minorities are underrepresented in all aspects of leadership in this country. A minority woman running for president is like a sprinter starting 20 yards behind the starting lining. You don't live in this country, do you?

They were both downright awful. Maybe that had something to do with it.

I appreciate your ability to compromise issues to reach a larger demographic. I think that political outrage is ridiculous. Republicans and Democrats should both be more neutral and have more conversations. Civil disagreement is what would kill the two party system. If a greater portion of both groups were more open to political discourse, both sides would be less radical. I also think that focusing on economic issues more than social issues would cause more people to be democrat. — Hyper

I agree with everything you write but with a note. We got where we are today because of the Republicans. They have worked for more than 50 years to drive Americans apart from each other and it works, politically, but doesn't work in terms of good governance, in which they have little interest. In line with the principles on which you and I agree, I don't bring that up in discussions when I'm trying to be conciliatory. The Republicans have broken it. It's up to the Democrats to fix it.

Poisoning the blood? — RogueAI

Like I said, conservatives have to confess their evil, lying hearts before anyone who is reasonable would believe an “honest” dialogue on the issues. Racist, facist pigs.

If I was using “blood” as an analogy about the border, instead of the shameful shit Trump says, I’d say America is wounded, bleeding at the border, and hurting Mexico, the Mexican people, and the rest of the world in the process. And America can fix its own bleeding if it really wanted to, but instead it just continues bleeding. America’s border policy is weakening itself, and poisoning the rest of the world.

But that’s all more political headline grabbing bullshit metaphor, poisoning the blood of actual discussions Dems should be having and positions they should be articulating.

A large segment of Republicans is incredibly racist. — RogueAI

Right. Foregone conclusion. No use talking with a racist. All smart people agree on that, right?

But then, how can the Dems talk with Republicans and win them over, and win elections, if all those Repubs are not worthy of any human interaction?

Maybe jumping right into “you’re a racist” in conversations isn’t the best approach? I mean, we all know already, racism has become a feature of the Republican. The media is doing a great job with that. So is that it? Conversation on the merits of any issue is over? Trump only dog-whistles? Full stop?

I wonder if there are a few Repubs who aren’t racist, who find racism immoral. Unfortunately, I’m just as sure there’s “a large segment of” Democrats who are “incredibly racist” as well. So maybe racism grinding every issue into a food fight isn’t productive of expanding a Dem base?

Dems should learn how to express what they want on the border and debate it with Repubs. That’s my point. So do we need an organized border, or not? Dems say “yes” and Dems say “no” (sometimes, it’s the same Dem). Which is it?

Any clear answer to that question will help the Dems. But Dems have trouble talking about the border for some reason. I don’t see why they can’t draw a clear line at the border like they can draw a clear line around a “large segment of” Republicans as racists..

before...If all these illegal immigrants were lily white people from Norway, you think you'd be hearing that kind of rhetoric from Trump?

The last (and only) time US had migration levels (i.e. share of the population that is foreign born, or, alternatively, share that is either foreign born or has at least one foreign born parent) this high was was in the early 20th century. Then, the migrants were overwhelmingly from Europe, particularly Germany, Ireland, Italy, and later Eastern/Central Europe. The same sort of rhetoric prevailed then and massive draconian restrictions were put in place on migration that were designed specifically to not only disallow non-European migration, but also migration from much of Europe (particularly non-Protestant regions).

Migration status became a less salient issue in the years that followed due to both vastly curtailed migration and the fact that the US attracted fewer migrants after it blew up its own (and the world's) economy in the Great Depression. By the time debate on reopening migration occured migration levels had been very low for a long time and migrants had been increasingly assimilated, with this being helped along by the shared experience of WWII and the mass conscription it involved.

See:



Pew, hardly a far-right organization, did a retrospective on the effects of the 1965 migration reforms in the mid-2010s. The shift had brought migration rates on par with the early 20th century, with close to 1 in every 8 residents being foreign born and 1 in 4 being either foreign born or having at least one foreign parent. These figures can shift a bit depending on if undocumented immigrants are counted and how they are counted since they represent a significant proportion of the population, but there are large variances is estimates of the size of this population. The change is not small, IIRC, Pew estimates that the US population would be around 270 million without the reforms, as opposed to around 335 million. You have similar shifts in Europe, where Europeans have been projected to become minorities in many of the larger economies by the end of the century since at least 2000 (and have become minorities in urban hubs already).

This creates political challenges, not only because of the effects on the labor market, housing market, inequality, etc., and the displacement issues often highlighted in debates on "gentrification," but also because there is a large difference between the age distributions of the populations. For an example, during the height of the BLM protests there were student/parent protests over the fact that the teaching staff of Worcester, Massachusetts was largely white, while the students are largely Hispanic. But, one of the obvious reasons for this is that the median age for Hispanics in the region was 20, too young to have completed college, a prerequisite for being a teacher, versus over 40 for white residents. Much could be said on this, but it just highlights the age differences.

Anyhow, this plays into tensions over immigration because different age groups also often have very different priorities and time horizons. This sort of difference is at play in Europe as well. So you get a transference of intergenerational conflict into ethnic terms, and this is particularly acute if you have surging senior benefits crowding out future investment. You end up with a far more diverse working population seeing investment for their children crowded out by a significantly older native population that also holds most of the wealth.

So, I think the tensions are unfortunately predictable, but they are made more acute by the age gap, and they have been managed poorly in terms of messaging (xenophobic rants versus the idea that all debate on migration is inherently racist).

You can see the latter problem pretty clearly in the use of the "Great Replacement," narrative. To be sure, there are extremely racist, right wing fever dream versions of this narrative where "the Jews" have organized it as a means of "white genocide." But the general line that Democrats look at migration as a boon because they see it a way to shift demographics in favor of their party is hardly conspiratorial. I first heard this line when I was working for Democratic campaigns. The idea that "Texas will keep becoming more Latino, tipping it blue, and then the Presidency will be assured prepetuity," is an idea you can find all over progressive political opinion pieces in the last thirty years. And there are critiques of such thinking that aren't racist.

It also seems wrong. Even as a teenager I had the thought that if Hispanics grow up in the US they will end up having political opinions in line with the US average, which means about an even split between the parties (or even in favor of the GOP given the states where Hispanic immigration is highest). And this seems to be at least partially vindicated by Trump winning a majority of Hispanic men over, and the shift in his favor across urban centers in the Northeast (but still losing by landslide margins, just 30/70 instead of 20/80 in 2016 and 2020). Anyhow, I think the decision to generally frame the discussion in terms of the most abhorrent narratives is actually a disservice to liberal political ambitions.



Does Gopnik give any examples of the economies "untouched by neoliberalism?" The US maintains UBI and universal healthcare for its seniors, but the inability of neoliberal reformers to roll back popular entitlements doesn't mean they haven't radically altered other areas. European states with strong welfare states have still seen the off-shoring of their industry, sea change reforms in migration (Japan would be a good counterexample comparison here), a decline in the political influence of unions, and the influence of trade agreements that have radically altered the legal framework for businesses in line with neoliberal preferences. The way the Eurozone operates would be another example, or how economic policy intersects with policy on Russia.

The last (and only) time US had migration levels (i.e. share of the population that is foreign born, or, alternatively, share that is either foreign born or has at least one foreign born parent) this high was was in the early 20th century. Then, the migrants were overwhelmingly from Europe, particularly Germany, Ireland, Italy, and later Eastern/Central Europe. The same sort of rhetoric prevailed then and massive draconian restrictions were put in place on migration that were designed specifically to not only disallow non-European migration, but also migration from much of Europe (particularly non-Protestant regions). — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is true, but that is not where Trump and MAGA are now. Trump has made it clear he does not like brown and black people. They eat pets. They're rapists. They're from shithole countries. They're vermin, poisoning our blood.

Also: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/01/12/577673191/trump-wishes-we-had-more-immigrants-from-norway-turns-out-we-once-did

Might this simply have to do with the fact that most immigrants no longer come from Europe? It's fairly easy to find many of the charges laid against Syrian and African refugees and immigrants in 2015 now being leveled against Ukrainian refugees. And in extreme far-right spaces, rants against "Slavic subhumans," could be copied and pasted right from Nazi Eastern Front political orders of the day.

No doubt, racism undergirds much of these sentiments, but they are generally explicitly (and not always implausibly) formulated in cultural terms, not in racial terms. And research shows that conservatives actually have a marked bias in favor of minorities who adopt conservative political positions, perhaps because supporting them helps alleviate cognitive dissonance over claims of bias.

I don't think "self-hatred," is going to be a good way to explain Trump winning the majority of Latino men at any rate.

My thoughts are that the salience of group identity can shift dramatically based on other cultural and economic conditions. This is how you get tribal/ethnic identities in the Middle East taking center stage in regions where a single unified rule has made such identities more ancillary for long stretches of history. And people often shift the identities they most embrace, for example elevating their religious identity over their ethnic identity. You see this a lot, particularly with more conservative African and Latin American migrants, who proclaim that they are "Christians first." Broad conservative alignment with Arab Christian groups is an example here.