The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 03, 2014, 02:47:38 pm
-
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304360704579416752126516372?mod=djemMER_h&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304360704579416752126516372.html%3Fmod%3DdjemMER_h (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304360704579416752126516372?mod=djemMER_h&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304360704579416752126516372.html%3Fmod%3DdjemMER_h)
Democrats Go Searching for White Guys
Worries about November turnout have the party looking to broaden its coalition, plus Warren Buffett's muni warning.
By JAMES FREEMAN CONNECT
Updated March 3, 2014 7:55 a.m. ET
TARGETING THE REAGAN DEMOCRATS
The New York Times NYT -1.22% reports on a new effort by Democrats to recruit working-class white men. Since this is a group that turns out better in midterm elections than the women, minorities and college kids in the Obama base, the party is desperate to win over more white guys in this fall's congressional contests. But the Times says Democrats are discouraged to find that "men's attitudes shaped over generations — through debates over civil rights, anti-Communism, Vietnam, feminism, gun control and dislocations from lost manufacturing jobs and stagnant wages in a global economy — are not easily altered."
"'Democrats are for a bunch of freeloaders in this world as far as I'm concerned,' said Gari Day, 63, an Avis bus driver from suburban Detroit. 'Republicans make you work for your money, and try to let you keep it.'
"Michael Bunce, 48, buying parts at a Lowe's in Southfield, Mich., first ascribed his Republican bias to fiscal matters, but quickly turned to social issues like gay rights. 'I don't see why that's at the top of our priority list,' he said. 'But you say that out in the open, and people are all over your back.'"
-
That is one piece of information that is optimistic, that I agree with.
Democrats have ignored and at times, actively alienated white men. Now, suddenly they need them? Good luck with that.
-
While middle aged working class white guys were clinging to their guns and religion, Millennials clung to OPapaDoc's apron strings, and look where that got them: unemployed, screwed by Obamacare and deeper in debt. Now the Dems are left arguing that a life of government dependency is actually preferable to one of hard work and productivity. If that message sells, then the country is lost.
-
Now the Dems are left arguing that a life of government dependency is actually preferable to one of hard work and productivity. If that message sells, then the country is lost.
There was a time when I would have laughed at the idea of trying to win with that message. Now, I know a significant portion of the public embraces that message. The question is, how big is that portion, and if those that want a government provided life will actively vote for that.
-
While middle aged working class white guys were clinging to their guns and religion, Millennials clung to OPapaDoc's apron strings, and look where that got them: unemployed, screwed by Obamacare and deeper in debt. Now the Dems are left arguing that a life of government dependency is actually preferable to one of hard work and productivity. If that message sells, then the country is lost.
goopo
Working class guys still get it. I speak with many of them on the phone, every day.
They have also figured out, in significant numbers, that their greatest adversary is not the "Big Boss Man" in the front office, but the Big Buffoon in the Oval Office:
You work sixty hours and what do you get?
Another year older and deeper in debt.
Obama, don't you call me - 'cause I won't go,
I owe my soul to the Government whores.
/with apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford, RIP.
-
There was a time when I would have laughed at the idea of trying to win with that message. Now, I know a significant portion of the public embraces that message. The question is, how big is that portion, and if those that want a government provided life will actively vote for that.
I agree. If a purple state like Colorado can go head over heels for pot decriminalization, then something is amiss. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with decriminalizing pot. But when people celebrate it as if it is the most significant development of our time, that worries me. The democrats are embracing pot decriminalization because it gives them the opportunity to sedate the masses as they round them up for life on the government plantation.
What is amazing to me is that the llberal politicians are quite open about the fact that this is their agenda, and a significant portion of the voting population sucks in the smoke with a "far out, man... give me some munchies and lead me to the showers... it's only a shower, man, right? Right?"
-
There was a time when I would have laughed at the idea of trying to win with that message. Now, I know a significant portion of the public embraces that message. The question is, how big is that portion, and if those that want a government provided life will actively vote for that.
I am afraid that portion is getting larger as time passes.
-
[[ Democrats have ignored and at times, actively alienated white men. Now, suddenly they need them? Good luck with that. ]]
Very interesting.
So, if it's suddenly important for the dems to "court the white guys", why is it NOT important for the Pubbies to do the same?
If the Republican party has any hope of winning a presidential election again, the only electoral demographic that has any chance of putting it over the top for them is the "white male vote".
Actively court these guys -- even at the "expense" of "the black vote", "the Hispanic vote", and "the Asian vote" -- and they have a chance.
Court those "other votes" while ignoring the white vote -- and it's curtains...
-
[[ Democrats have ignored and at times, actively alienated white men. Now, suddenly they need them? Good luck with that. ]]
Very interesting.
So, if it's suddenly important for the dems to "court the white guys", why is it NOT important for the Pubbies to do the same?
If the Republican party has any hope of winning a presidential election again, the only electoral demographic that has any chance of putting it over the top for them is the "white male vote".
Actively court these guys -- even at the "expense" of "the black vote", "the Hispanic vote", and "the Asian vote" -- and they have a chance.
Court those "other votes" while ignoring the white vote -- and it's curtains...
Excellent point.
:thumbsup:
-
[[ Democrats have ignored and at times, actively alienated white men. Now, suddenly they need them? Good luck with that. ]]
Very interesting.
So, if it's suddenly important for the dems to "court the white guys", why is it NOT important for the Pubbies to do the same?
If the Republican party has any hope of winning a presidential election again, the only electoral demographic that has any chance of putting it over the top for them is the "white male vote".
Actively court these guys -- even at the "expense" of "the black vote", "the Hispanic vote", and "the Asian vote" -- and they have a chance.
Court those "other votes" while ignoring the white vote -- and it's curtains...
And how does one do that?
-
Actively court these guys -- even at the "expense" of "the black vote", "the Hispanic vote", and "the Asian vote" -- and they have a chance.
Absolutely.
You're talking about a segment that votes 95%, 80% and 80% rat. What "expense" is involved there?
Pubbies make the mistake of assuming they HAVE the white guy vote automatically.
The only thing they seem cabable of doing is driving them underground.
-
Now the Dems are left arguing that a life of government dependency is actually preferable to one of hard work and productivity. If that message sells, then the country is lost.
I don't understand the problem. Nancy Pelosi told me that if I don't work I can now write poems, and paint pictures, and cook dinner at home...well that is of course if I can afford paint, or food, and still have a home to cook in.
Not really sure how the Liberal logic in that is going to work. But who ever said Liberals are logical?
-
I don't understand the problem. Nancy Pelosi told me that if I don't work I can now write poems, and paint pictures, and cook dinner at home...well that is of course if I can afford paint, or food, and still have a home to cook in.
Not really sure how the Liberal logic in that is going to work. But who ever said Liberals are logical?
In a strange way, the blind pig found an acorn with that thought. When man became so adept at killing running food and learning which potatoes were food, it left leisure time to fill. Better weapons, more time to cave paint and sew nicer duds filled that spare time and professions were born.
We are at a similar point in human history. We go back to building furniture by hand and plowing with oxen instead of Deere. I've said it before, while people were at Disney visiting "Tomorrowland", what did they think they would be doing when machines and computers did everything?
There needs to be a new basis for trade. There are four choices:
1. Depopulate the Earth to a point where there are jobs to sustain the mouths to feed.
2. Begin a new mercantile/monetary system.
3. Build pyramids and widgets to keep idle hands from becoming the Devil's workshop.
4. Something beyond what we are thinking about now.
The Digital Revolution is undoing the Industrial Revolution. We have been very unsuccessful in putting djinnis into bottles. Before we hit 30% unemployment through all demographics, we better think of something. Legalizing drugs may give us that ---- to figure something out.
-
In a strange way, the blind pig found an acorn with that thought. When man became so adept at killing running food and learning which potatoes were food, it left leisure time to fill. Better weapons, more time to cave paint and sew nicer duds filled that spare time and professions were born.
We are at a similar point in human history. We go back to building furniture by hand and plowing with oxen instead of Deere. I've said it before, while people were at Disney visiting "Tomorrowland", what did they think they would be doing when machines and computers did everything?
There needs to be a new basis for trade. There are four choices:
1. Depopulate the Earth to a point where there are jobs to sustain the mouths to feed.
2. Begin a new mercantile/monetary system.
3. Build pyramids and widgets to keep idle hands from becoming the Devil's workshop.
4. Something beyond what we are thinking about now.
The Digital Revolution is undoing the Industrial Revolution. We have been very unsuccessful in putting djinnis into bottles. Before we hit 30% unemployment through all demographics, we better think of something. Legalizing drugs may give us that ---- to figure something out.
The digital revolution is not responsible for idleness. If left unfettered by government, the economy will expand in response to improved productivity. And yes, they do build pyramids in places like Abu Dhabi and Singapore. The USA has become too tethered to government to adapt to economic change. It's not the fault of he digital revolution, however. It's the fault of our big institutions -- especially government -- not getting out of the way and even erecting barriers to further development.
-
The digital revolution is not responsible for idleness. If left unfettered by government, the economy will expand in response to improved productivity. And yes, they do build pyramids in places like Abu Dhabi and Singapore. The USA has become too tethered to government to adapt to economic change. It's not the fault of he digital revolution, however. It's the fault of our big institutions -- especially government -- not getting out of the way and even erecting barriers to further development.
I'm sorry but I need to disagree. I think there is something with humans that provides a precognitive sense. One could say, the individual reacts more quickly than society.
Many years ago, I noticed the tribal tattoo thing. It wasn't the tattoos themselves but the "Movement". The us and them mentality about it. People on societies periphery adorned themselves, either as a statement of individuality or in the case of servicemen, a statment of bonding.
Then, early 90s, tribal tattoos started showing up here and there by the early 2000s, everybody and his (or her) dog.
The same could be said of 1920s Germany. A spirit of the times, if you will. I'm sure the Germans have a word for it.
What's his name was the vessel for a mood, in the same way Reagan was the vessel for our movement. It is time. It is place. And in Reagan's case, it was anamoly. He wasn't supposed to be President. Bush was supposed to be President. What's that song about immovable force or something like that?
Societal evolution is not linear, it is radial and dynamic. Which is why we have a history of revolutions. Things go on and on until a critical mass is reached and explosion. We can base our outlooks on our observations but not our conclusions. We can't confuse our permanent underclass with the producers.
-
I agree. If a purple state like Colorado can go head over heels for pot decriminalization, then something is amiss. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with decriminalizing pot. But when people celebrate it as if it is the most significant development of our time, that worries me. The democrats are embracing pot decriminalization because it gives them the opportunity to sedate the masses as they round them up for life on the government plantation.
What is amazing to me is that the llberal politicians are quite open about the fact that this is their agenda, and a significant portion of the voting population sucks in the smoke with a "far out, man... give me some munchies and lead me to the showers... it's only a shower, man, right? Right?"
Disagree. Over the years there've been many solid conservative/libertarians who have supported decriminalizing marijuana. William F Buckley and George Schultz come to mind. No leftists, they.
Decriminalization is an issue encompassing liberty and personal responsibility. Recall how insane it was to have used the Constitution's amendment process to prohibit alcohol.
-
Disagree. Over the years there've been many solid conservative/libertarians who have supported decriminalizing marijuana. William F Buckley and George Schultz come to mind. No leftists, they.
Decriminalization is an issue encompassing liberty and personal responsibility. Recall how insane it was to have used the Constitution's amendment process to prohibit alcohol.
I guess I wasn't clear. I don't oppose pot decriminalization. I support it. What I oppose is the way it is being politicized by the left.
-
In a strange way, the blind pig found an acorn with that thought. When man became so adept at killing running food and learning which potatoes were food, it left leisure time to fill. Better weapons, more time to cave paint and sew nicer duds filled that spare time and professions were born.
We are at a similar point in human history. We go back to building furniture by hand and plowing with oxen instead of Deere. I've said it before, while people were at Disney visiting "Tomorrowland", what did they think they would be doing when machines and computers did everything?
There needs to be a new basis for trade. There are four choices:
1. Depopulate the Earth to a point where there are jobs to sustain the mouths to feed.
2. Begin a new mercantile/monetary system.
3. Build pyramids and widgets to keep idle hands from becoming the Devil's workshop.
4. Something beyond what we are thinking about now.
The Digital Revolution is undoing the Industrial Revolution. We have been very unsuccessful in putting djinnis into bottles. Before we hit 30% unemployment through all demographics, we better think of something. Legalizing drugs may give us that ---- to figure something out.
So people should no longer be allowed to buy what they want to buy, and sell what they want to sell, at prices that they voluntarily agree upon together? Or to not buy, and not sell, that which they do not wish to buy, or sell, respectively?
If so, then there cannot be any objection to the individual mandate of Obamacare - you're simply being "forced" to buy something whether you want it or not, and at a price you have little or no say over - and, in fact, no objection to any of the other lib/prog meddling in the economy in terms of dictating what can be bought and sold, and at what price.
In other words, price controls and managed supply and demand or, to be more comprehensive, centralized economic planning. It didn't work for the Soviets, the Venezuelans, or any other like-minded government, so it's a really, really good bet that it won't work as a "new basis for trade" anywhere else, either. Heck, we know it won't work here because Nixon's price controls did nothing but cause serious shortages.
-
I guess I wasn't clear. I don't oppose pot decriminalization. I support it. What I oppose is the way it is being politicized by the left.
Looking at the original post I see your point now. Yes, Democrats are never above taking a position simply for political advantage.
-
So people should no longer be allowed to buy what they want to buy, and sell what they want to sell, at prices that they voluntarily agree upon together? Or to not buy, and not sell, that which they do not wish to buy, or sell, respectively?
If so, then there cannot be any objection to the individual mandate of Obamacare - you're simply being "forced" to buy something whether you want it or not, and at a price you have little or no say over - and, in fact, no objection to any of the other lib/prog meddling in the economy in terms of dictating what can be bought and sold, and at what price.
In other words, price controls and managed supply and demand or, to be more comprehensive, centralized economic planning. It didn't work for the Soviets, the Venezuelans, or any other like-minded government, so it's a really, really good bet that it won't work as a "new basis for trade" anywhere else, either. Heck, we know it won't work here because Nixon's price controls did nothing but cause serious shortages.
That's not what I wrote. I wrote we need a new way to "pay" for goods and services. I never stated or implied people should be forced to do anything.
-
That's not what I wrote. I wrote we need a new way to "pay" for goods and services. I never stated or implied people should be forced to do anything.
Unfortunately, that's not what you said. Depopulating the Earth is, to understate the obvious, not merely a "new way to 'pay' for good and services."
-
[[ Democrats have ignored and at times, actively alienated white men. Now, suddenly they need them? Good luck with that. ]]
Very interesting.
So, if it's suddenly important for the dems to "court the white guys", why is it NOT important for the Pubbies to do the same?
If the Republican party has any hope of winning a presidential election again, the only electoral demographic that has any chance of putting it over the top for them is the "white male vote".
Actively court these guys -- even at the "expense" of "the black vote", "the Hispanic vote", and "the Asian vote" -- and they have a chance.
Court those "other votes" while ignoring the white vote -- and it's curtains...
Good concept. But these white men would vote for a fiscal conservative woman/black/white/hispanic I believe.
Middle class white men have endured the most in the Obamanomics depression. Small government and fiscal conservatism is what the dems lack and anybody but a dem will have.
-
Unfortunately, that's not what you said. Depopulating the Earth is, to understate the obvious, not merely a "new way to 'pay' for good and services."
I don't deny my point about depopulating the planet. I stated there should not be excess population to job ratio. Being forced to buy anything has nothing to do with that.
-
I don't deny my point about depopulating the planet. I stated there should not be excess population to job ratio. Being forced to buy anything has nothing to do with that.
Your statements necessarily implied that free markets, which are part of the current basis for trade, requires replacement; a corollary to that is, necessarily, that prices, demand, and supply must be subjected to one degree or another of (political) control.
And I'm not entirely sure why the digital revolution is so special that it requires the top-down creation of some new basis for trade? The loss of industrial jobs didn't leave a whole bunch of permanently idle people, it led to the creation of a whole slew of new jobs, oftentimes new jobs with a higher per-unit level of wealth creation than those old jobs, which meant that the loss of those industrial jobs actually created more economic wealth, for everyone, not less.
-
Your statements necessarily implied that free markets, which are part of the current basis for trade, requires replacement; a corollary to that is, necessarily, that prices, demand, and supply must be subjected to one degree or another of (political) control.
And I'm not entirely sure why the digital revolution is so special that it requires the top-down creation of some new basis for trade? The loss of industrial jobs didn't leave a whole bunch of permanently idle people, it led to the creation of a whole slew of new jobs, oftentimes new jobs with a higher per-unit level of wealth creation than those old jobs, which meant that the loss of those industrial jobs actually created more economic wealth, for everyone, not less.
Perhaps in Unicorn Land. You don't need 15 people to run an office when 2 will do. Perhaps we should go to China's paradigm, sweeping snow with 100 people rather than use a plow. When people are considered to be a "resource", it is treated as a resource. The value decreases as the supply increases.
-
Perhaps in Unicorn Land. You don't need 15 people to run an office when 2 will do. Perhaps we should go to China's paradigm, sweeping snow with 100 people rather than use a plow. When people are considered to be a "resource", it is treated as a resource. The value decreases as the supply increases.
thanks for the personal attack; condescension normally masks concession
-
thanks for the personal attack; condescension normally masks concession
Not a personal attack, just a sarcastic response.
-
I don't deny my point about depopulating the planet. I stated there should not be excess population to job ratio. Being forced to buy anything has nothing to do with that.
There is still plenty of jobs which are well-paying and do not require anything more than trade school. Unfortunately too many have become used to living on the government teet rather than get off the couch and attend a trade school... and too many of our younger generation think it is beneath them to start a job a min wage and work their way up the ladder as they gain experience.
-
There is still plenty of jobs which are well-paying and do not require anything more than trade school. Unfortunately too many have become used to living on the government teet rather than get off the couch and attend a trade school... and too many of our younger generation think it is beneath them to start a job a min wage and work their way up the ladder as they gain experience.
Are there jobs for 200,000,000 people?
-
Are there jobs for 200,000,000 people?
Probably... if we actually got our act together and let the free market work.
-
Probably... if we actually got our act together and let the free market work.
That's a pipe dream, Rap, it's a pipe dream.
-
Are there jobs for 200,000,000 people?
"jobs" aren't some static zero-sum resource.
the facts since the 1800s have not been particularly kind to Malthus and Malthusianism.
-
"jobs" aren't some static zero-sum resource.
the facts since the 1800s have not been particularly kind to Malthus and Malthusianism.
I understand that. Just what I figure would be to keep people occupied.
-
I understand that. Just what I figure would be to keep people occupied.
People are plenty capable of keeping themselves occupied.
-
People are plenty capable of keeping themselves occupied.
Well, maybe know how to keep their hands full.