How Did We Get Here, and What Do We Do Now?

[92tide]

Harris may just have been an unpreferred candidate in some of the purple states around the country. But in the Deep Red South, misogyny and racism factor heavily in voting preferences. To say she wasn't victim of it is just not accurate. The vile things I have heard people say about Obama over the years were probably held the same over Harris by the same voters.

plenty of vile things were said about her here

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Again. Hillary was running in a statewide election. In New 'Yawk for that matter.

You're being intentionally obtuse if you are positing that Kamala wasn't assailed by misogyny and racism.

Hillary was not running in a statewide election in 2016 WHEN SHE (as I wrote) GOT THE MOST VOTES (speaking of being obtuse).

And since you brought that up, Kamala Harris ran in as many STATEWIDE elections as Hillary did, but that wasn't the comparison.

But again, this will always be the excuse, right?
Every single time the Democrat loses a Presidential election, we hear the same song even when it's an all-white male ticket losing.

Now, I'm not stupid enough to think there was not a single voter out there who was normally a Democrat who was also a racist and thus voted for Trump. I'm sure there were a few thousand. Or independents. Or for that matter Republicans who would have voted for a white guy but not Harris and yes based on her race and gender.

The idea that there were enough of these to swing the election nationally, however, is really stretching it.

And bear in mind - those voters had to be in battleground states for their racist misogyny to matter anyway.

Remember - there were a bunch of Arabs who vote for Democrats in Michigan who hate Jews so badly they voted for Trump, too.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Harris may just have been an unpreferred candidate in some of the purple states around the country. But in the Deep Red South, misogyny and racism factor heavily in voting preferences. To say she wasn't victim of it is just not accurate. The vile things I have heard people say about Obama over the years were probably held the same over Harris by the same voters.

Except even assuming this broadbrush characterization of "the South" (yet again) is true, Harris didn't need to win any of those states anyway.

And you can hardly argue the racist point given Georgia has a black Democratic Senator who beat a black Republican Senator after winning a runoff against a white woman.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. the Democrats lose the White House, they always blame everything BUT THEMSELVES for it, and they decide it's because the electorate is racist. Yes, the same electorate that elected Barack Obama twice (and there were, in fact, OOT voters who went twice for Obama and then for Trump).

Maybe switching out an old guy the party spent at least 2-3 years lying about his mental fitness for a word salad tossing VP with poll numbers lower than his was a terrible idea. But then again - the level to which the party of the people kowtowed to their own billionaires was ironic to put it mildly.

 

[75thru79]

plenty of vile things were said about her here

Care to provide examples?

 

[Isaiah 63:1]

As I see it, four things over a couple of generations have been the main enablers of where we are now in national politics/dialogue:

1. Gerrymandering, especially over the last 20 years. The voters no longer really elect politicians. Rather, the politicians now pick their voters. Win the primary (where voters tend to be more to the extremes), and you win the general. That's what has diminished moderation in politics. What's the last vote other than to release the Epstein files that wasn't basically a party-line vote?
2. In part (though not solely) because of the effects of gerrymandering, the demise of regular order. Leaders in DC are quick to decide the Constitution and the system don't suit their agendas, and find work-arounds. Legislation by executive order and bureaucratic rule-making is now the norm. Obama started this with "a pen and a phone" - not bashing him; it was only a matter of time until someone did it; and his successors have been only too happy to follow that precedent. Instead, we'd be better off if, in the absence of consensus in DC, we left it to the states to experiment, the way the Framers intended.
3. Constitutional illiteracy among the people, of which the politicians and activists take full advantage. Civics is no longer part of the core curriculum in secondary schools. If the people don't understand the system, they can't hold their representatives accountable to it. And then, to make things worse, for constitutional literacy we've substituted...
4. Opinion journalism masquerading as straight news. Sort of a companion to the politicians choosing their voters is each faction within the electorate choosing its own truth. When we don't have a shared, trusted source of the facts, including how our system works, then we don't have a common foundation on which to have a reasonable disagreement about anything.

These things were decades in the making. Even if we could agree to reverse them, it would take decades again to reverse their ill-effects. That said, I am still bullish on America; but not without some trepidation...

 

[75thru79]

As I see it, four things over a couple of generations have been the main enablers of where we are now in national politics/dialogue:

1. Gerrymandering, especially over the last 20 years. The voters no longer really elect politicians. Rather, the politicians now pick their voters. Win the primary (where voters tend to be more to the extremes), and you win the general. That's what has diminished moderation in politics. What's the last vote other than to release the Epstein files that wasn't basically a party-line vote?
2. In part (though not solely) because of the effects of gerrymandering, the demise of regular order. Leaders in DC are quick to decide the Constitution and the system don't suit their agendas, and find work-arounds. Legislation by executive order and bureaucratic rule-making is now the norm. Obama started this with "a pen and a phone" - not bashing him; it was only a matter of time until someone did it; and his successors have been only too happy to follow that precedent. Instead, we'd be better off if, in the absence of consensus in DC, we left it to the states to experiment, the way the Framers intended.
3. Constitutional illiteracy among the people, of which the politicians and activists take full advantage. Civics is no longer part of the core curriculum in secondary schools. If the people don't understand the system, they can't hold their representatives accountable to it. And then, to make things worse, for constitutional literacy we've substituted...
4. Opinion journalism masquerading as straight news. Sort of a companion to the politicians choosing their voters is each faction within the electorate choosing its own truth. When we don't have a shared, trusted source of the facts, including how our system works, then we don't have a common foundation on which to have a reasonable disagreement about anything.

These things were decades in the making. Even if we could agree to reverse them, it would take decades again to reverse their ill-effects. That said, I am still bullish on America; but not without some trepidation...

You're making too much sense for this board. LOL.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Except even assuming this broadbrush characterization of "the South" (yet again) is true, Harris didn't need to win any of those states anyway.

And you can hardly argue the racist point given Georgia has a black Democratic Senator who beat a black Republican Senator after winning a runoff against a white woman.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. the Democrats lose the White House, they always blame everything BUT THEMSELVES for it, and they decide it's because the electorate is racist. Yes, the same electorate that elected Barack Obama twice (and there were, in fact, OOT voters who went twice for Obama and then for Trump).

Maybe switching out an old guy the party spent at least 2-3 years lying about his mental fitness for a word salad tossing VP with poll numbers lower than his was a terrible idea. But then again - the level to which the party of the people kowtowed to their own billionaires was ironic to put it mildly.

You are wasting your time trying to explain it to people that already made up their minds. They have already decided anyone that did not vote for Harris is misogynistic and racist. They do not believe there could possibly be another reason. It does not matter if those same people did not vote for trump either.

 

[JDCrimson]

Saying she didnt need to win the southern states anyway is looking over that racism and misogny didnt play a role in the election. If it didnt play a role the Southern states would be way more competitive than they are.

But if you are Democrats, you cant call it out, you have to find other ways to compete. Competing on racism and misogny or any other minority issue is a losing proposition when you are outnumbered on the issue. You promote issues where you have the numbers.

Except even assuming this broadbrush characterization of "the South" (yet again) is true, Harris didn't need to win any of those states anyway.

And you can hardly argue the racist point given Georgia has a black Democratic Senator who beat a black Republican Senator after winning a runoff against a white woman.

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. the Democrats lose the White House, they always blame everything BUT THEMSELVES for it, and they decide it's because the electorate is racist. Yes, the same electorate that elected Barack Obama twice (and there were, in fact, OOT voters who went twice for Obama and then for Trump).

Maybe switching out an old guy the party spent at least 2-3 years lying about his mental fitness for a word salad tossing VP with poll numbers lower than his was a terrible idea. But then again - the level to which the party of the people kowtowed to their own billionaires was ironic to put it mildly.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Saying she didnt need to win the southern states anyway is looking over that racism and misogny didnt play a role in the election. If it didnt play a role the Southern states would be way more competitive than they are.

None of the Southern states except Georgia and North Carolina have been competitive for years. But the problem is that the same thing can be said about many other states, and it never merits a mention. Oregon hasn't been competitive since Bush nearly took it (thanks largely to Nader) in 2000. Let's face it, 43 of the states plus DC are usually not even close, which is why they focused on the seven "battleground" states.

"Racism and misogyny" is like the many claims of "voter fraud." YES - it exists, but the idea that it's the make or break is ludicrous. This country already elected a black MAN. A woman already got the most popular votes, too.

As far as Harris, it seems to not dawn on some of the commentators (no reflection on present company) that yanking out the duly chosen nominee just because some billionaires said they'll cut off your money is pretty hypocritical from the party that spent four years talking about preserving democracy, respecting the results of elections, and ranting about the oligarchs who fund them.

It's almost like there's an electoral penalty for being perceived a stinking hypocrite. Trump isn't perceived as a stinking hypocrite - he's just seen as a corrupt slimeball.

But if you are Democrats, you cant call it out, you have to find other ways to compete.

You also can't just make stuff up, either.

Georgia, again, had TWO BLACK CANDIDATES FOR SENATE competing against each other just three years ago. But oh racism! South Carolina has had an elected black Senator for years and had an (IIRC) Indian-American woman for governor. Alabama has a female governor today. Mississippi had a woman Lt Gov FIFTY YEARS AGO.

When a Democrat says "but racism/misogyny", what they mean is, "The voters rejected our nominee that fills in this box but may well have elected a conservative one who fills in the box." Backwards Kansas had a female DEMOCRATIC governor in 2003.

Competing on racism and misogny or any other minority issue is a losing proposition when you are outnumbered on the issue. You promote issues where you have the numbers.

Your last sentence is good politics, but as Rick Wilson has been telling Democrats while eating their lunches for decades, "Democrats are awful at retail politics."

They need to learn that a bunch of Democrats own guns for starters.
They also need to learn that speaking code words - gun safety, gun violence, common sense gun laws - doesn't fool anybody.

What the Democrats DO have going for them right now that the GOP long ago abandoned is a core of belief with some level of consistency. If they could learn to tolerate the occasional Southern moderate who strays from party orthodoxy on guns or abortion, they'd improve their lot.

What's going to help the Democrats long-term is MAGA is on the same "shoot to kill anyone who isn't red hat enough" and doing it with greater efficiency and destructive impulse than Team Blue.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Now let's get back to the subject at hand because this thread - and I'm partly guilty, too - has become the usual cannon fodder for "Party I Don't Like Is To Blame."

We got here through a series of accidents, one of the most notable (as I stated earlier) being the willingness of the parties to go along with popular vote primary delegate selection that - while supposedly better than the old state delegate days - does nothing.

Let's be honest: can you name the last time we had a primary season that lasted more than a couple of weeks from "first votes cast" to "we know who the nominee will be"?

The bunching of contests together prevents things like the 1976 Reagan comeback or the 1984 Mondale holding off of Hart of even the 1980 pivot from Carter to Kennedy once the latter was all used up.


Consider that under the OLD format the following nominees would never have been considered:
- Jimmy Carter
- George W. Bush (probably)
- Barack Obama (definitely)
- Donald Trump (110% definitely)
- Kamala Harris

I'm not arguing whether those elected were good or bad, I'm talking about the fact they wouldn't have had access when they did. Obama MIGHT have gained access by 2020 being a Senator from Illinois and probably a running mate for 2008 Hillary. But he would not have been chosen under the old format, no, and Trump wouldn't have made it to the starting gate.

 

[Tidewater]

You are wasting your time trying to explain it to people that already made up their minds. They have already decided anyone that did not vote for Harris is misogynistic and racist. They do not believe there could possibly be another reason. It does not matter if those same people did not vote for trump either.

This is a great example of motivated thinking, what I call "partisan thinking."
You start with your conclusion (I open my soft-boiled eggs at the small end only those who open their soft-boiled eggs at the small end are good), then beat the facts to fit the pre-existing conclusion, then paint them to match.
By no means is this restricted to those on the left. The right does it as well. The world is complex and we dumb things down to the shorthand of "I'm for the donkey team" (or "I'm for the elephant team"), and I just assume that the people running on the donkey ticket must be good folks. How else would be end up with Tommy Tubberville sitting in the US Senate?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

You are wasting your time trying to explain it to people that already made up their minds. They have already decided anyone that did not vote for Harris is misogynistic and racist. They do not believe there could possibly be another reason. It does not matter if those same people did not vote for trump either.

Winsome Earle-Sears lost in Virginia because of racism and misogyny.

I mean, it WAS a slaveholding state in the South and the capital of the Confederacy blah blah blah.

See how it works?

 

[92tide]

Winsome Earle-Sears lost in Virginia because of racism and misogyny.

I mean, it WAS a slaveholding state in the South and the capital of the Confederacy blah blah blah.

See how it works?

it backfired on them. they thought she was a haitian immigrant and was going to eat all of the cats and dogs.