Shifting attitudes in the US, and progressivism taking a few steps back?

[ThatRobGuy]

While obviously all of the political focus has been on the presidential election this past week (makes sense, that's "the big one"), there have been some much less-covered political outcomes that have taken place, that I feel are part of the same pattern of centrists and even some left-leaning folks issuing a referendum or "rebuke" of sorts against some of the progressive policies and initiatives, that I feel, are part of the broader pattern that led to Trump winning the popular vote.


San Francisco Mayor London Breed lost the reelection bid by 12 points
Progressive Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao got ousted
California voters passed prop 36, to re-elevate certain shoplifting and drug offenses back to felonies where they were before

Harris won the states of New York and New Jersey by a smaller percentage than Trump won in Florida and Texas. (yet, in past election cycles, we always heard hopeful optimism that Texas and Florida were on the verge of becoming purple states)...in this election, New Jersey was more "purple" than the actual swing states. (Harris only carried 51% of the vote there)

Minnesota (a state that hasn't been a red since 1972...they were the only blue state in the landslide that Reagan had), Harris only got 51.1% of the vote there.

Will this create a "look in the mirror" moment for Democrats, and will we see a more concerted effort to gravitate towards more moderate candidates in the midterms and in 2028?

The reason why I focused on blue states here, is because the "conventional talking points" have been centered around "Trump emboldened the racists and sexists, and there was a fearmongering and hype that caused the outcome", but the places I mentioned aren't really susceptible to that. Obviously the "red state hype" that gets perpetuated about places in California to people in red states is a non-starter, because we're talking about the people who actually live there voting the way they did. Deep blue areas being "more immune to right-wing propaganda" for the last 12 years, and magically "falling for it" now isn't a plausible explanation for those sorts of outcomes.

 

[Fantine]

Voters wanted progressive reforms--abortion referendums, $15 per hour minimum wages, other employee benefits.
And yet they voted for Trump.
They didn't believe that Trump would stomp his golden sneakers on 90% of the programs that make their lives livable.
Those of us who know this are naturally upset by those who voted by fake news who will repent at leisure. SMH.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Voters wanted progressive reforms--abortion referendums, $15 per hour minimum wages, other employee benefits.
And yet they voted for Trump.
They didn't believe that Trump would stomp his golden sneakers on 90% of the programs that make their lives livable.
Those of us who know this are naturally upset by those who voted by fake news who will repent at leisure. SMH.

They wanted "some" progressive reforms, but not at the expense of having to take every progressive proposal with them as a "package deal"

That's why I focused the scope of this conversation outside of just the "right wing propaganda susceptible" target audiences...

Are you suggesting that residents of San Fran (perhaps the most liberal city in the country) were simply duped by Fox News or right-wing propaganda and that's why they ousted London Breed?

Or that the people of California voted in favor of re-felonizing certain shoplifting and drug offenses with 76% of the vote in favor of Prop 36? These weren't republicans voting for those things, those were democrats (who likely hate Trump and didn't vote for him) voting to "reign it in" a bit.

It's important info to know, because if that's how self-identifying progressives (who are in left-leaning information silos) feel about how certain things were going and wanted to take a "mulligan" on some of their previous voting choices, the odds of that kind of stuff being popular in other parts of the country are slim and none.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Every day Americans are sending a mandate to the radical left. The years of crying wolf have had the opposite effect.

Decent people are finding their voice and saying they do not want babies killed, they do not want illegal aliens flooding in, they don’t want tax and spend, they do not want to project weakness on the global stage, they want to be safe in their cities.

Thank God they are coming forward.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Every day Americans are sending a mandate to the radical left. The years of crying wolf have had the opposite effect.

Decent people are finding their voice and saying they do not want babies killed, they do not want illegal aliens flooding in, they don’t want tax and spend, they do not want to project weakness on the global stage, they want to be safe in their cities.

Thank God they are coming forward.

I honestly don't think it goes quite that far...

The people in San Fran who voted out London Breed and Sheng in Oakland are likely still very pro-choice, very pro-open borders, and very much in favor of tax and spend entitlement policies if I had to guess.

I think it's much more basic.

I think even many progressives have come around to the mindset of "instead of locking up the toothpaste, how about we lock up the people who are stealing the toothpaste", and while being in favor of relaxing drug policy, probably got tired of trying to take their kids to the local park and having to tell them to make sure they don't step on needles and not get too close to the guy who's passed out in his own vomit on the bench.

 

[Fantine]

Every day Americans are sending a mandate to the radical left. The years of crying wolf have had the opposite effect.

Decent people are finding their voice and saying they do not want babies killed, they do not want illegal aliens flooding in, they don’t want tax and spend, they do not want to project weakness on the global stage, they want to be safe in their cities.

Thank God they are coming forward.

I certainly don't want the Victor to put out the welcome mat for Putin or Netanyahu. That's genocide, not peace, not strength.
You forget that the massive tax cuts for the rich caused trillion dollar deficits. You don't give money back to people who don't need it by letting children go hungry and medically untreated.
When the immigrants leave, crops will be unpicked and jobs will be unfilled and prices will rise and we will have the birth dearth creating stagflation in Asia.
As for killing babies, you may need to stop saying birth control pills kill babies. You may believe they do, other churches don't. We have to say a resounding "no" to hospitals killing miscarrying mothers. America sees that and the unleashed extremism repulses and horrified us.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I certainly don't want the Victor to put out the welcome mat for Putin or Netanyahu. That's genocide, not peace, not strength.

I guess if Trump is the victor then Harris is the looser. I can run with that.

Putin refuses to call and our President has already spoken with our greatest ally in the Middle East

You forget that the massive tax cuts for the rich caused trillion dollar deficits.

Again you make it too easy. The IRS has already debunked that years ago showed the tax cuts helped 80. % of tax paying households and deficits happened because of Covid.

You don't give money back to people who don't need it by letting children go hungry and medically untreated.

Good thing it didn’t happen

When the immigrants leave, crops will be unpicked and jobs will be unfilled and prices will rise and we will have the birth dearth creating stagflation in Asia.

When the illegal aliens are deported production is all area will be as robust as it was before Biden/Harris allowed them to waltz in UN vetted and unrestricted

As for killing babies, you may need to stop saying birth control pills kill babies.

Good thing I have never said that.

You may believe they do, other churches don't. We have to say a resounding "no" to hospitals killing miscarrying mothers.

Never happened. Another conspiracy theory

America sees that and the unleashed extremism repulses and horrified us.

Yup and we just voted them out of power. Hopefully for a long, long time.

 

[Fantine]

You really need to stop that fake news junk food for the mind diet. Dead bodies and orphaned children don't lie.

 

[BPPLEE]

You really need to stop that fake news junk food for the mind diet. Dead bodies and orphaned children don't lie.

You really need to give it a break

 

[ozso]

I think it's all the transgender lessons, tampons in boy's restrooms, drag queen story time etc stuff aimed at their children that Americans are the most sick of.

That along with rampant crime due to the liberal ideology that criminals are victims.

And the rampant junkie homelessness due to the liberal ideology that narcotics should be decriminalized and go unfettered and unchecked.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think it's all the transgender lessons, tampons in boy's restrooms, drag queen story time etc stuff aimed at their children that Americans are the most sick of.

That was certainly a big component of it...

The best advice one can give a political party is "don't make the other side's slippery slope argument come true, because then it's not a slippery slope anymore, it's a reality"

On that particular issue, dare I say, the left did that exact thing for many facets of that conversation.


It's interesting to go back and watch some of the earlier interviews on the subject that highlights some of the gaslighting that takes place today.

I watched one that was one of those "crossfire" style debate panels from back in 2013-14 I want to say? ...it was one of those deals where you had the host, and then a conservative on one side, and a progressive on the other, and it was in front of a largely progressive audience.

It was Dennis Prager from the right, and an editor from the NY Times from the left, and they were debating the topic of gender norms with regards to the transgender topic, and a select few campuses starting to enforce "speech codes" requiring preferred gender pronouns.

Dennis said (paraphrasing):
"The conversation may be about pronouns and what to call someone right now, but what's next? If gender is so mailable that a person can change it, what happens if they want to change it again next week? ...and what happens when a people start saying there's more 2...what's to stop someone from saying there's 10...50...or even an infinite number? It may just be a few rag tag colleges doing it right now, but this stuff tends to spread, what happens when ivy league places start pushing this stuff? How soon till this stuff starts trickling down to young kids, are going to start letting kids take hormones? How soon before they start putting tampons in the men's room because they say that now men can menstruate?"

As he was saying each of those things, the host and the Times editor were shaking their head and rolling their eyes, and the audience was laughing mockingly while they said "Dennis that's absurd, nobody is suggesting those things, that's a scare tactic that your side made up", basically treating what he was saying as if he was basically on-par with the flat-earthers in terms of absurdity.

Fast forward 10 years, seems like just about all of those things (that they labelled as slippery slope and strawmen when concerns were raised) have largely come to fruition.


In fact, he did a similar style panel in 2019, and people were still laughing it off as if it was just a wild slippery slope...

That's only six years ago, and the progressives on the panel were still rolling their eyes about him saying "there's people saying men can menstruate, pretty soon, if you don't go along with that idea, they'll label you as transphobic" acting like it was just a fringe few. Welp, Dennis seemed to be spot-on with that prediction...as, circa 2024, that's the exact thing that would happen if you went to an Ivy league college campus and said "no, men cannot menstruate"...you'd get labelled transphobic.

 

[BPPLEE]

That was certainly a big component of it...

The best advice one can give a political party is "don't make the other side's slippery slope argument come true, because then it's not a slippery slope anymore, it's a reality"

On that particular issue, dare I say, the left did that exact thing for many facets of that conversation.


It's interesting to go back and watch some of the earlier interviews on the subject that highlights some of the gaslighting that takes place today.

I watched one that was one of those "crossfire" style debate panels from back in 2013-14 I want to say? ...it was one of those deals where you had the host, and then a conservative on one side, and a progressive on the other, and it was in front of a largely progressive audience.

It was Dennis Prager from the right, and an editor from the NY Times from the left, and they were debating the topic of gender norms with regards to the transgender topic, and a select few campuses starting to enforce "speech codes" requiring preferred gender pronouns.

Dennis said (paraphrasing):
"The conversation may be about pronouns and what to call someone right now, but what's next? If gender is so mailable that a person can change it, what happens if they want to change it again next week? ...and what happens when a people start saying there's more 2...what's to stop someone from saying there's 10...50...or even an infinite number? It may just be a few rag tag colleges doing it right now, but this stuff tends to spread, what happens when ivy league places start pushing this stuff? How soon till this stuff starts trickling down to young kids, are going to start letting kids take hormones? How soon before they start putting tampons in the men's room because they say that now men can menstruate?"

As he was saying each of those things, the host and the Times editor were shaking their head and rolling their eyes, and the audience was laughing mockingly while they said "Dennis that's absurd, nobody is suggesting those things, that's a scare tactic that your side made up", basically treating what he was saying as if he was basically on-par with the flat-earthers in terms of absurdity.

Fast forward 10 years, seems like just about all of those things (that they labelled as slippery slope and strawmen when concerns were raised) have largely come to fruition.


In fact, he did a similar style panel in 2019, and people were still laughing it off as if it was just a wild slippery slope...

That's only six years ago, and the progressives on the panel were still rolling their eyes about him saying "there's people saying men can menstruate, pretty soon, if you don't go along with that idea, they'll label you as transphobic" acting like it was just a fringe few. Welp, Dennis seemed to be spot-on with that prediction...as, circa 2024, that's the exact thing that would happen if you went to an Ivy league college campus and said "no, men cannot menstruate"...you'd get labelled transphobic.

People always say “You’re using the slippery slope fallacy “ when they want to dismiss what the other person in the debate said. It’s not a fallacy. Your post is a good example

 

[durangodawood]

Far and away this was a "change" election based on the economy, stupid*. The rest was window dressing.




*I'm not calling you stupid.

 

[durangodawood]

People always say “You’re using the slippery slope fallacy “ when they want to dismiss what the other person in the debate said. It’s not a fallacy. Your post is a good example

Generally slippery slope is invoked as a sheer assumption that a move in one direction or another inevitably means you will continue in that direction all the way horror or absurdity.

The fallacious aspect is just that it needs rational justification, rather than having it stand as an assumption.

 

[BPPLEE]

Generally slippery slope is invoked as a sheer assumption that a move in one direction or another inevitably means you will continue in that direction all the way horror or absurdity.

The fallacious aspect is just that it needs rational justification, rather than having it stand as an assumption.

What is it when the assumption proves to be correct?

 

[durangodawood]

What is it when the assumption proves to be correct?

Then the bad thing happened.

But it happened for reasons, and not because of the fallacious notion that a move in one direction or another automatically means the start of an inexorable slide to the worst.

 

[durangodawood]

We cant raise the speed limit to 70 because then whats to stop it from going to 90, 100, 200????

 

[BPPLEE]

Then the bad thing happened.

But it happened for reasons, and not because of the fallacious notion that a move in one direction or another automatically means the start of an inexorable slide to the worst.

When you make the absurd normal, the absurdity only gets worse

 

[durangodawood]

When you make the absurd normal, the absurdity only gets worse

Thats completely wrong. Sometimes people come to see the problem, and then correct. Sometimes they dont. There's no "only" about this.

 

[eleos1954]

While obviously all of the political focus has been on the presidential election this past week (makes sense, that's "the big one"), there have been some much less-covered political outcomes that have taken place, that I feel are part of the same pattern of centrists and even some left-leaning folks issuing a referendum or "rebuke" of sorts against some of the progressive policies and initiatives, that I feel, are part of the broader pattern that led to Trump winning the popular vote.


San Francisco Mayor London Breed lost the reelection bid by 12 points
Progressive Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao got ousted
California voters passed prop 36, to re-elevate certain shoplifting and drug offenses back to felonies where they were before

Harris won the states of New York and New Jersey by a smaller percentage than Trump won in Florida and Texas. (yet, in past election cycles, we always heard hopeful optimism that Texas and Florida were on the verge of becoming purple states)...in this election, New Jersey was more "purple" than the actual swing states. (Harris only carried 51% of the vote there)

Minnesota (a state that hasn't been a red since 1972...they were the only blue state in the landslide that Reagan had), Harris only got 51.1% of the vote there.

Will this create a "look in the mirror" moment for Democrats, and will we see a more concerted effort to gravitate towards more moderate candidates in the midterms and in 2028?

The reason why I focused on blue states here, is because the "conventional talking points" have been centered around "Trump emboldened the racists and sexists, and there was a fearmongering and hype that caused the outcome", but the places I mentioned aren't really susceptible to that. Obviously the "red state hype" that gets perpetuated about places in California to people in red states is a non-starter, because we're talking about the people who actually live there voting the way they did. Deep blue areas being "more immune to right-wing propaganda" for the last 12 years, and magically "falling for it" now isn't a plausible explanation for those sorts of outcomes.

Will this create a "look in the mirror" moment for Democrats, and will we see a more concerted effort to gravitate towards more moderate candidates in the midterms and in 2028?

Doubtful