Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
People come to see me problem after the absurdity gets worse and the people who said it was a slippery slope say we told you soThats completely wrong. Sometimes people come to see the problem, and then correct. Sometimes they dont. There's no "only" about this.
This is just sour grapes.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.
I think that's become more clear. At least for now. I also think some of the other social issues have played a part as well. Men in women's spaces, including sports, the medicalizing of children, and the flooding of the country with illegals, DEI, CRT, all play a part in the shift.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.
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.
That wouldn't seem to explain some of the unions (who've been reliable democratic allies) refusing to do endorsements this time around though, would it?Far and away this was a "change" election based on the economy, stupid*. The rest was window dressing.
*I'm not calling you stupid.
It's not that they are prioritized, but the unions realize that their membership has a variety of individual views on the 'social issues' none of which are pertinent to the real problems labor actually faces. I hope so, anyway because it is important to the labor movement not to be divided by contrived social issues.That wouldn't seem to explain some of the unions (who've been reliable democratic allies) refusing to do endorsements this time around though, would it?
Certain the policies of the Democratic party are far more favorable (at least economically) for the pro-union interests.
That leads me to believe that the rank and file of some of those unions perhaps prioritized some of the social issues above (or at least equal to) some of the economic aspects this time around.
Theres no principle that if people get a little of something, then they will demand all of it. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they dont.People come to see me problem after the absurdity gets worse and the people who said it was a slippery slope say we told you so
However I think this vote was a referendum on both labor issues AND social ones. Economic and social. America has realized, for now, that the radical left agenda is bad for both.It's not that they are prioritized, but the unions realize that their membership has a variety of individual views on the 'social issues' none of which are pertinent to the real problems labor actually faces. I hope so, anyway because it is important to the labor movement not to be divided by contrived social issues.
Union members likely feel the same economic squeeze that non union working class people do. And vote accordingly.That wouldn't seem to explain some of the unions (who've been reliable democratic allies) refusing to do endorsements this time around though, would it?
Certain the policies of the Democratic party are far more favorable (at least economically) for the pro-union interests.
That leads me to believe that the rank and file of some of those unions perhaps prioritized some of the social issues above (or at least equal to) some of the economic aspects this time around.
You are missing it here. America has spoken on ALL of it. If you only separate one issue out of the rest and want to make a claim that America would not voted on that alone, you are probably correct. But Trump didn't run on a single issue. He ran on the issues the majority of American cared about. Economic AND social.Union members likely feel the same economic squeeze that non union working class people do. And vote accordingly.
Actual policies are overrated generally as voter motivation. People were voting economic vibe, and not really thinking through the effects of this or that policy. I dont think most people even trust that Trump really intends many of the policies he hints at.
Do you really think that if people were feeling economically optimistic generally that trans this and that would have flipped the election? It would have just looked like a desperate distraction from an irrelevant has been.
Based on some of the localized voting patterns in blue areas, it would appear that some of the issues aren't just "contrived made up culture war stuff" that they've been getting dismissed as.It's not that they are prioritized, but the unions realize that their membership has a variety of individual views on the 'social issues' none of which are pertinent to the real problems labor actually faces. I hope so, anyway because it is important to the labor movement not to be divided by contrived social issues.
People do care about the various social issues. In an alternate reality where people didnt feel they could distinguish an economic distinction between the two candidates, then, yeah, other issues would have made the difference.You are missing it here. America has spoken on ALL of it. If you only separate one issue out of the rest and want to make a claim that America would not voted on that alone, you are probably correct. But Trump didn't run on a single issue. He ran on the issues the majority of American cared about. Economic AND social.
And Americans believe for now that he and the republicans are the best to address those things. Whether they will remains to be seen. Actions speak louder thsn words.
I believe that by and large, the social issues had less relevance htn you think. The LGBT issues are important to the base, but the working class bonus that Trump got had more to do with economics and immigration than the sex stuff.You are missing it here. America has spoken on ALL of it. If you only separate one issue out of the rest and want to make a claim that America would not voted on that alone, you are probably correct. But Trump didn't run on a single issue. He ran on the issues the majority of American cared about. Economic AND social.
And Americans believe for now that he and the republicans are the best to address those things. Whether they will remains to be seen. Actions speak louder thsn words.
Crime is a big driver for local politics. Probably more than "the economy" or the various culture wars issues.Based on some of the localized voting patterns in blue areas, it would appear that some of the issues aren't just "contrived made up culture war stuff" that they've been getting dismissed as.
I think San Fran voting out London Breed (by 12 percentage points no less), and the residents of San Fran voting in favor of Prop 36 (64% of San Fran voted in favor... it passed with over 70% statewide)
San Fransisco isn't a "split electorate" by any means. Only 12% of the people in that city are registered republicans, and 90% of the voters in that city voted against Trump. These aren't people who are sitting at home watching Fox News or listening to some right-wing podcast.
These are progressive people who probably living in perhaps the biggest progressive echo chamber in the country...
They just voted to re-criminalize certain drugs again, voted to elevate major shoplifting back up to a felony, and sent London Breed packing.
I think that it was a major blind spot for Democrats to keep dismissing literally every critique about progressive policies as "just some made up culture war stuff by the republicans". I think they said it for so long they started to believe their own bovine excrement.
As it turns out the red-state critiques about the specific progressive policies of San Fran being problematic, were just affirmed by the San Fran voters.
Maybe not that issue alone, but that issue combined with immigration issues and crime issues certainly could've flipped it.Union members likely feel the same economic squeeze that non union working class people do. And vote accordingly.
Actual policies are overrated generally as voter motivation. People were voting economic vibe, and not really thinking through the effects of this or that policy. I dont think most people even trust that Trump really intends many of the policies he hints at.
Do you really think that if people were feeling economically optimistic generally that trans this and that would have flipped the election? It would have just looked like a desperate distraction from an irrelevant has been.
Red line issue voters on both sides stuck with their side just like they did last time. No change there. As for the rest:Maybe not that issue alone, but that issue combined with immigration issues and crime issues certainly could've flipped it.
Many democrats themselves, spent the last few elections cycles coining phrases about that things they referred to as "red line issues"
I heard some say it about vaccines
I heard some say it about climate change
I heard some say it about abortion
Meaning, if a candidate wasn't in alignment with them on those things, they couldn't bring themselves to vote for them even if they may have liked some of their other polices.
I think they failed to acknowledge that other people (independents and even some the people from their own team) have some "red line issues" of their own, and they all may not align with each on which issues are the "deal breakers".
But the topic of "crime" had been absorbed into the realm that is "culture war issues".Crime is a big driver for local politics. Probably more than "the economy" or the various culture wars issues.
Red line issue voters on both sides stuck with their side just like they did last time. No change there. As for the rest:
Immigration yes. Crime yes. People see those as potentially affecting them personally one way or another.
Abortion. Yes that issue secures quite a bit of loyalty. But perhaps now that the Dobbs deal is done, a few pro choice people see the federal level stakes as lowered, and might switch to Trump for econ reasons. I did hear anecdotes of this. No data tho.
Trans stuff and "the free speech climate on campus" etc. Low priority.
Climate change. For most people the issue seems a little out of reach. People have difficulty assimilating slow moving concepts, like over decades. Also, its the air, and the air is invisible, politically - unless it becomes really bad smog. This probably makes people sound not very smart, which would be accurate. Drill baby drill had some appeal in our economic climate.
I dont really care about "the framing". Crime is visceral personal safety. Like the economy is visceral personal wealth.But the topic of "crime" had been absorbed into the realm that is "culture war issues".
The "red team" bashing San Fransisco for being "crime ridden, homeless drug addicts shooting up on the streets, etc..." was getting dismissed as "right wing propaganda, they want to bash San Fran because it's a notoriously liberal stronghold" and part of the "culture war".
The blue team can't come in now, post-hoc, and remove the things from that realm that have been proven to be correct.
I saw a pundit on MSNBC imply the same, they tried to frame the topic of "crime in San Fransisco, Oakland, and LA" as if it was some stand-alone topic that wasn't part of the "culture war" debates.
They can't simply keep redefining "what the culture war is" by selectively omitting things that the republicans end up being right about, so that they can reframing "culture war" as "just the made up social issues the GOP is wrong about"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?