"Some of our friends on this forum are racists."

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
Did he? Or was all that a response to "white privelege", intersectional politics, and a perceived economic loss due to open borders that left an opening on that topic with economically distressed white voters?

You are perceiving their reaction through your lense. They perceived that with a Democratic focus on race issues, their concerns were getting ignored. They went to someone who talked about them. Same reason blacks tend to congregate in one party. They feel that party talked to their concerns. White people are human too, they act no different than anyone else.
No, it was a response to white fears stoked by years of GOP dog whistling, which you should recognize by bringing up immigration. Immigration isn't a hot button topic because Dems want to talk about it. That perceived economic loss isn't because Dems publicize it.

The GOP has been playing with fire in order to get out the vote for years. Trump is just the racist chickens coming home to roost.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
No, it was a response to white fears stoked by years of GOP dog whistling, which you should recognize by bringing up immigration. Immigration isn't a hot button topic because Dems want to talk about it. That perceived economic loss isn't because Dems publicize it.

The GOP has been playing with fire in order to get out the vote for years. Trump is just the racist chickens coming home to roost.
Disagree. For every racial component you want to attach to why these people vote the way they do, there is also an economic component. I still believe, until proven to the contrary, that the overwhelming majority of people voting for Republicans do so because of social issues that revolve around their religious convictions, their view on economics, or their views on geopolitics.

Again, Trump is supposedly the most bigoted and racist President to have ever existed and he won by making an economic appeal to people in the rust belt, an appeal that was not matched by failed candidate Clinton. He beat the Democrats by playing their own game. You are poor? Why that is because of NAFTA and the easy availability of cheap labor that the Democrats like because of future votes and Republicans like because of cheap labor. I am going to rip up trade agreements, bring jobs home, and make sure you do not have to compete with cheap, illegal laborers for those jobs. That is what won. It is an economic argument.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
Disagree. For every racial component you want to attach to why these people vote the way they do, there is also an economic component. I still believe, until proven to the contrary, that the overwhelming majority of people voting for Republicans do so because of social issues that revolve around their religious convictions, their view on economics, or their views on geopolitics.

Again, Trump is supposedly the most bigoted and racist President to have ever existed and he won by making an economic appeal to people in the rust belt, an appeal that was not matched by failed candidate Clinton. He beat the Democrats by playing their own game. You are poor? Why that is because of NAFTA and the easy availability of cheap labor that the Democrats like because of future votes and Republicans like because of cheap labor. I am going to rip up trade agreements, bring jobs home, and make sure you do not have to compete with cheap, illegal laborers for those jobs. That is what won. It is an economic argument.
Hey, you said they perceived a racial issue. You did. I was just correcting your mistaken idea that this racial issue was because of what the Dems were saying, rather than what the GOP was saying.
 

MrBing

All-Big Ten
Apr 25, 2011
3,425
2,764
113
Yes, but BErnie did not receive any of the treatment that Hillary did from Trump since he was not running. I've read all kinds of things they were planning to run on opposition research that would have come out had he been the candidate. True or not, as we've seen , it doesn't really matter. Also, BErnie did not relate well to black voters and quite likely would have done even worse than Hillary did with them. I think it's impossible to know what would have happened had Sanders been the candidate.
Hey! I liked Bernie and voted for him in the primary. ;) I don't think Hillary related very well to black voters either but I'm positive that most of us that voted chose her over Trump and I'm sure that would be the case if Bernie was the candidate. But I don't know if anybody knows if as many of us would have turned out to vote.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
Hey, you said they perceived a racial issue. You did. I was just correcting your mistaken idea that this racial issue was because of what the Dems were saying, rather than what the GOP was saying.
They do perceive a racial issue. That racial issue has been there for more than 4 years and those same people were voting for a black man. So whatever racial component is there has been there for some time yet it is only in this election that we just saw that flip. The Republican dog whistle accusation has been put forth going back before I ever started posting to this board over a decade ago. But it is just now that those states flipped. I am saying that the racial aspects of this are overblown and to the extent that they do exist it is because poor white people do not feel Democrats were representing their issues. Is that a race problem on their part (remember they just voted for Obama...twice) or is that a messaging and branding problem with the Democrats?

Trump went left on economics. That is the main message difference he had from prior GOP candidates. If there is a white racial component at play, it is more along the lines of "The Democrats seem more focused on things that are important to minority or demographic groups than they are in what matter to me." BLM, transgender bathroom fight, gay marriage...all big topics being focused on by the Democrats in the run up to the last election. Not a one of them puts food on the table for rust belt whites. Politics is always a game of what can you do for me. They left because the Democratic Party has a message that was not tailored to them or to include them. And if the message should be including them or does include them, Democrats have done an abysmal job of delivering their message.
 
Last edited:

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
They do perceive a racial issue. That racial issue has been there for more than 4 years and those same people were voting for a black man. So whatever racial component is there has been there for some time yet it is only in this election that we just saw that flip. The Republican dog whistle accusation has been put forth going back before I ever started posting to this board over a decade ago. But it is just now that those states flipped. I am saying that the racial aspects of this are overblown and to the extent that they do exist it is because poor white people do not feel Democrats were representing their issues. Is that a race problem on their part (remember they just voted for Obama...twice) or is that a messaging and branding problem with the Democrats?

Trump went left on economics. That is the main message difference he had from prior GOP candidates. If there is a white racial component at play, it is more along the lines of "The Democrats seem more focused on things that are important to minority or demographic groups than they are in what matter to me." BLM, transgender bathroom fight, gay marriage...all big topics being focused on by the Democrats in the run up to the last election. Not a one of them puts food on the table for rust belt whites. Politics is always a game of what can you do for me. They left because the Democratic Party has a message that was not tailored to them or to include them. And if the message should be including them or does include them, Democrats have done an abysmal job of delivering their message.
You're simultaneously saying it's overblown and that it's real and the Dems' fault. You can see why this sounds a bit like partisan dodging.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
You're simultaneously saying it's overblown and that it's real and the Dems' fault. You can see why this sounds a bit like partisan dodging.
Let me try to be more clear. There is probably a racial component involved. I think the extent to which it is involved is overblown. The component that is involved is the fault of Democratic messaging. How do I arrive at this conclusion? Because the messaging of the GOP has remained pretty constant. The main difference between Trump and the typical Republican candidate (on policy) is in the economic realm. Trump ran on a populist economic plank. That was a plank that used to be in the Democratic platform and it is what made Labor so tightly bound to that party. The Democrats have been abandoning that message and instead have been focused on social justice. That topic tends to exclude whites, particularly white males, other than to say that the system is weighted in favor of them. So not only were the Democrats ignoring topics that were near and dear to these voters on one hand, on the other they are at the forefront of saying that these people need to put their needs on hold in favor of tipping the social justice scales back to minorities. That is a double economic whammy for those voters. Not only are you ignoring me but you seem to be arguing that even though I am struggling, I need to give up even more to pay for the sins of my great, great, great grandfather.

That is where I think race comes into play. The Democrats message was that White People had too much as opposed to we need to get minorities more. One connotates taking from one to give to the other, based on race, while the other connotates making sure everyone is getting a piece of the pie.

When it comes to politics, most people are like children. Cut a large piece of pie for one child and a little smaller for another. You piss the first child off when you take some of their pie to even things out. Not because they begrudge the other sibling getting more, it is because they begrudge you taking what they view as theirs. Same concept at play here. Whereas the left used to rail against "corporations" or "the rich" having the pie that poor whites and blacks could dip into, that argument has evolved to "white privelege" means you have too much pie and you need to give up some of yours to your minority brothers and sisters. That turns an economic argument into a racial argument. That is where I blame the left. Those same white voters would not give a damn if it was rich privelege giving up their pie to minorities. They are just protecting their slice from whomever they think is grabbing it.

Or to paraphrase Clinton, it's economics stupid. :)
 

MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 5, 2001
45,682
16,009
113
Duckburg
Again, Trump is supposedly the most bigoted and racist President to have ever existed
There were many Presidents more racist that Trump, including all of the slave-owning Presidents. Of the post-1900 folks, he might tie with LBJ, but Wilson takes that award.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
Huh? That's never been a Democratic message. If you think it is, that just proves the GOP dog whistling works.
And that is why the Democrats lost. An abject refusal to admit that their message could be off.

You do not have to convince me, I am not voting for the Democrats anytime soon anyways. You have to convince those blue collar voters who felt the party abandoned them. I talk with some of them, trust me, the Social Justice messaging is a problem and it is not because of animosity towards minorities or dog whistling. It is because those people feel like Democrats view them as an enemy, an undesirable. They used to be able to live with that when they felt their economic concerns were being addressed, when they felt like they were not, they bolted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
And that is why the Democrats lost. An abject refusal to admit that their message could be off.

You do not have to convince me, I am not voting for the Democrats anytime soon anyways. You have to convince those blue collar voters who felt the party abandoned them. I talk with some of them, trust me, the Social Justice messaging is a problem and it is not because of animosity towards minorities or dog whistling. It is because those people feel like Democrats view them as an enemy, an undesirable. They used to be able to live with that when they felt their economic concerns were being addressed, when they felt like they were not, they bolted.
I know what the Dems have to do. And it will be easier to do it if the GOP continues to turn a blind eye to itself, so I hope party leadership shares your view of things.
 
Nov 4, 2014
409
318
63
Let me try to be more clear. There is probably a racial component involved. I think the extent to which it is involved is overblown. The component that is involved is the fault of Democratic messaging. How do I arrive at this conclusion? Because the messaging of the GOP has remained pretty constant. The main difference between Trump and the typical Republican candidate (on policy) is in the economic realm. Trump ran on a populist economic plank. That was a plank that used to be in the Democratic platform and it is what made Labor so tightly bound to that party. The Democrats have been abandoning that message and instead have been focused on social justice. That topic tends to exclude whites, particularly white males, other than to say that the system is weighted in favor of them. So not only were the Democrats ignoring topics that were near and dear to these voters on one hand, on the other they are at the forefront of saying that these people need to put their needs on hold in favor of tipping the social justice scales back to minorities. That is a double economic whammy for those voters. Not only are you ignoring me but you seem to be arguing that even though I am struggling, I need to give up even more to pay for the sins of my great, great, great grandfather.

That is where I think race comes into play. The Democrats message was that White People had too much as opposed to we need to get minorities more. One connotates taking from one to give to the other, based on race, while the other connotates making sure everyone is getting a piece of the pie.

When it comes to politics, most people are like children. Cut a large piece of pie for one child and a little smaller for another. You piss the first child off when you take some of their pie to even things out. Not because they begrudge the other sibling getting more, it is because they begrudge you taking what they view as theirs. Same concept at play here. Whereas the left used to rail against "corporations" or "the rich" having the pie that poor whites and blacks could dip into, that argument has evolved to "white privelege" means you have too much pie and you need to give up some of yours to your minority brothers and sisters. That turns an economic argument into a racial argument. That is where I blame the left. Those same white voters would not give a damn if it was rich privelege giving up their pie to minorities. They are just protecting their slice from whomever they think is grabbing it.

Or to paraphrase Clinton, it's economics stupid. :)
“The focus starts on economic issues,” Schumer continued. “That’s where the American people are hurting. That’s what we most felt was missing in the past in the last several elections.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-agenda-2018-rural-virginia-240905
 

SuperHoosierFan

Hall of Famer
Aug 1, 2003
20,139
4,556
113
Right. Its their policies, where they have any, that is disliked by voters along with constant attacking the other side without offering anything for themselves. They haven't lost 1007 major elected positions in 3 cycles because they put forth great ideas.

I see the usual circle jerk liking each other's posts. It's sort of cute.

Man, with you guys winning so many elections, why do I still hear you guys complaining about how bad the country is doing? Why does Donnie Two-Scoops feel the need to make us great again? Maybe you're the problem.
 

iu_a_att

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 20, 2001
7,868
2,111
113
Did he? Or was all that a response to "white privelege", intersectional politics, and a perceived economic loss due to open borders that left an opening on that topic with economically distressed white voters?

You are perceiving their reaction through your lense. They perceived that with a Democratic focus on race issues, their concerns were getting ignored. They went to someone who talked about them. Same reason blacks tend to congregate in one party. They feel that party talked to their concerns. White people are human too, they act no different than anyone else. You guys were talking BLM and they were worried about how to pay for their or their child's education. BLM and institutional racism talk discludes those people. They may be on your side on those issues but neither of those pays a medical bill or give a them a raise. Sanders had that figured out, Hillary did not.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Rhetoric_and_the_End_of_Racial_Priming
"We explore the conjecture that norms of racial rhetoric in U.S. campaigns have shifted over the last
several years. Prior work suggests that the way politicians talk about race affects the power of racial
attitudes in political judgments. Racial priming theory suggests that explicit racial rhetoric – messages
overtly hostile toward minorities – would be rejected. When race is cued subtly, however, the power
of racial attitudes on issues is significantly enhanced. Replication attempts have recently failed. We
identify two historically related shifts that lead us to expect the effective distinction between explicit
and implicit racial rhetoric has declined in recent years. Four nationally representative survey
experiments strongly support our predictions: Regardless of whether political messages are racially
explicit or implicit, the power of racial attitudes is large and stable. Finally, many citizens recognize
racially hostile content in political communications, but are no longer angered or disturbed by it."
...
Indeed, there are abundant examples suggesting racially hostile rhetoric was not permissible
for mainstream candidates prior to Obama’s election. In 2002 for example, Trent Lott was forced to
resign his leadership post in the Senate after simply praising a former segregationist, Strom
Thurmond: “When (he) ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the
country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either”
(Edsall & Faler 2002). It seems there may have been a dramatic shift in norms of political discourse
surrounding race. How and why has this happened?

We suspect two historically related trends have altered the public acceptability of racially
hostile political rhetoric in mainstream American politics. First, by the turn of the 21st century, the
secular partisan realignment that had begun the 1960’s had sorted most racially conservative whites
into the Republican Party (Valentino & Sears 2005; Lublin 2004). This shift is likely to have altered
the framing adopted by party officials on either side of the aisle for a wide range of policies related
even tangentially to race (Tesler 2016). As the parties’ adherents became less diverse in their views
on matters of race, it thus became less risky for candidates to overtly – rather than subtly – signal
their positions on racial issues. Therefore, while not directly causing a rise in racially explicit
arguments, party realignment may have removed electoral constraints that suppressed them in the
past.

Second, whites’ perceptions of their group’s racial distinctiveness and disadvantage have
risen. Whereas white group consciousness was not always politically powerful (Sears & Savalei 2006),
persuasive evidence now suggests a sharp increase in white identity over the last several election
cycles, especially since Obama’s election in 2008 (Jardina 2014). Concerns about demographic shifts
and economic stagnation may have led many whites to believe their racial group was under threat,
and this pressure boosted white identification (Knowles & Peng 2005). Increases in entitativity – the
perception that one belongs to a coherent and unified collective – boosts the acceptability of explicit
expressions of outgroup prejudice and discrimination (Effron & Knowles 2015). Indeed, we know
that Obama’s election triggered a decrease in whites’ perceptions of discrimination against blacks,
and a concomitant drop in support for affirmative action and other racially redistributive policies
(Valentino & Brader 2011). These reactions may stem from moral licensing among whites in
reaction to Obama’s victory (Effron et al. 2009). The logic goes something like this: If a black man
can be elected president, we must live in an egalitarian society no longer in need of policies that
“balance the playing field.” Quite ironically then, the acceptability of explicitly hostile intergroup
rhetoric stems at least in part from the belief that we live in a post-racial society.
The Changing Norms of Racial Political Rhetoric and the End of Racial Priming (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Rhetoric_and_the_End_of_Racial_Priming [accessed Sep 6, 2017].
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
“The focus starts on economic issues,” Schumer continued. “That’s where the American people are hurting. That’s what we most felt was missing in the past in the last several elections.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-agenda-2018-rural-virginia-240905
“Son of a gun. We may lose this election,” Biden said, recalling his reaction during an interview in his West Wing office.

“They’re all the people I grew up with. They’re their kids. And they’re not racist. They’re not sexist. But we didn’t talk to them.”

That is two leading Democrats who seem to be supporting my position.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Rhetoric_and_the_End_of_Racial_Priming
"We explore the conjecture that norms of racial rhetoric in U.S. campaigns have shifted over the last
several years. Prior work suggests that the way politicians talk about race affects the power of racial
attitudes in political judgments. Racial priming theory suggests that explicit racial rhetoric – messages
overtly hostile toward minorities – would be rejected. When race is cued subtly, however, the power
of racial attitudes on issues is significantly enhanced. Replication attempts have recently failed. We
identify two historically related shifts that lead us to expect the effective distinction between explicit
and implicit racial rhetoric has declined in recent years. Four nationally representative survey
experiments strongly support our predictions: Regardless of whether political messages are racially
explicit or implicit, the power of racial attitudes is large and stable. Finally, many citizens recognize
racially hostile content in political communications, but are no longer angered or disturbed by it."
...
Indeed, there are abundant examples suggesting racially hostile rhetoric was not permissible
for mainstream candidates prior to Obama’s election. In 2002 for example, Trent Lott was forced to
resign his leadership post in the Senate after simply praising a former segregationist, Strom
Thurmond: “When (he) ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the
country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either”
(Edsall & Faler 2002). It seems there may have been a dramatic shift in norms of political discourse
surrounding race. How and why has this happened?

We suspect two historically related trends have altered the public acceptability of racially
hostile political rhetoric in mainstream American politics. First, by the turn of the 21st century, the
secular partisan realignment that had begun the 1960’s had sorted most racially conservative whites
into the Republican Party (Valentino & Sears 2005; Lublin 2004). This shift is likely to have altered
the framing adopted by party officials on either side of the aisle for a wide range of policies related
even tangentially to race (Tesler 2016). As the parties’ adherents became less diverse in their views
on matters of race, it thus became less risky for candidates to overtly – rather than subtly – signal
their positions on racial issues. Therefore, while not directly causing a rise in racially explicit
arguments, party realignment may have removed electoral constraints that suppressed them in the
past.

Second, whites’ perceptions of their group’s racial distinctiveness and disadvantage have
risen. Whereas white group consciousness was not always politically powerful (Sears & Savalei 2006),
persuasive evidence now suggests a sharp increase in white identity over the last several election
cycles, especially since Obama’s election in 2008 (Jardina 2014). Concerns about demographic shifts
and economic stagnation may have led many whites to believe their racial group was under threat,
and this pressure boosted white identification (Knowles & Peng 2005). Increases in entitativity – the
perception that one belongs to a coherent and unified collective – boosts the acceptability of explicit
expressions of outgroup prejudice and discrimination (Effron & Knowles 2015). Indeed, we know
that Obama’s election triggered a decrease in whites’ perceptions of discrimination against blacks,
and a concomitant drop in support for affirmative action and other racially redistributive policies
(Valentino & Brader 2011). These reactions may stem from moral licensing among whites in
reaction to Obama’s victory (Effron et al. 2009). The logic goes something like this: If a black man
can be elected president, we must live in an egalitarian society no longer in need of policies that
“balance the playing field.” Quite ironically then, the acceptability of explicitly hostile intergroup
rhetoric stems at least in part from the belief that we live in a post-racial society.
The Changing Norms of Racial Political Rhetoric and the End of Racial Priming (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Rhetoric_and_the_End_of_Racial_Priming [accessed Sep 6, 2017].
****ing racists playing their mental ju-jitsu on all of us. They tricked us by voting a black man into office all so that they could pull the ultimate double cross.

So on one hand these people think we are more post racial because we have a black President and on the other hand the social justice din grew louder over the same timeframe increasingly telling them that they were racists even if they did not know it. The latter however had no impact on attitudes.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
I know what the Dems have to do. And it will be easier to do it if the GOP continues to turn a blind eye to itself, so I hope party leadership shares your view of things.
My view of things was only focusing on the Democratic side, the GOP issues are a separate topic altogether.

And in case you have not noticed, certain Democrats have realized exactly what I pointed out (See Schumer and Biden quotes above).
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
****ing racists playing their mental ju-jitsu on all of us. They tricked us by voting a black man into office all so that they could pull the ultimate double cross.

So on one hand these people think we are more post racial because we have a black President and on the other hand the social justice din grew louder over the same timeframe increasingly telling them that they were racists even if they did not know it. The latter however had no impact on attitudes.
You seem to be confusing the fact that race does play a role in elections, and the idea that all Trump voters must be secretly racist. You're creating a caricature of the Democratic argument to attack.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
You seem to be confusing the fact that race does play a role in elections, and the idea that all Trump voters must be secretly racist. You're creating a caricature of the Democratic argument to attack.
No, just enough of them to win elections apparently. Whenever we get into discussions on how Trump won, the main thing you guys bring up is racial animus from white people. So while you may not be arguing that all Trump voters are racists you sure seem to be arguing that a very large percentage of them are motivated by race. But I think deep down you really do not believe that is the case, you were basically arguing the opposite earlier with the Sanders conversation. It is just the argument du jour for "your side". It is an argument that Democrats are comfortable making so it became a crutch to lean on.

I do not think the color that motivated the majority of them is black, white, or brown. It was and is green.
 

iu_a_att

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 20, 2001
7,868
2,111
113
****ing racists playing their mental ju-jitsu on all of us. They tricked us by voting a black man into office all so that they could pull the ultimate double cross.

So on one hand these people think we are more post racial because we have a black President and on the other hand the social justice din grew louder over the same timeframe increasingly telling them that they were racists even if they did not know it. The latter however had no impact on attitudes.
The authors are claiming that the election of Obama triggered changes in the way white people in particular talk about race in this country. They are claiming that prior to Obama there were norms that forbade explicitly racial/racist rhetoric that bound everyone. After Obama, they suggest, those norms are rapidly fading. The demonstrate that many white people are no longer offended by such explicit racism. Trump capitalized on that rhetorical shift... In past years a politician who failed to distance themselves from the explicit racism of the Klan and Nazis would have been punished. But no more.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
No, just enough of them to win elections apparently. Whenever we get into discussions on how Trump won, the main thing you guys bring up is racial animus from white people. So while you may not be arguing that all Trump voters are racists you sure seem to be arguing that a very large percentage of them are motivated by race. But I think deep down you really do not believe that is the case, you were basically arguing the opposite earlier with the Sanders conversation. It is just the argument du jour for "your side". It is an argument that Democrats are comfortable making so it became a crutch to lean on.

I do not think the color that motivated the majority of them is black, white, or brown. It was and is green.
Very few of us think race was the main factor. It was a factor. One of many. Maybe a few on the left overplay it, but I think it's more likely you're overreacting.
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
27,933
8,446
113
I see the usual circle jerk liking each other's posts. It's sort of cute.

Man, with you guys winning so many elections, why do I still hear you guys complaining about how bad the country is doing? Why does Donnie Two-Scoops feel the need to make us great again? Maybe you're the problem.
Says a key player on the Water Cooler's Moonbat Circle Jerk team.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
Very few of us think race was the main factor. It was a factor. One of many. Maybe a few on the left overplay it, but I think it's more likely you're overreacting.
Very few of who? If you are only talking about this board I do not agree with that at all.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
Very few of who? If you are only talking about this board I do not agree with that at all.
Seriously, make a list of people on this forum who actually claim race was the primary motivating factor behind Trump voters. It will be a short list. I don't claim it will be empty. But it will be short.

It's possible that some members of that short list are extremely vocal, which could skew perceptions. But I also know for a fact that some posters interpret "racism exists" as "you are all racists," even when that's clearly not intended. So I hope you realize that it's at least possible that you are assigning a minority view to a larger group of posters than deserves it.
 

Rockport Zebra

All-American
Jan 30, 2002
7,213
1,726
113
At this point, sophistication no longer means anything to me. I mean, you don't really think the white factory worker in Akron who voted GOP for the first time in his life is more sophisticated than the black Detroit voter who stayed home, right?

At this point, we're just getting into political reality. Hillary failed on many levels, but the one that hurt the most was her failure to win over blue collar whites in the midwest. This failure is not only painful because it helped elect Trump, but also because it should have been predicted and countered. Sanders embarrassed Hillary in the Great Lakes region, by and large. Did she take that as a hint to maybe put in some effort there? No, she didn't. This despite the fact that her most accessible adviser, a man who knows a thing or two about winning elections, specifically begged the campaign not to ignore the region.

Exceprts released this week from Hillary's book about Sanders only further highlight that she never got it, and still doesn't.
Those two voters are not the same. The white guy
At this point, sophistication no longer means anything to me. I mean, you don't really think the white factory worker in Akron who voted GOP for the first time in his life is more sophisticated than the black Detroit voter who stayed home, right?

At this point, we're just getting into political reality. Hillary failed on many levels, but the one that hurt the most was her failure to win over blue collar whites in the midwest. This failure is not only painful because it helped elect Trump, but also because it should have been predicted and countered. Sanders embarrassed Hillary in the Great Lakes region, by and large. Did she take that as a hint to maybe put in some effort there? No, she didn't. This despite the fact that her most accessible adviser, a man who knows a thing or two about winning elections, specifically begged the campaign not to ignore the region.

Exceprts released this week from Hillary's book about Sanders only further highlight that she never got it, and still doesn't.
Seriously, make a list of people on this forum who actually claim race was the primary motivating factor behind Trump voters. It will be a short list. I don't claim it will be empty. But it will be short.

It's possible that some members of that short list are extremely vocal, which could skew perceptions. But I also know for a fact that some posters interpret "racism exists" as "you are all racists," even when that's clearly not intended. So I hope you realize that it's at least possible that you are assigning a minority view to a larger group of posters than deserves it.
Racists are a marginalized minority. How many racists are in each precinct?
 

iu_a_att

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 20, 2001
7,868
2,111
113
Seriously, make a list of people on this forum who actually claim race was the primary motivating factor behind Trump voters. It will be a short list. I don't claim it will be empty. But it will be short.

It's possible that some members of that short list are extremely vocal, which could skew perceptions. But I also know for a fact that some posters interpret "racism exists" as "you are all racists," even when that's clearly not intended. So I hope you realize that it's at least possible that you are assigning a minority view to a larger group of posters than deserves it.
The primary factors effecting voting patterns are partisanship followed by the electoral cycle. Dems had won the presidency twice and it is hard to keep winning. The pivotal factors are those that moved people at the margin. Obviously primary factors are also pivotal. But pivotal factors are those that moved a pivotal set of voters. Pivotal factors are race, gender and trade. Hard to sort out which of those three was the most important. I would say race was the larger one of the three.
 
Jan 6, 2017
2,006
755
113
Seriously, make a list of people on this forum who actually claim race was the primary motivating factor behind Trump voters. It will be a short list. I don't claim it will be empty. But it will be short.
.
Virtually every racist will tell you they aren't racist at all. I know people who use the n-word constantly and they will all tell you they aren't racist.

Lots of Righties on here are claiming, "Lots of white people voted for Obama so that proves they aren't racist." Actually, that means nothing. Lots of them voted for Obama just so they could say, "See? I voted for a black guy. That means I'm not racist" even though they still say the n-word a lot and think most black people are lazy thugs.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
Virtually every racist will tell you they aren't racist at all. I know people who use the n-word constantly and they will all tell you they aren't racist.

Lots of Righties on here are claiming, "Lots of white people voted for Obama so that proves they aren't racist." Actually, that means nothing. Lots of them voted for Obama just so they could say, "See? I voted for a black guy. That means I'm not racist" even though they still say the n-word a lot and think most black people are lazy thugs.
Damn racists with their mental ju jitsu again. Vote for a black guy who does not share any of their political beliefs on a ballot that is secret all so that they can publicly claim to be not racist.

You realize that makes zero ****ing sense? Why not vote against the black guy to uphold their viewpoint and then lie to you about who they voted for? That makes more sense because you have no way to check that. But what you do have is statistics on the whole. And on the whole, Obama, a black candidate won states like Wisconsin, where Hillary, a white woman lost them. So how the **** does it make any sense that race was a bigger factor in this election than it was in the prior two when an actual minority was on the ballot?

Yeah, race was a factor in some parts of the election. It always is. What I have been saying is that almost every left leaning person on this board is inflating the degree to which it had an impact. How do I know this? See my question above regarding states flipping from Obama to Trump. Did all of those racists that helped push him over the line suddenly decide that the Democrats had crossed the line for them...and really, for a racist, is there any bigger line than putting a minority as the chief executive of the entire country? If that does not bring out the racists, what would? Yeah, race was involved in so far as the Democrats have been hyperfocused on the topic while neglecting arguments that spoke to blue collar white voters. Democrats were chewing gum on minority (sexual, racial, religious, etc.) issues while neglecting to walk on the economic issues that were more important to blue collar and middle class whites. Then along came Trump with a populist economic message (something that traditional Republicans do not espouse) and provided those voters with the economic message they have always liked. But again, keep thinking it was all race. Democrat messaging on that topic has been terrible because to many people it appears to be the major concern. That will lose you votes among people who have other concerns.
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
Seriously, make a list of people on this forum who actually claim race was the primary motivating factor behind Trump voters. It will be a short list. I don't claim it will be empty. But it will be short.

It's possible that some members of that short list are extremely vocal, which could skew perceptions. But I also know for a fact that some posters interpret "racism exists" as "you are all racists," even when that's clearly not intended. So I hope you realize that it's at least possible that you are assigning a minority view to a larger group of posters than deserves it.
Given 3 posters jumped on afterwards to basically bang the race drum again (no matter how they couched their argument) I still think I am on pretty solid ground. You may not be in that camp but quite a few of the left leaning posters on this board are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
Given 3 posters jumped on afterwards to basically bang the race drum again (no matter how they couched their argument) I still think I am on pretty solid ground. You may not be in that camp but quite a few of the left leaning posters on this board are.
Once again, you are confusing two different arguments. Zeke and ATT think race was a key factor because it was a close race won at the margins. Vegas is implying that race is the driving factor of large swaths of people. These are two radically different arguments, and you shouldn't confuse one with the other.
 
Last edited:

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
27,933
8,446
113
Virtually every racist will tell you they aren't racist at all. I know people who use the n-word constantly and they will all tell you they aren't racist.

Lots of Righties on here are claiming, "Lots of white people voted for Obama so that proves they aren't racist." Actually, that means nothing. Lots of them voted for Obama just so they could say, "See? I voted for a black guy. That means I'm not racist" even though they still say the n-word a lot and think most black people are lazy thugs.
You hang out with some real winners. I don't know anyone that uses the n-word constantly - or ever. However, I don't hang out with Truthers . . .
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,009
26,801
113
Margaritaville
Damn racists with their mental ju jitsu again. Vote for a black guy who does not share any of their political beliefs on a ballot that is secret all so that they can publicly claim to be not racist.

You realize that makes zero ****ing sense? Why not vote against the black guy to uphold their viewpoint and then lie to you about who they voted for? That makes more sense because you have no way to check that. But what you do have is statistics on the whole. And on the whole, Obama, a black candidate won states like Wisconsin, where Hillary, a white woman lost them. So how the **** does it make any sense that race was a bigger factor in this election than it was in the prior two when an actual minority was on the ballot?

Yeah, race was a factor in some parts of the election. It always is. What I have been saying is that almost every left leaning person on this board is inflating the degree to which it had an impact. How do I know this? See my question above regarding states flipping from Obama to Trump. Did all of those racists that helped push him over the line suddenly decide that the Democrats had crossed the line for them...and really, for a racist, is there any bigger line than putting a minority as the chief executive of the entire country? If that does not bring out the racists, what would? Yeah, race was involved in so far as the Democrats have been hyperfocused on the topic while neglecting arguments that spoke to blue collar white voters. Democrats were chewing gum on minority (sexual, racial, religious, etc.) issues while neglecting to walk on the economic issues that were more important to blue collar and middle class whites. Then along came Trump with a populist economic message (something that traditional Republicans do not espouse) and provided those voters with the economic message they have always liked. But again, keep thinking it was all race. Democrat messaging on that topic has been terrible because to many people it appears to be the major concern. That will lose you votes among people who have other concerns.
Addendum. Although I disagree with most of what Vegas says, actual research says that white voters who moved from Obama to Trump were more motivated by race and immigration than economics.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/trump-white-voters-immigration-muslims-239446
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVegasHoosier
Jan 6, 2017
2,006
755
113
Vegas is implying that race is the driving factor of large swaths of people. .
He acts like I'm only talking about black people.

Trump is a racist towards everyone not white. There's a reason why he ripped Mexicans when he kicked off his campaign. And why the first thing he did after getting sworn in was ban Muslims.

He has to keep the bigots happy.......which is why he also banned transgenders when even the military said it was stupid.
 
Jan 6, 2017
2,006
755
113
Addendum. Although I disagree with most of what Vegas says, actual research says that white voters who moved from Obama to Trump were more motivated by race and immigration than economics.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/trump-white-voters-immigration-muslims-239446
1) Shhhhhhh, facts make their heads hurt. Notice how they all vanished after you put that up. That's why it's a waste of time when they all demand "Prove it!!!" on anything because they all ignore it when you do.

2) A Reagan/Bush adviser agrees with me.

http://conservativefiringline.com/former-reagan-bush-adviser-trump-supporters-racists/
 

IUCrazy2

Hall of Famer
Mar 7, 2004
13,072
3,296
113
1) Shhhhhhh, facts make their heads hurt. Notice how they all vanished after you put that up. That's why it's a waste of time when they all demand "Prove it!!!" on anything because they all ignore it when you do.

2) A Reagan/Bush adviser agrees with me.

http://conservativefiringline.com/former-reagan-bush-adviser-trump-supporters-racists/
Still here. No matter what argument is brought forth it is going to boil down to racism for you guys. So what is the point?

And even if I do go down the race vein with you, any position that is not "white people bad" is rejected. Race is a pointless conversation because you do not want a conversation, you want a lecture. That is why Goat put a tight lid on the Coates thread.

We are heading for Bosnia. God help us or our children when that happens.
 

SuperHoosierFan

Hall of Famer
Aug 1, 2003
20,139
4,556
113
Still here. No matter what argument is brought forth it is going to boil down to racism for you guys. So what is the point?

And even if I do go down the race vein with you, any position that is not "white people bad" is rejected. Race is a pointless conversation because you do not want a conversation, you want a lecture. That is why Goat put a tight lid on the Coates thread.

We are heading for Bosnia. God help us or our children when that happens.
So, "we are heading for Bosnia" while Rs are in total control of the federal government and most of the states. Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe Rs are the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheVegasHoosier
Jan 6, 2017
2,006
755
113
Still here. No matter what argument is brought forth it is going to boil down to racism for you guys. So what is the point?

And even if I do go down the race vein with you, any position that is not "white people bad" is rejected. Race is a pointless conversation because you do not want a conversation, you want a lecture. That is why Goat put a tight lid on the Coates thread.

We are heading for Bosnia. God help us or our children when that happens.
Trump is the one pandering to the neo-Nazi's with every decision of his so you keep your head in the sand and blame Dems.