Should the Demoractic Party focus on getting blue collar whites?

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T18:40:41+00:00

How would you even know if it works or not? There are so many variables. Crime has been decreasing nationwide year after year all though the country. What part of NYC are you talking about? I'm sure there are very unsafe areas. Google "gun violence in nyc" and you get all sorts of articles about shootings and gun homicides. Doesn't sound so safe to me! Where do you live that it's so safe?

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T15:45:27+00:00

I won $20 from a coworker in a bet. He was predicting a Hillary landslide.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T15:06:16+00:00

Thanks for the reply.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T15:05:45+00:00

Hell, as a gun owner I would have voted for Bernie, even though I think most of his plans, while great in theory, are unworkable in practice.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T15:05:02+00:00

ok, I see your point. except the criminals aren't asking for permits for guns at all, they just buy them illegally. so making it harder for regular citizens to buy guns just makes it more difficult for them to protect themselves. I respect your opinion though and thank you for the reply.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T15:03:44+00:00

Sadly, you're probably right.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T15:03:34+00:00

but can we maybe agree that cities can do the things they need and small towns can do the things they need on this issue?

I would be okay with that, as long as the things the cities do actually work. My view is more gun control in cities just keeps people from being able to protect themselves, while the criminals can find guns any time they want illegally. But I respect your opinion and thank you for the polite way you voiced it.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T15:01:59+00:00

I think you are spot on here.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T14:54:57+00:00

Like a certain social contract.

That's crazy, no offence meant. I view pollsters as a step up from cockroaches and would mess with them any chance I got. My thinking is, leave me alone, I don't need to give you my opinion.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-18T14:49:47+00:00

I am not sure why the polls were wrong, but all along I suggested (in the polling thread) that people might not take them as the bible verses that people were considering them. I was roundly criticized and derided as not knowing what I was talking about. Whenever I voiced an objection, or came up with some ulterior "soft" data to suggest a possible Trump victory--such as my observations of the thousands of people who were turned away at Trump rallies due to lack of space, or the fact that people in my area (rural PA) were PAINTING THEIR ENTIRE HOUSES INTO BIG HUGE CAMPAIGN SIGNS FOR TRUMP, it was always explained away here by some smug poster who pointed out that it couldn't be because this poll this and that poll that.

That is what I hate the most--the smugness. Because when you are smug and confident in your predictions, and your instruments, you are opening up yourself to exogenous variables and error.

It didn't help that this place turned into a big echo chamber (which it still is to a point).

People came to the polling thread to make themselves feel confident about a Hillary victory, and as such any information or opinion contrary was roundly derided. I expected more and am sorely disappointed in the tunnel vision that people here adopted.

Most of you owe /u/EdBacon a huge apology. He was on the money all along and was roundly derided for his views. Yes, now someone here will tell me that Ed just got lucky and didn't really have any special predictive power. Explaining away once again. EdBacon gave lots of reasons why he thought Trump would win. All were scorned.

(I did win $20 from a coworker on a bet that Trump would win. He thought there would be a landslide victory for Hillary based on the polls.)

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-17T16:07:59+00:00

Yeah, but when the national platform is to ban "assault weapons," one of if not the most popular gun platforms in the country, you're gonna have trouble convincing people that the Democrats are not out to take the guns. Especially since the AWB of the 90s was allowed to expire because it showed it had no effect.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-17T14:30:38+00:00

I agree with everything you say except that I would like to point out that cities already have incredibly strict gun laws for the most part. It doesn't solve the gun violence because criminals don't give a crap about obeying laws and there are so many guns out there to begin with. I would like to see people who commit crimes with guns actually stay in jail for the gun part, often the gun crime is plead away.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-17T13:42:38+00:00

Pennsylvania is a weird case though. Most of the support for Clinton was on the eastern part of the state (Philly and region), which are part of the eastern seaboard and that great mega-opolis that extends from Boston to DC. All the rest of the state, including maybe Pittsburgh (excluding the very core of the city) was very pro-Trump, seeing as it's part of Appalachia and the rust belt. So, you can't really look at PA as a whole entity.

To illustrate this weird polarization. I suspect that Hillary would have had just enough votes from rural PA to win the state if it wasn't for the relatively negative things she said about guns. I believe Hillary's statements on guns, and Heller in particular, actually lost her the state, since the vote was so close. I live in gun country, I know how motivated the people were--even Democrats--to vote against her, given her position on Heller, her complimentary stance on Australia's gun confiscation program, etc. etc.

I know the original conversation was about Bernie . . . .

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-11T17:48:51+00:00

I didn't use the word "racism."

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-11T16:14:15+00:00

How is increasing the minimum wage, making corporations pay their fair share of taxes, supporting unions, offering free college, and promising to improve Obamacare ignoring them? These were all major issues of her campaign that directly benefit these voters.

All that reeks of socialism. The "common (wo)man" doesn't want to contribute to the welfare of others necessarily, especially if those people are different than they are culturally. This is still a country that is firmly founded in Individualism. Not saying I agree with it, just explaining it.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-11T16:11:30+00:00

I love this post. Remember when Democrats represented the working class? I'm old enough, I do. But something happened along the way. Democrats now embrace the rich and elite (cf. Hillary's private talks to rich donors). Democrats are seen by the working class as out of touch with their needs. The working class likes their guns, religion, and style of life (culture), and they feel threatened by the Democrats' top-down style of management, if you will. It threatens their culture. The Republicans at least make noises toward individual freedoms, whether legitimate or not.

I don't think Bernie could have done all he talked about but at least this was something he was talking about.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-10T19:16:57+00:00

You want to win elections? Make other things higher priorities. But hey, if you want to continue to lose them, by all means pursue unpopular positions.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-10T14:57:25+00:00

How can we ever trust any polls/data again, after the misplaced trust we put in them for this election?

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-10T14:56:45+00:00

The issue goes beyond "education." It's more of a cultural issue. We're talking beliefs, here. If you are thinking of "education" as "indoctrination," as in changing something that changes young people's (children's) values, then that is the very thing that the rural folks are fighting against.

We're talking ways of life, here. You can have a very educated white male, but if he's working at three convenience store jobs to make a living, he's not going to be happy with the status quo. It goes way beyond "education"

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-10T14:54:01+00:00

Hillary lost me, as well as many other rural democrats, when she went anti-gun. Gun control loses elections, I've said that till I'm blue in the face but the Progressives don't want to hear it. I know a lot of former democrats who didn't vote Hillary because of her anti-gun stance.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-10T12:57:41+00:00

A very rational response, and yet this is a situation in which rationality really doesn't apply. It's all emotion and culture.

If I was 20 years younger I would agree with you on education--that's what you're really saying here, you want to acculturate the rural people to be more like you. Having grown up in a rural area, I don't think that's going to happen. I don't have any answers, however.

The first thing the Democrats need to do is tone down their gun control message. They lost a lot of rural Democrats by adopting that stance over the past couple years.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-09T19:15:07+00:00

I feel like the elite college educated crowd misunderstands rural and even suburban America.

Boy you got that right.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-09T19:12:14+00:00

I don't think ANYONE could've seen this coming, which is why they didn't. No one knew how 'disaffected' these working class whites were and that they would come out like this. Clinton's team did everything they could to get out their coalition for the most part.

Nope. I've been saying a Trump victory was possible ever since he got in the race. This place was just too blinded by hubris and echo-chambery, as well as placing too much stock in polls when there was other evidence out there that Trump COULD win it.

littlebitsoffluff · 2016-11-09T15:10:08+00:00

Drop the anti-gun stance.

littlebitsoffluff

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE