Dems Need To Learn From the UK Election to UNITE under one message: GET HIM OUT!

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Here it is, via Evernote because of the NYRB paywall

Ur-Fascism | by Umberto Eco | The New York Review of Books

The New York Review of Books In 1942, at the age of ten, I received the First Provincial Award of Ludi Juveniles (a voluntary, compulsory competition for young Italian Fascists—that is, for every youn...

www.evernote.com

Jumped out at me:

The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.

 

[Kara Spengler]

But it doesn't work so well for an engineering firm. I can see plenty of office types that would work great with the open office plan, but when you need to concentrate as a major part of your job?

Exactly, there are some workflows where it works but others where it is terrible. I work in IT. The programmers and the sysops people dod not have as much overlap that we need to be hearing each other's convos every day.

 

[Kara Spengler]

56% of Americans are idiots.

We need to stop measuring the economy according to how the stock market is doing, how high corporate profits are, and how many people are trapped in jobs without benefits.

Yeah, we use terrible measures. Most people do not interact with the stock market directly (even with retirement accounts it all depends on what investments your broker picked).

Everyone knows that unemployment numbers are meaningless because they only track people for 18 months. During that you might even be employed but underemployed (and what you earn may or may not be deducted from your unemployment check).

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yeah, we use terrible measures. Most people do not interact with the stock market directly (even with retirement accounts it all depends on what investments your broker picked).

Everyone knows that unemployment numbers are meaningless because they only track people for 18 months. During that you might even be employed but underemployed (and what you earn may or may not be deducted from your unemployment check).

The performance of stock markets is, I think, usually considered important not simply because of the value of particular investors' portfolios but because it's a measure of investors' confidence in specific firms, areas of the market and of the economy in general.

Broadly speaking, a rising market indicates that people are sufficiently confident in the prospects for the economy, at least in the medium term, to be willing to invest in businesses rather than to keep their money in interest-bearing accounts or in government securities.

Obviously there are other reasons for this, too -- people who should know better (and probably do, and are just being disingenuous) have often pointed to the fact that the FTSE index rose dramatically when Leave won the 2016 referendum to support the idea that investors were excited at the prospect of Brexit without considering the fact that the equally dramatic fall in the value of stirling because of the same news suddenly made shares traded for £ in London considerably cheaper to anyone with Euros or US$ to invest.

But since there don't seem to be any similar factors at work in the US (though I'm hardly an expert) the healthy-looking Dow Jones presumably means that most sectors and companies are posting satisfactory figures for sales and profitability, and that investors reasonably confident this state of affairs will continue for a while.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

In the event that Bernie Sanders is the Democratic candidate and, nevertheless, Trump somehow manages to win, I will abandon all my material belongings and run naked through the streets screaming "I WAS WRONG, INNULA!" on my one way journey to the nearest convent.

I want pics!

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Nah it doesn't work that way. Republicans in large part seem to be comfortable (if not eager) with fascism but that doesn't mean everything Republicans touch turns into fascism, like some kind of Nazi Midas. Obamacare, as originally passed, was created via a bipartisan process and while it wasn't the single-payer system we need and deserve, it was a step in the right direction compared to what existed before it and also was 0% fascist.

The GOP is slowly destroying it now because they are in power and there is no bipartisan process to stop them, and that is the important part. Bernie Sanders may be a lot of people's perfect Socialist Superstar, but unless Dems absolutely sweep Congress then he's not going to be able to do most of the big important things he promises; none of the Dems candidates will. The president cannot impose Medicare-for-All; Congress has to do that. He can't blanket forgive all student loan debt; only Congress can do that. If the Dem's don't completely sweep Congress in November that means there's two things that can happen: 1) absolutely no progress of any kind at all, or 2) settling for imperfect steps-in-the-right-direction that are the result of compromise "with the fascists", like Obamacare, that will at least improve the current situation for people UNTIL such time as the DNC can get a current-Trump/GOP-level of control of the executive and legislature, and then of course they can do whatever they want.

The "I want it ALL right now or I f***ing quit" philosophy is childish and short-sighted.

I can't click the Agree button enough times. A lot of people seem to forget this important detail. This is what hamstrung Obama during much of his presidency.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

2010 and the clowns that wouldn't even give Merrick Garland a vote are two different topics, tho. Difference being 'will work with' and 'lol fuck you'. Y'all going to need to drop the kid gloves and forget anything resembling manners to clean out some of the installed pond scum put in place over the last three years.

2/3 the Senate would help.

 

[Brenda Archer]

.

How is the most unpopular and divisive president on his way to a second term?

Donald Trump has been campaigning since his inauguration with a lethal blend of rollicking rallies and rigorous data-gathering

www.theguardian.com

But this:

Moe Vela, an LGBTQ and Latino activist and former senior adviser to Biden, said: “We should figure out who they are and why they broke in his favor last time. We’ve got to better understand what compels a decent person to continue to support something so violent to what used to be our traditional American values.”

Vela is a Biden supporter, and these “decent person” voters who voted for Trump are that same demographic of white voters that nobody wants to believe are as racist/authoritarian/Christofascist as they are. But they are. These people are the “Fox demographic” white Trump voters. There is no new information here. White Americans really do include a large hard Right faction that’s about half of the “likely voters” and I don’t believe Biden can make that much more headway with them than Sanders, which is not much.

We certainly can’t address the authoritarian vote by insisting they’re misunderstood decent people who don’t mean it. The best you can say about some of them is that they’re too badly informed to know what they’re doing.

 

[Brenda Archer]

The performance of stock markets is, I think, usually considered important not simply because of the value of particular investors' portfolios but because it's a measure of investors' confidence in specific firms, areas of the market and of the economy in general.

Broadly speaking, a rising market indicates that people are sufficiently confident in the prospects for the economy, at least in the medium term, to be willing to invest in businesses rather than to keep their money in interest-bearing accounts or in government securities.

Obviously there are other reasons for this, too -- people who should know better (and probably do, and are just being disingenuous) have often pointed to the fact that the FTSE index rose dramatically when Leave won the 2016 referendum to support the idea that investors were excited at the prospect of Brexit without considering the fact that the equally dramatic fall in the value of stirling because of the same news suddenly made shares traded for £ in London considerably cheaper to anyone with Euros or US$ to invest.

But since there don't seem to be any similar factors at work in the US (though I'm hardly an expert) the healthy-looking Dow Jones presumably means that most sectors and companies are posting satisfactory figures for sales and profitability, and that investors reasonably confident this state of affairs will continue for a while.

About a tenth to a fourth of the population are doing okay - the ones with traditional jobs with benefits, home owning or another form of financial stability.

About half of workers do not earn a “living wage” which means they literally do not make enough money to cover all of the basics such as housing, healthcare, transportation or nutrition. Add to these the impoverished people on fixed incomes (many of them elderly), and discouraged workers and the underemployed, and it must be about half the population or more who are nowhere near a prosperous economy.

So the metrics that measure the top fourth of the economy look fine, but the foundation is rotting. It’s not sustainable. The mess being made of the Federal government is a symptom. *Most* people are in either poverty or precarity.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Vela is a Biden supporter, and these “decent person” voters who voted for Trump are that same demographic of white voters that nobody wants to believe are as racist/authoritarian/Christofascist as they are. But they are. These people are the “Fox demographic” white Trump voters. There is no new information here. White Americans really do include a large hard Right faction that’s about half of the “likely voters” and I don’t believe Biden can make that much more headway with them than Sanders, which is not much.

I can see the Democrats won't have much luck persuading racist/authoritarian/Christofascist voters to vote for them and not for Trump, but it appears that, alongside them, there's the group of voters who were insufficiently racist/authoritarian/Christofascist to be deterred from voting for Obama in two elections but who nevertheless voted for Trump in 2016.

If I were a Democratic strategist I'd certainly want to know why the allegiances of those particular voters shifted, and I would very much want to see if there was any way to win them back to my side later this year before I wrote them off as permanent defections.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

About a tenth to a fourth of the population are doing okay - the ones with traditional jobs with benefits, home owning or another form of financial stability.

About half of workers do not earn a “living wage” which means they literally do not make enough money to cover all of the basics such as housing, healthcare, transportation or nutrition. Add to these the impoverished people on fixed incomes (many of them elderly), and discouraged workers and the underemployed, and it must be about half the population or more who are nowhere near a prosperous economy.

So the metrics that measure the top fourth of the economy look fine, but the foundation is rotting. It’s not sustainable. The mess being made of the Federal government is a symptom. *Most* people are in either poverty or precarity.

I agree that stock exchange indexes are a crude measure of the state of an economy, but I was trying to answer Kara's point about why they're thought to be an economic indicator in the first place and why they're of interest to anyone other than people with money invested in funds that track them.

The Dow Jones or FTSE 500 are single variables that can, as I understand it, be identified as one of several factors that seem, either on their own in combination with other factors, to correlate to some extent with support for the ruling party in general elections -- not decisive by any means, but an important indicator nevertheless.

I've no idea whether people's voting intentions are thought to be influenced directly by the performance of stocks and shares or whether it's that the same factors that influence the behaviour of investors also influence the behaviour of voters, though I suspect it's going to be a mixture of both.

 

[Brenda Archer]

I can see the Democrats won't have much luck persuading racist/authoritarian/Christofascist voters to vote for them and not for Trump, but it appears that, alongside them, there's the group of voters who were insufficiently racist/authoritarian/Christofascist to be deterred from voting for Obama in two elections but who nevertheless voted for Trump in 2016.

If I were a Democratic strategist I'd certainly want to know why the allegiances of those particular voters shifted, and I would very much want to see if there was any way to win them back to my side later this year before I wrote them off as permanent defections.

We might have some of them back already - the support for Trump has definitely dropped.

I have a hard time imagining a voter who voted for Obama, but now prefers Trump to Biden or Buttigieg even after everything Trump has obviously done. Obama was good on farm policy, but the same people have been damaged by Trump’s tariffs.

There are probably a few people who can make money under the Republicans and don’t trust they can still carry on unchanged under the Dems - for example, people in fossil fuels or private health insurance. I don’t know what their numbers are.

I don’t think the hardcore Trump voters are economic, not when the Dems are running actual fiscal conservatives. I think they’re ideological. Dislodging someone from a religious or nationalist identity isn’t politics, it’s deconversion, a much more difficult and rare process.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

We might have some of them back already - the support for Trump has definitely dropped.

I have a hard time imagining a voter who voted for Obama, but now prefers Trump to Biden or Buttigieg even after everything Trump has obviously done. Obama was good on farm policy, but the same people have been damaged by Trump’s tariffs.

There are probably a few people who can make money under the Republicans and don’t trust they can still carry on unchanged under the Dems - for example, people in fossil fuels or private health insurance. I don’t know what their numbers are.

I don’t think the hardcore Trump voters are economic, not when the Dems are running actual fiscal conservatives. I think they’re ideological. Dislodging someone from a religious or nationalist identity isn’t politics, it’s deconversion, a much more difficult and rare process.

Probably there are several different reasons why people switched -- I can imagine, for example, discontented voters being attracted by Obama's promises of "change" and "hope," and by his remarkable personality and charisma, but in 2016, after nothing much had actually changed for them in the past 8 years, then switching to another candidate whose style and background were remarkably different to those of more traditional politicians and who also offered a radical (though very different) break with the past.

 

[Brenda Archer]

I agree that stock exchange indexes are a crude measure of the state of an economy, but I was trying to answer Kara's point about why they're thought to be an economic indicator in the first place and why they're of interest to anyone other than people with money invested in funds that track them.

The Dow Jones or FTSE 500 are singles variable that can, as I understand it, be identified as one of several factors that seem, either on their own in combination with other factors, to correlate to some extent with support for the ruling party in general elections -- not decisive by any means, but an important indicator nevertheless.

I've no idea whether people's voting intentions are thought to be influenced directly by the performance of stocks and shares or whether it's that the same factors that influence the behaviour of investors also influence the behaviour of voters, though I suspect it's going to be a mixture of both.

I agree it must be a factor for some.

Still, the economies of blue states are stronger than red ones, so a state like California is subsidizing Federal monies going to more rural red states. I don’t think “conservatism” is being driven by good economies in the red states, quite the opposite. Most rural areas are basically in a multi-decade depression.

There are still small business voters in blue states stuck on being Republicans. But they’re outnumbered.

I have yet to see a description in the media of the “swing voters” that isn’t actually about Trump voters.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Probably there are several different reasons why people switched -- I can imagine, for example, discontented voters being attracted by Obama's promises of "change" and "hope," and by his remarkable personality and charisma, but in 2016, after nothing much had actually changed for them in the past 8 years, then switching to another candidate whose style and background were remarkably different to those of more traditional politicians and who also offered a radical (though very different) break with the past.

There are probably still some protest voters. I haven’t seen anyone try to quantify it.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I have yet to see a description in the media of the “swing voters” that isn’t actually about Trump voters.

Well, yes. That's part of the definition of "swing voter" in this context -- someone who was prepared to vote for Obama but who switched to Trump.

Seems to me the question I'd want to answer, were I a strategist for the Democrats seeking to rebuild the coalition that elected Obama, is what motivated these people to vote for Obama in the first place, despite what are said to be their racist/authoritarian/Christofascist tendencies, and to try to determine what differentiates them from other voters from a similar demographic and background who hated him as much as did Fox News.

One group are not worth wasting time on, I agree, but the other group certainly would certainly seem worth trying to win back to the Democratic side, I would have thought.

 

[Brenda Archer]

Well, yes. That's part of the definition of "swing voter" in this context -- someone who was prepared to vote for Obama but who switched to Trump.

Seems to me the question I'd want to answer, were I a strategist for the Democrats seeking to rebuild the coalition that elected Obama, is what motivated these people to vote for Obama in the first place, despite what are said to be their racist/authoritarian/Christofascist tendencies, and to try to determine what differentiates them from other voters from a similar demographic and background who hated him as much as did Fox News.

One group are not worth wasting time on, I agree, but the other group certainly would certainly seem worth trying to win back to the Democratic side, I would have thought.

I don’t see that the Democrats are refusing to do an analysis. What I do see are a string of articles in the media all about how the Dems are neglecting people who won’t vote for any of the current candidates, including Biden.

But when they describe the people the Dems are presumably neglecting, it’s the same tired tropes about evangelicals and rural whites. These people are not going to be bribed into voting for Biden.

When someone’s business is being literally damaged by tariffs and immigration enforcement and that person is a Trumpian anyway, I don’t see how a moderate Dem can win them over.

There’s no magic key of unmet need. They’re voting for what they know hurts them. If it was about material needs, they’d stop.

People are leaving right wing religion - younger people. Younger people are also moving out of rural areas and into the suburbs in search of work. The rural areas concentrate poverty and aging.

There is a small percentage of evangelical voters who are POC and voted for Obama but will now vote for Trump. They’re going along with what’s being taught at church. I don’t see the Democrats reaching them, although there’s debate going on between liberal and right leaning evangelicals that should help. I think if any party tried to get involved in this, it could backfire. The church members need to sort this out.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I don’t see that the Democrats are refusing to do an analysis. What I do see are a string of articles in the media all about how the Dems are neglecting people who won’t vote for any of the current candidates, including Biden.

But when they describe the people the Dems are presumably neglecting, it’s the same tired tropes about evangelicals and rural whites. These people are not going to be bribed into voting for Biden.

When someone’s business is being literally damaged by tariffs and immigration enforcement and that person is a Trumpian anyway, I don’t see how a moderate Dem can win them over.

There’s no magic key of unmet need. They’re voting for what they know hurts them. If it was about material needs, they’d stop.

People are leaving right wing religion - younger people. Younger people are also moving out of rural areas and into the suburbs in search of work. The rural areas concentrate poverty and aging.

There is a small percentage of evangelical voters who are POC and voted for Obama but will now vote for Trump. They’re going along with what’s being taught at church. I don’t see the Democrats reaching them, although there’s debate going on between liberal and right leaning evangelicals that should help. I think if any party tried to get involved in this, it could backfire. The church members need to sort this out.

I don't disagree at all.

Perhaps I'm misled by the apparently similar situation in the UK, where Labour lost a whole swathe of traditionally safe seats to the Conservatives in the December elections.

Obviously we need to win those seats back if Labour is to win the next elections.

Does this mean that we should adopt anti-EU, anti-immigrant, protectionist, "blue Labour" policies (over here, blue is the Conservatives' colour and red that of Labour) to win them back?

Absolutely not! However, it does mean we need to look very closely at the social and economic conditions that caused traditionally loyal Labour voters to support Boris Johnson's party this time round and to develop credible policies that identify and address people's real concerns in those constituencies, which are typically ones that lost their industrial base in the 1980s and 90s and haven't seen much benefit from the transition to an economy based primarily on services, information and global markets and supply chains.

 

[Beebo Brink]

About a tenth to a fourth of the population are doing okay - the ones with traditional jobs with benefits, home owning or another form of financial stability.

This would include me and all my co-workers, but I don't think there's a single person in my office who likes Trump, not even the two Evangelical Christians. Which is not to say they're all Democrats, far from it. One of my managers consider himself an ex-Republican ("the party left me") but another still considers himself a Republican, but loathes Trump. I'm guessing there are other Republicans that just keep a low-profile (as do I, as a raving liberal).

I have a better time "understanding" who votes for Trump If I think of vague, conceptual groups of people. When it comes down to the people I actually know, it's confusing as hell. My co-workers are all decent family people who don't like Trump, regardless of their own party affiliation. My in-laws are decent family people who enthusiastically support Trump (along with some really mean relatives, who I'm not the least surprised are Trump supporters). It's gotten to the point whether I've given up predicting who is going to break in a particular direction. And this apprehension has made me very cautious and cynical -- I don't assume ANYTHING anymore about anyone, and it's always such a huge relief when someone I know confirms that they're still holding on to my same values.

<derail>
Back to that 10-25% demographic that is doing "okay". I'd say that's about right for describing the skewed distribution of wealth. Finally, about two years before I retire, I'm making a salary that falls in that range, at the same time that I'm free of mortgage or car loans. What I find so disconcerting is that despite this comfortable position, it's not like I can afford a lavish lifestyle. We still clip coupons, think twice about our purchases, and generally take a frugal approach to living. It's a sign of just how much wealth is concentrated at the very top of the scale (1-5%) that where I stand is pulled up so high compared to the general population.
</derail>

 

[Anya Ristow]

2020 is still Kumbaya compared to 2016 and 2008. Short of discovering that Joe Biden is running the DNC, or his campaign chair taking over as DNC chair, I don't think 2020 can turn out like 2016. Right now, the Bernie Bros most irksome challenger is the media.

Tom Perez is doing plenty bad enough