Florida minimum wage vote and social conservatism

[Agema]

In other words, "Sorry, minorities. Maybe next generation." Do you think they've heard that tune before?

The other side of the equation is that rhetoric also needs to clearly encompass the white working classes.

Here in the UK, studies have suggested the minute you launch into discussion of things like "privilege", you've just made it a ton harder to get through to poor white (and moreso probably male) kids, because they hear that and they start to think this is just them kicked to the back of queue again. Never mind that many of them are heavily disadvantaged and inclined to resent arguments that they have privilege (even if it is technically true).

In a sense, there is limited public attention out there, and if a candidate spends their time routinely checking minority tickboxes, that's less time they are going to spend ticking other boxes. BLM is huge, front page stuff, whilst whole post-industrial communities struggle and die with far less notice. So when Trump stands up and says "I'm for you guys!", it doesn't so much matter whether it's really true but that someone is clearly putting them up front and centre, and they like it.

Whether the Democrats like or not, they have conspicuously delivered enough that these people want, and they aren't really communicating with them in a way that makes them feel and special and loved, either. So they turned to Trump, who at least did the latter.

 

[Buyetyen]

Whether the Democrats like or not, they have conspicuously delivered enough that these people want, and they aren't really communicating with them in a way that makes them feel and special and loved, either. So they turned to Trump, who at least did the latter.

And I don't think focusing exclusively on economically progressive policies is going to make that big a dent in white grievance. The Republicans have that market locked up.

 

[Worgen]

The Democratic establishment aren't even that socially leftist. They're dedicated centrists, which as I've said are just conservatives with commitment issues. You're sounding a lot like them right now. "Oh, nobody wants us to be leftists! I guess we need to move further to the right to appease all the bigots."

What exactly does this even mean? Democrats have supported gay marriage, gay/trans rights, a womans choice, womens rights, minority rights, etc etc. What about them is socially conservative?

OT: Really if democrats wanted to win more then would just drop any talk of gun control and just embrace the occasional mass shooting like republicans do. Cause that is one issue that always dogs democrats and even if they said they would stop it would probably take a few cycles for it to stop showing up in the national conversation.

Another huge issue is abortion, but I don't see how democrats should change their position on this since the only alternative is just banning it. I guess the only wiggle room is the debate on the right about if a mothers life is in danger if an abortion should be allowed.

 

[Silvanus]

What exactly does this even mean? Democrats have supported gay marriage, gay/trans rights, a womans choice, womens rights, minority rights, etc etc. What about them is socially conservative?

The present-day Democratic Party isn't socially conservative in its platform, that's true. But it wasn't too long ago that they were taking socially-conservative stances that were deemed electorally "safe", and since there's a pretty big dynastic element in the party, a lot of those people are still around. They'll be reminded of their past obstructionism on these issues (and rightfully so).

Of course, the alternative is a Republican Party that openly embraces virulent right-wing social politics, so it's still no contest.

 

[Worgen]

The present-day Democratic Party isn't socially conservative in its platform, that's true. But it wasn't too long ago that they were taking socially-conservative stances that were deemed electorally "safe", and since there's a pretty big dynastic element in the party, a lot of those people are still around. They'll be reminded of their past obstructionism on these issues (and rightfully so).

Of course, the alternative is a Republican Party that openly embraces virulent right-wing social politics, so it's still no contest.

Then there is no point in bringing it up. Cause, yeah, back in the day the democratic party supported slavery and the republicans were the radical republicans who were much more socially progressive. But, that has swapped and its been swapped for like 50 or 60 years at this point so there is no point in bringing it up like that.

 

[Silvanus]

Then there is no point in bringing it up. Cause, yeah, back in the day the democratic party supported slavery and the republicans were the radical republicans who were much more socially progressive. But, that has swapped and its been swapped for like 50 or 60 years at this point so there is no point in bringing it up like that.

I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about a decade-or-so ago, when the same people who're still around and in charge of the Democratic Party had some shittier stances.

Like the 1994 Crime Bill, or the opposition to same-sex marriage. The platform has changed and they've improved drastically, but it's worth bringing up if it's the same people around.

As I say, though, it's still no contest with the absurd bastards on the other side.

 

[Agema]

And I don't think focusing exclusively on economically progressive policies is going to make that big a dent in white grievance. The Republicans have that market locked up.

I don't think they necessarily need to address white grievance: they need to deliver helpful policy.

It strikes me from vox pops that the Midwest want jobs and their communities revitalised. The Democrats haven't done this. Maybe they've pushed a bit of welfare here, some healthcare there, but they aren't really perceived as a party that stands up for workers. There's a problem that manufacturing jobs are fading and I honestly don't know anything can bring them back, but the laissez faire orthodoxy means the government just lets it happen. Some new jobs will arrive somewhere in some form, and people have to make do. 20,000 jobs created in California means next to nothing to 20,000 unemployed Ohioans. Obama bailed out the banks, and people lost their houses anyway.

What are they doing for these people? Why should they vote Democrat? I mean, progressives can lambast Republicans as a bunch of meanies all they like, but that's not enough to persuade, and if anything it's probably less helpful, because it's attacking someone who's unhappy with a party for failing them by just calling them a bigot.

 

[Worgen]

I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about a decade-or-so ago, when the same people who're still around and in charge of the Democratic Party had some shittier stances.

Like the 1994 Crime Bill, or the opposition to same-sex marriage. The platform has changed and they've improved drastically, but it's worth bringing up if it's the same people around.

As I say, though, it's still no contest with the absurd bastards on the other side.

That's the thing, even looking back then they were much more progressive then the republicans. The crime bill is a bad example since it had pretty wide support from across all groups since in the 90s crime was really high. While they did oppose same sex marriage they also put in place don't ask don't tell, which, while it was a garbage policy, it was way better then the whole 'kick any gays out of the military' we had before. It was a compromise for a time were you couldn't get better than that.

 

[Buyetyen]

What exactly does this even mean? Democrats have supported gay marriage, gay/trans rights, a womans choice, womens rights, minority rights, etc etc. What about them is socially conservative?

Let me rephrase. The Dems are not precisely leaders on these topics. The amount of effort it takes to get a real commitment out of them is frustrating as hell. They compromise with the Republicans and never learn that the Republicans will never compromise with them. They're too afraid of another Reagan-style victory to truly commit to any real progressive policy until it's already a sure-thing in the polls.

What are they doing for these people? Why should they vote Democrat? I mean, progressives can lambast Republicans as a bunch of meanies all they like, but that's not enough to persuade, and if anything it's probably less helpful, because it's attacking someone who's unhappy with a party for failing them by just calling them a bigot.

Fair. At the same time, there is no gain in telling already existing constituencies that their rights have to take a back seat. I won't deny that the Dems have ignored the working class in general. Focusing on them to the exclusion of other core constituencies is not a viable solution.

You notice the progressives who backed policies like better wages and M4A all won their races, most of them handily. The hardcore conservatives were convinced the Squad would be a bunch one-termers and they were wrong because it turns out people do like progressive policies, there's just a propaganda curve to overcome as Republican voters are conditioned to oppose anything the Democrats do reflexively.

 

[Worgen]

Let me rephrase. The Dems are not precisely leaders on these topics. The amount of effort it takes to get a real commitment out of them is frustrating as hell. They compromise with the Republicans and never learn that the Republicans will never compromise with them. They're too afraid of another Reagan-style victory to truly commit to any real progressive policy until it's already a sure-thing in the polls.

If you don't win then it doesn't matter what you believe since the other side can just do what they want.

 

[Silvanus]

That's the thing, even looking back then they were much more progressive then the republicans. The crime bill is a bad example since it had pretty wide support from across all groups since in the 90s crime was really high. While they did oppose same sex marriage they also put in place don't ask don't tell, which, while it was a garbage policy, it was way better then the whole 'kick any gays out of the military' we had before. It was a compromise for a time were you couldn't get better than that.

OK, but being better than the Republicans shouldn't exempt you from condemnation. All it should do is earn your support in a binary contest (like a Presidential election).

 

[Worgen]

OK, but being better than the Republicans shouldn't exempt you from condemnation. All it should do is earn your support in a binary contest (like a Presidential election).

You are still bringing up old news that isn't really relevant and they were still ahead of the curve and have kept going.

 

[Buyetyen]

If you don't win then it doesn't matter what you believe since the other side can just do what they want.

I don't disagree. Sadly, the establishment Dems excel in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory specifically because of their lack of courage and convictions. On the upshot, at least this cycle we got rid of a bunch of blue dogs.

 

[Kwak]

I guess. I'm honestly just frustrated to see the democrats using a lot of effort on something that won't win them any votes.
What is the point of pretending to be centrist on fiscal policy when everyone wants the leftist fiscal policy, but at the same time being super leftist on the social policy when large parts of the country wants centrist/right-leaning social policy?

That sums up the rationale for the left's hatred of liberals.

 

[Worgen]

I don't disagree. Sadly, the establishment Dems excel in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory specifically because of their lack of courage and convictions. On the upshot, at least this cycle we got rid of a bunch of blue dogs.

Its fun to say that but keep in mind, this year, Biden had 77 million votes and trump had 72 million. This is with a president who is trying as hard as he can be to a dictator and a large portion of the population seems to be fine with that. Its fun to think that the democrats have total control over their destiny but that just isn't true.

 

[happyninja42]

I don't buy this. The right has lost every culture war battle so far. If Americans were really as backward as you suppose, those victories never would have happened. The only reason we have culture war fights is because the right are better propagandists. And with the way demographics are shifting, I question the wisdom of betting everything on Dumb Whitey.

If the demographics are shifting away from a shitty state to a better one, that would by definition, mean it was previously the "backward ass americans" state for at least a non-insignificant percentage of the country. Not every american no, but enough to do things like elect a fuckwad like trump in the first place, and to agree to, and vote for policies that are fundamentally contrary to things like human decency and equal rights to all people. Because if we weren't IN that situation before, with, as you put it "the right losing every culture war so far", they had to have been in a position to lose from previously.

 

[Seanchaidh]

In the recent election Florida voted to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour making it one of the non-blue states to have a $15 minimum wage. This suggest that the american democratic party is misunderstanding opinion of the general populace, instead of being economically-centrist and socially-liberal the party should rather strive for left-leaning fiscal policy and a more centrist position on identity and culture issues.

Does this seem like an overstatement?

Yes, it does seem like an overstatement. The Democrats should not abandon marginalized groups. They should embrace a much further left economic viewpoint, though. That is to say, they should do that if they want to be useful to the people they supposedly represent.

 

[Silvanus]

You are still bringing up old news that isn't really relevant and they were still ahead of the curve and have kept going.

I mean, it's relevant to me. In a general election, I'll take what I can get; but in the Primaries, I'll be happier supporting somebody with a good history.

 

[Buyetyen]

If the demographics are shifting away from a shitty state to a better one, that would by definition, mean it was previously the "backward ass americans" state for at least a non-insignificant percentage of the country. Not every american no, but enough to do things like elect a fuckwad like trump in the first place, and to agree to, and vote for policies that are fundamentally contrary to things like human decency and equal rights to all people. Because if we weren't IN that situation before, with, as you put it "the right losing every culture war so far", they had to have been in a position to lose from previously.

Yeah, the pre-abolition days alone show that America has never been the most progressive nation in the world. I should have phrased things in more relative terms.

Anyway, I think there's a lesson to be learned in that Trump won the white vote this year, but still lost both the popular vote and the electoral college.

 

[happyninja42]

Yeah, the pre-abolition days alone show that America has never been the most progressive nation in the world. I should have phrased things in more relative terms.

Anyway, I think there's a lesson to be learned in that Trump won the white vote this year, but still lost both the popular vote and the electoral college.

Yeah as a white dude living in a red state, it was very depressing to go vote, but fuck if I wasn't going to at least try and swing it away from the religious idiocy that it currently is in. Sadly, it didn't work, based on the numbers. But, I at least tried. And enough people tried elsewhere to make differences in other states, so it added up.