The Democrat’s “Better Deal”
In a recent email exchange with Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism: “This is not going to work with voters. Tom Frank has been all over this topic, saying again and again, the Dems are refusing to give up on their losing strategy of focusing on the 10%, and are trying to cover for their abandonment of middle and working class people with identity politics.”
What Yves is commenting about is a recent post and the “ Better Deal” proposed by Schumer and Pelosi.
Schumer: “When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself,” In speaking on the Dems new plan, he continues; “So what did we do wrong? People did not know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump, and people still believe that.”
Pelosi: In a separate interview, the House Minority Leader says the new focus “is not a course correction; but, it is a presentation correction.”
Yves Smith again; “Pelosi is upfront that all the Dems are doing is trying a new PR strategy.”
Sounds like Schumer recognized the issue; but as Yves and Pelosi said, it “is not a course correction; but, it is a presentation correction.” In other words, we are going to say the same “stuff,” but it will be said in a different way. That is not going to work for urban and rural dwellers alike who are worried about everyday life. .
Progressives and activists both believe the repackaging of a failed message in 2016 is going to miss the targeted middle and lower income constituents needed to win the 2018 elections. Paul Ryan and his caucus speak of specifics such as “proposals to revamp poverty programs, health care and taxes, and a hawkish national security stance” which plays well to rural constituents who are fed news from conservative sources. In contrast, the Democrat party’s establishment economics addressing the 10% again fails to talk about the everyday life of the rest of voters with a progressive message addressing quality of life improvements. Democrats have to rebut Repub ideology with sound proposals reinforcing and improving healthcare, jobs, education, retirement, long term care, etc. which are attacked in Ryan’s message.
In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 37 percent of Americans said the Democrats currently stands for something, while 52 percent said it just stands against Trump. With Trump being one of the most unpopular Presidents early in his first term, Democrats miss the opportunity to define what they stand for specifically capitalizing on Trumps 36% rating with a strong countering economic message. Where is the loud rebuttal by Democrats to Trump’s attacks on progressive healthcare, student loan forgiveness, and minorities. Where is Democrat pushback to tax repeal for those making >$200,000 annually and tax cuts largely going to the 1% of the household taxpayers and large corporations?
“ Republicans talk in headlines; Democrats speak in fine print,” In his Brooklyn town hall meetings, Democrat Congressman Hakeem Jeffries heard the messages about “pocketbook issues, housing challenges, crime, public safety, failures of the public schools,” and little about the “existential threat to our democracy by Trump and the Russians or what is going on at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.” It is here the Democrat message fails with its sole concentration on Trump the person rather than attack on Trump administrative fubars, what the Republican economics means, and Republican policies. There is not enough of a loud outrage in the new Democrat party message. Instead of a new brew of political coffee to sip upon and savor like one would a Starbuck’s French pressed serving of Veranda, we are being served yesterday’s warmed over and weak political brew.
And in the end we will not turn 2018 into a resounding rebuttal of Republican policies and Trump.
I keep hearnig that Democrats are focused on anti-Trumpism. I don’t think so. Not the Democrats I hear and talk to. Perhaps the elite are talking to themselves too much.
Perhaps I am confused, but I believe that with the addition of the input of Sanders, the Dem platform was the most progressive in the history of the US.
Meanwhile, keep thinking that the Reps have any message that might appeal to the middle class. They never have. And anyone who thinks that trump was running on populism is a fool, or a racist trying to make it sound like he was for populist ideas given by a gene pool winning millionaire who thinks the white house is a dump.
Get the base out. Do it with progressive policies. And most importantly, do it with attacks on the Reps who are clearly racists.
As false as the message was in 2016, it was taken as a populist message by the middle and low income voters. The Dem message was never heard betwixt all the in-fighting, the Repub lies about HRC, and the failures of the organization itself. The Dem platform was never heard in 2016. We are going down a similar path with Russia and other distractions which are pulling the Dems away from the populist message they should be talking about now that Trump and Repubs are trying to kill healthcare, attack social programs, cut taxes for a small and wealthy minority, attack student loan forgiveness, malign immigrants, spout a make white-America great again, etc. The Dem message has again been put aside to attack Trump the great diversion and deflection. We are doing the same as we did in 2016.
The Dem message is not being heard no matter how good it is. Make sense EM?
Who are they racist against? White people. 75% of the Republican financial elite are Jews. Think about that EMichael. This dirty secret maybe should fire a brain impulse. The Democrats biggest financiers are the Anglo-Saxon Thatchers/Buffets and only 25% of the financial elite are jews. That is why they whine about Soros, despite his “finances” of Democrats falling in the 2010’s to near nothing. It makes them look bad. Southern whites like Sessions have been “house niggers” of the jewish financial elite since the 18th century. Anti-immigrant my ass. They want to decrease immigration where they can automate while pump temp. visa’s for jobs people SHOULD have.
It is all about the Independent vote. It is always about the Independent vote. It is not the bases. Especially since the Republican base is bigger in voting blocs. In 2006 and 2008, Independents went strongly Democratic. In 2010 they went strongly Republican and 2012 modestly Democratic. In 2014 they dropped to historic lows in voter turnout hurting Democrats and slightly went Republican in 2016. See the issue people? Forget the bases. Forget the colored vote. It went as far as it can. The Democrats got suckered in during the 2016 cycle by Trumps “anti-hispanic” blather and over campaigned for this vote. They failed them. Period. While half of the registered white working class did not even get out to vote in 2016. Think about that. Schumer and Pelosi have definitely been thinking about that. Forget about people that voted for Trump, they will again. It is the silent bloc of white vote that is key. The Democrats played for the colored mans vote and they failed the party. Pure and simple. Now it is time to play the small town vote for the sleeping giant it is and I don’t know the last time they did, what 1992?
You are going to have to do better than this to try to hide. Changing your name does not change your location. Spam will be your next destination.
The Dems have to get their message across to the low income, those lacking jobs, and those who believe they suffer because they are not a minority today. The nation is still mostly white, anti-Semite, racist, and focused on those in an income bracket who wield power in their favor. Your message is clear and the vulgarity of it is alarming. An alt-leftist with a Breitbart message.
You get “one-identity.” Which one do you wish? If you keep doing this, I am going to put you in spam.
Ahhhh….reminds me of the troll years in 09. Cantab was much smarter than Bert/Anglosaxon
“The Rage” is the same person also. three monickers.
I disagree with you on American voters. I have seen no change on Rep voters since the Civil Rights Act was passed. The only thing that matters is if their base is excited enough to get out and vote. Trump gave them the thing they have always waited for, a man that took the racist dog whistles and threw them out the window and plainly ran on racism.
His campaign, was basically two three word comments, “Lock Her Up” and “Build That Wall”.
That is all anyone of trump voters heard, and it was all they needed to hear.
GOT THIS SPAM FROM NANCY PELOSI A WEEK OR SO AGO — WHICH I RE-SPAMMED TO HER DISTRICT (S.F. pols and papers).
“As we first introduce A Better Deal to the American people – with more to come – we are setting out three ambitious new economic initiatives:
* Good-paying, full-time jobs for 10 million more Americans in the next five years.
* Aggressive action to lower the cost of prescription drugs.
* Cracking down on the monopolies and mergers driving up Americans’ cost of living.”
— 70 million of our 150 million workforce are earning less than $15/hr — teenager’s wages. the same 45% has lost 33% of its income share over two generations. Wanna try again, Nancy — to start a stampede towards Democratic Party doors?
— The laws on the books could already stop Gilead from demanding $500 billion to wipe out all forms of Hepatitis in America (Epclusa) — which no one raises a finger to enforce (Obama doesn’t care).
— The latter is the real deal if you believe an excellent article by David Dayen …
What Do Democrats Stand For? The Party Finally Has the Right Answer By David Dayen, July 24, 2017
… which article predictably puts the exploited cart before the de-unionized horse — predictably from our academic liberals who never seem to get whether the chicken of the egg came first.
I never understand why not.
PUSH ALL THE usual Dem social programs — get them passed — none of them, nor all of them, will bring back Chicago’s south side and west side where half of minority young men join drug dealing street gangs. Got to rebuild our social fabric from the bottom up — meaning give back to people their natural economic and political muscle. That’s called labor unions and doing it is so easy — you don’t have to get into any convoluted theoretical economic discussions — you just have to make possible organizing labor unions anytime people want to — and get out of their way and watch them build (re-build) America.
I’ve been pushing THIS (1100 email addresses, two messages, so far to California — now starting or Oregon):
What percentage of registered voters ARE SO DESPERATE they would line up around the block to sign a BALLOT INITIATIVE to make union busting a felony? What percentage of American employees are earning less than $15/hr? What percentage lost 33% of the income share over last 50 years? All three, same percentage: 45% (10-15% lost ground absolutely while per capita income doubled relatively).
What percentage of registered voters need to sign up to put anti-union busting law on the ballot (goes immediately into effect as law in California)? 5% of the number who voted in last governor’s race — amounting to about 3% of registered voters. Using “lining up around the block” as our street demo, it should be a walkover. (Wanna join the fun?!)
Cannot tell from here in Chicago if anything is happening.
Notes to myself on my next angle:
— framing anti-union busting legislation as CIVIL RIGHTS legislation evaporates any worries about federal reg preemption
— for the same market effect desired by certification giving the union the exclusive right to bargain with the employer, right-to-work laws which allow self selected employees a free ride are wrong
— state civil rights laws may co-exist along with federal civil rights laws
— certification vote much more immediate personal effect on well being of participants than political voting
— no point in protecting the vote if union is neutralized afterwards, need broad spectrum felony protection
— felony fits for muscling market — but what about passively refusing to bargain; shut down business if wont bargain in good faith?
— if it makes sense for government to be barred from interfering with commercial freedom of association by the First Amendment, it makes equal sense for business ownership to be barred from infringing the same (legislated) freedom by state law.
Just some angles that may turn into something.
Meanwhile, when are Dem pols going to realize that the only way to put the country back together (think Chicago shootings) is to return to people their full econ and political power. (Practical result: McDonald’s pays $15/hr (33% labor costs), Target pays $20/hr (10-15% labor costs), Walmart pays maybe $25/hr (7% labor costs!).
Oh, and immigrants who now take $10/hr jobs Americans (gangbangers) wont take will be happy too when the price of labor jumps up — they will be last hired at C Micky D’s but they will be hired. The economy expands when it absorbs new (higher paid in this case) workers. Basically unions will make available jobs pay enough to live on decently (no need to import manufacturing).
REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE NO PLACE TO HIDE.
Run, In terms of Dem voters we agree more. The damage done by the berniebros and/or sarandonistas (not by Bernie Sanders so much) cannot be measured.
I am not big on predicting elections but thought, right up until the Dem convention, that Hillary would win despite the baggage. When I saw those imbeciles at the convention I got really worried.
Of course, there were many other reasons for the loss, but this one alone was big enough for the loss. Those people are all suffering from a chronic case of the Terrible Twos, and would rather see trump as president as opposed to abandonment of their “moral purity”.
Trump’s message is simple: to make us safe, get the economy booming, enable a job-creation economy, and make life better and safer for all Americans.
What is the Dem message? Who is their leader?
You got safe in there twice. In what world does building a wall on the Mexican border make us safe? Or safer?
Seven months, where is the economic plan to make the economy booming?
So he has done nothing, except scare the devil out of US allies, and convince the leaders of Mexico and Australia, amongst others, that he is mentally unfit and totally unable to put together two coherent sentences on any topic.
Events of the last year should be no surprise to anyone as the whole process started in 2001. GW was an abysmal President with a single prescription for all that ailed us: tax cuts. The economy was booming – we need tax cuts to give people back their money. The economy soured – we need tax cuts to jumpstart prosperity. Such simplemindedness usually leads to disaster, which came in 2007.
GW should have the last Republican President for a long time. He left his party in shambles. The Republicans didn’t even him want him showing his face at the 2008 Convention.
Then we had Obama. He ran on Hope and Change. But there was no change on the economy. His one break with GW was to introduce a healthcare program that seemed designed to fail. Heck, he was more do-nothing than GW. At least the Enron players were prosecuted. Who paid a price for the liar loans and other financial malfeasance? Oh yeah. The taxpayer.
Predictably, the economy sucked during the Obama Presidency. But Democrats didn’t even figure out what was obvious to Republicans in 2008. They didn’t pack Obama away into a closet as someone of whom they should be ashamed. They put him front and center, and kept telling us that if he could run for a third term he’d win.
So along come two candidates. One promises to bring jobs and prosperity, and the other’s campaign slogan essentially translates as “It’s my turn.” It doesn’t really matter that the promise maker had no idea to do what he what he promised. At least he seemed to fulfill step 1 of the Alcoholic’s Anonymous program.
The first sanity I’ve seen in a while from the Democrat establishment is this comment by Schumer in the post: if you lost to a candidate this bad the joke is on you, and you have to change. And Democrats have been losing since Nov 2016. We’ve had special elections, and this week the Democrat Governor of WV switched sides.
“You dumb bastards should have known better than to vote for Trump” is proving to be, predictably, a worse campaign slogan than “It’s my turn.” Maybe Schumer can continue noticing reality and drag the party in its general direction. But I’ll believe it when I see it.
Anyone who did not know what the Dem platform was in the 2016 election was not interested in the Dem platform. They had to miss all of the debates(on to mention the primary debates); they had to miss the Convention; they had to ignore all of the interviews; and or course they had to have no interest to hit “Dem platform” on google.
But I love that those same people were the ones who, for eight years(and beyond), attack Obama despite his accomplishments with a Congress fighting him tool and nail because black.
I saw NC and Smith and her posse do it with the ACA; saw her and those same people do it with the 2016 election; and now see that they intend to do the same thing in the future.
Her, and people like her, are a greater threat to the progressive movement in the US than the Alt Right.
Oh, and they can’t count either.
This is why Naked Capitalism should not be read. Smith’s canard “of focusing on the 10%” doesn’t go challenged. Course, it is not true, nor is it true that Clinton ran on doing such.
“A new examination from the Council of Economic Advisers credits the Obama presidency for the most aggressive and successful attempt to reduce inequality in half a century. “President Obama has overseen the largest increase in federal investment to reduce inequality since the Great Society,” the economists write.
One might immediately think to dismiss such a report as shameless self-promotion from the White House. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reached the exact same conclusion in June. It found that the federal government is doing more to reduce inequality right now than any time on record, going back at least 35 years. The gap between the rich and poor is as wide as ever judging by before-tax income (e.g., wages and capital gains). But judging by after-tax income, the CBO found that income inequality is no higher than it was in 2000, and Obama’s policies have done more to reduce inequality in the last few years than any other time on record.*
In other words, Obama’s economic policies have fought the stubborn forces of economic inequality to something of standstill. How has he done it? President Obama’s anti-inequality crusade has three main pillars.
First, the centerpiece of Obama’s anti-inequality legacy is the policy that bears his name. Obamacare, a.k.a., the Affordable Care Act, has reduced the uninsured rate from about 16 percent in 2010 to less than 9 percent today, the lowest level in U.S. history. Health insurance is not yet universal, but it is in the process of universalizing, thanks to the president’s landmark bill.
Obama’s health care reform increased coverage primarily through several channels, expanding Medicaid for the poor, subsidizing private insurance plans for the middle class, and allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 27. Indeed, the largest reduction in the uninsured was among young people between 19 and 26. But perhaps this is the law’s greatest achievement: The uninsured rate among families living in poverty or just above the poverty line fell by almost 50 percent.
It is tricky to determine the “average” benefit of a health care plan, since unlike a tax credit, health care spending is, by definition, uncertain and spiky. Sick people need immediate and expensive care, while healthy individuals sometimes goes years without seeing a doctor or visiting a hospital. But there are some acceptable estimates. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has calculated that the average expenses covered by Medicaid under Obamacare next year will be about $5,400—or, about 15 percent of household income for a family of four at the threshold of Medicaid eligibility. The CBO estimated that the average benefit of individuals receiving subsidized coverage is $4,500.
Second, several subtle yet significant tax changes under Obama have made the tax code more progressive. The stimulus bill passed in 2009, a.k.a., the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (or, simply, the Recovery Act), included the most important changes. The law created the Making Work Pay credit, expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, and created new tax credits, like the American Opportunity Tax Credit for college attendees. Most of these measures have been extended through 2017. The most significant change to the tax code since 2010 has been the eleventh-hour agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts for all families except for an increase in the top tax rate for households making more than $450,000 and an increase in the estate tax rate to 40 percent.
All told, these changes made the tax code more progressive over a period when the economic gains of the recovery went disproportionately toward the richest Americans. The richest 1 percent of households earned about 99 percent of the income gains in the years after the recession. But the most common measures of income inequality did not explode in this period. The reason why is fairly simple. Obama’s tax policies increased the non-1-percenters’ share of income more than any president since perhaps FDR.”
And all that was, and is, ignored because the enemy of perfect is good.
Uninsured was 18.2% in 2010. Uninsured was 18.2% in 2010 KFF amongst the non-elderly. The 2001-2003 tax cuts which sunset in 2014(?) are an excellent example of how Reconciliation works in that a bill passed under Reconciliation can not create a deficit. The funding of Medicare, Medicaid, and ACA subsidies for young and old who are <400% FPL was accomplished with taxes on those making >$200,000 annually and capital gains taxes.
Obama was not a slouch.
If the economy under Trump never improves from where it is now, no doubt when he is running for re-election Trump will tweet about how its the bestest economy evah. But that doesn’t mean anyone else will believe it. There is a difference between having an initiative and committing resources to doing something and having positive outcomes. Otherwise, we would say that GW produced a fantastic economy and former Sec of State’s machinations led to a fine outcome in Libya.
Having as a goal of reducing income inequality is irrelevant except as a campaign talking point. Putting programs in place is also irrelevant.
Having policies is irrelevant. If you’re measuring him by income inequality, than the question is – did he succeed or did he fail? The Gini coefficient (data through 2015) says no. Nobody elects a President for him to fail.
As to healthcare – the question isn’t whether the good is the enemy of the perfect. The question is whether the program could survive much longer. In Aug 2016 Aetna announced they were pulling out of 11 of the 15 exchanges they were on. There have been other similar announcements by others, including big names like Humana, Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.
Simply put, if you create a system that is dependent on health insurer participation, and the health insurers don’t participate, you don’t have a system that can survive very long. If you want to give Obama credit for creating a tool that temporarily insured a lot of people but will pull the rug out from under them a few years later, so be it. But temporary victories don’t win elections in the long run. Nor should they.
Why did they pull out of the healthcare exchanges??? Most recently, they said they may be coming back.
The debates barely touched policy. The few times that it did Hillary’s answers were fine. But how any people see the debates and how any people see the single one-sentence blurb that the news broadcasts give to even a local speech. For that matter, how many hear the speech? Thousands at best, which is a drop in the bucket in a state like Michigan with a population of 10 million.
The platform had plenty to work with to show how she (and all Democrats) would be different from Trump and Republicans, and she presented a strong and positive image talking policy in clear language to small groups. But you never saw any of it in TV commercials, only Trump being a jerk. You saw no national brand advertising by DNC DSCC or DCCC to support Democrats running for Congress in winnable districts.
The one and only way to get your message across to most people is by TV advertising — with, sure, some alternative media. The press, electronic and print, will not do it. And one of these days Democratic leaders will realize that 30-second commercials work only to validate the feelings of the already-converted. They will never move the fence-sitters. You have to tell some kind of story; you need to bite the bullet and buy the time needed — whatever it is — to tell your story.
I tend to agree with you. Not only did media fail HRC, the Dem party failed to come out of the box aggressively with a story of what the party supposedly stands for with everyday America.
If the system isn’t working well because the insurers are integral the system and can game the system, the fault lies with those who designed a system which made insurers integral to the system and made the system game-able by insurers. Lack of foresight lack of responsibility for the outcome.
You should know this Mike. Section 227 2015 Appropriations signed in December 2014. Repubs Sessions, Upton, and Kingston. Eve our resident insurance man John Little liked the explanation. Same program as used in Part D.
A few accomplishments Politifact likes. There is more by other people too.
Nice to know that stupid comments are not all due to racist thoughts. Though I am sure there is a little in those stupid statement due to Obama;s race.
Never saw so many silly lies. A new CoRev. ANd he is allowed to write columns.
That’s just great.
Once again, Obama set up a system that required money transfers. When he set it up, it was obvious that was a weak link. The fact that GW created the same weak link in Medicare Part D is not a good reason to do the same thing. (This is precisely what I have been noting over and over about Obama looking at the bad ideas that GW implemented and then following along the same path.)
Once Obama went down that path, the only defense was making it so popular that nobody would dare touch it. But he didn’t sell it sufficiently well, nor did the system sell itself sufficiently well to overcome the vulnerability he built into the system. In other words: poor strategy.
What lies? And what is this race obsession of yours? I have attacked GW far more times than Obama over the years. Is that because I don’t white people either? Or WASPs who pretend they’re Texans?
I will let you in on a little secret. The annualized growth rate in real GDP per capita from 1992 to 2000 was 2.7%. From 2000 to 2008 it was 1.1% and from 2008 to 2016 it was 0.7%. If it had been 2.7% from 2000 to 2008, or from 2008 to 2016 (or 2010 to 2016 to leave out the Great Recession), I would be as complementary toward GW and Obama as little as I am toward Bill Clinton. And guess what? If Obama had pulled that off, Hilary Clinton would be President today. If GW had pulled it off, his brother would be President today. But the reality is – both men were failures as leaders and failures as Presidents.
Here is what you missed. Yes the administration can not appropriate funds as determined by the GAO, which was asked for by then Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (looks like the Reverend Henry Kaine). Ok one mistake made; but, there still was an out for the administration as also determined by the GAO. The administration could transfer funds from one program to another to seed the fund until the appropriate transfers could be acquired from more profitable (>3%) insurance companies.
CBO scored the program positive as raising $8 billion in revenue.
Here is where it gets interesting. Rep Fred Upton from Michigan went to Colorado Rep Jack Kingston (Appropriations Panel Chairman) and asked him if he could block the transfer of funds. In the 2015 Appropriations Act (signed December 2014), the sentence inserted said no “other” funds in this bill could be used for Risk Corridor payments. The results are as listed by Charles Gaba.
– up to 800,000 people nationally lost their insurance coverage, on very short notice, and were forced to scramble to find alternate coverage
– the new coverage these people ended up with is generally more expensive, and in many cases has worse networks
– the federal government has to therefore pay out more in premium subsidies to cover the increased costs as benchmark plans were increased
over a dozen insurance carriers went out of business, meaning hundreds of people lost their jobs
– the loss of over a dozen carriers means less competition in those markets, therefore less competition, therefore higher premiums, therefore even more cost to the federal government in subsidies to make up the difference
– since all of the carriers which went out of business were little guys, this also means the big kahunas suck up even more market share.
Premiums increase, Coops go out of business, insurance companies lose money and/or leave the exchanges.
Your other comment on GWH lack merit. You can not strategize when the other side of Congress is adamantly against you from day one and gains control of the House (remember this is 2014). The program works well for Part D other than still continuing when it should have ended after the market was sorted out and stabilized. The Repub Part D program is a certified bailout of Pharma insurance companies. Obama’s program was for 4 years and would have ended.
Jesus people are stupid.
Has the science of human behavior really not progressed from John Stuart Mill impressing himself in the mirror with how smart and precocious a young man he is?
What is the empirical evidence behind the claim that the Democrats’ message failed in 2016?
What is the empirical evidence that the Democrats’ message succeeded in 2006?
What is the evidence against the point that every 8 years a certain number of “change” voters simply vote for the party out of office and swing the election?
Smart college educated liberals all assume that the thing they value most–the skills rewarded in pursuit of a liberal education–are the skills that win elections. But the study of human behavior is fairly conclusive on this point: voting has almost nothing to do logic and rational argument.
Tom Franks is a moron. He refuses to accept humans as the irrational emotional survivors of selection pressure that they are. If they aren’t being rational about x, then they must be being rational about y.
No. They must not! Have you met any humans!
Politics is the struggle to create a team identity that brings together a coalition of voters and gets them to the polls, ideally an identity that is not inconsistent with an evidence based policy platform that will serve the greater good. It’s not fucking physics. It’s human behavior. House races are seriously local and idiosyncratic. National races are about turning out your team and then vicious fights on the margins for low information voters.
If we are lucky, Trump will have inspired some good candidates to run in those idiosyncratic House races where good candidates make all the difference. If we’re lucky, the media narrative going into 2018 will be about health care and competent government. In all likelihood the Press will obsess about Russia, to the chagrin of Democratic leaders, and then that same Russia obsessed media will blame Democratic leaders for making the election about Russia.
Well, a hardy welcome to you too!!! It is good to see you stop in your occasional drive-bys. Don’t pick on JSM as I often cite him in passing along with a host of others. Voting does not have much logic to it; hence, the post.
House races in Michigan are seriously gerrymandered and have gotten even more so since 1990 as Repubs control the legislature. We have a problem here and also with people being given a chance to think logically or illogically voting as you might or will say. The same issue exists in other states as well.
I agree with your last sentence and Dems must come out loudly on the other necessary topics and not let the Russian House distract or deflect from the topics Dems must promote as their message to constituents. Again, hence my post.
First, my racial obsession is based on your posts.
Second, you have this incredible habit of picking out stats that support your thoughts without looking at other things and without looking at exactly what those stats say(not interested in gini coefficients that do not include redistributions).
Second, I am not interested in numbers that fail to take into account a Congress that stopped myriad programs to solve our demand shortages.
Nor am I interested in numbers that ignore where we were, and where the world was in January 2009. You think you are comparing apples to apples, when you are comparing apples to what you want apples to be.
You should read that Atlantic column about a hundred times. Notice how they couch their comments. Notice how they take into account things that do not embrace their thesis.
You should give that a lot of thought.
The single most overlooked fact in politics: self-bias of the media.
Specifically, the media never notices the role it plays because they are too busy congratulating themselves on being objective. Then, in return for pimping their books, political science professors decide not to notice either and go searching for statistically significant correlations between every number generated by BLS and every number generated by exit polls until they stumble on the p value that will give them tenure.
In our very evenly divided electorate, the candidate that the press doesn’t hate, wins. Maybe Bill Clinton was so talented he could overcome this. He also had the drama of a comeback on his side.
Press thought Carter was a loser.
Press thought Mondale was a less good copy of a loser.
Press didn’t like HW or Dukakis.
Press thought HW was an out of touch patrician who couldn’t relate to the South.
Press thought Bob Dole was boring and about to die.
Press hated Al Gore and made up lies about him.
Press hated John Kerry and repeated the lies of others.
Obama was awesome.
Press hated Hillary more than anyone has ever hated anyone before.
As far as exit polls I doubt if many voters ever said I am a bigot or a misogynist.
I’ll take your press thoughts right up until about the mid 90s. That was when journalism changed. And it has gotten worse. It is not longer solely about finding facts and reporting them. That depends on which press, and even the “liberal press” has its problems in that area.
But half the electorate gets its news from Fox or even worse sources. And they pay no attention to facts at all.
“Fox News featured over twice as many falsehoods as truths. Over the past year, Fox News’ prime-time programs featured 79 true statements about voting and 197 false statements on the topic.
Six true statements and three false statements were made on The Five.
Twenty-two true statements and 15 false statements were made on Special Report.
Eight true statements and 23 false statements were made on On the Record.
Three true statements and two false statements were made on The Story.
Eight true statements and one false statement were made on First 100 Days.
Thirteen true statements and 43 false statements were made on Tucker Carlson Tonight.
Eleven true statements and 41 false statements were made on The O’Reilly Factor.
Six true statements and 17 false statements were made on The Kelly File.
Two true statements and 50 false statements were made on Hannity.”
The press still has power, but half of it is only about one thing, and it ain’t journalism.
Its been pointed out that a lot of the these supposed bigots and misogynists voted for Hilary in the primaries in 2008 and/or for Obama in the general elections in 2008. Perhaps some of those voters simply updated their priors after had the opportunity to watch Obama as President and Hilary as Sec of State or as a candidate.
On the other side of the aisle, it is pretty apparent that there were people who voted for GW twice but couldn’t stomach him by 2008. The leaders of Republican Party listened and kept GW hidden away during the 2008 election. It wasn’t enough given the electorate was still living through Mr. Bush’s Great Recession, but at least it displayed something resembling a sense of awareness.
I do not suffer from the same Obama malady which plagues you. “Its been pointed out?” Of course it has Mike and I am sure they were very open with their thoughts about Obama and HRC. Maybe Bannon and Spencer, etc. were. There was little wrong with HRC other than the super imposed baggage assigned to her by Repubs who failed to prove anything other than assumptions through 6+ congressional investigations and other investigations. It sold advertising for the media.
HRC’s flaw was not side stepping the distractions after a bit and concentrating on the Dem program offerings.
As far as GWB being aware of economy and other things around him, here are some of his more famous quotes on the economy. Have you ever heard Bush’s “He married well comments? Just a few:
Quotes – Repeat Offender (Married Well)
“In my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda.” – Dubya, May 24, 2005
This repeat offense can be found in many of Dubya’s (campaign) appearances, where he mentions people in attendance as having married well, and he usually drops in a good word for himself and the rest of the Bush clan while he’s at it.
But the thing I like about him [former Representative Bill Janklow] is he married well — he’s honest and he loves the people, and he loves the people. (Mar. 9, 2001)
Well, the Chinese, I’m convinced, like my father because he married well. (Mar. 22, 2001)
I love your Governor. It seems like the people of Connecticut do, too. And like me, he married well. (Apr. 18, 2001)
First, I’m here to urge the people of Alabama to send this good man, Jeff Sessions, back to the United States Senate. He’s doing a great job. He’s a solid citizen who brings integrity to the office. Plus, he’s got a friend in the White House. He married well, too. It’s good to be here with Mary. (Jun. 22, 2001)
I’m honored that the first chairman of America’s Promise [Colin Powell] agreed to be our nation’s Secretary of State. He’s doing a fantastic job for our country. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Like me, he married well. Thank you for being here, Alma. (Jul. 9, 2001)
He’s [Colorado Governor Bill Owens] cut the taxes, he’s made education a priority and you need to send him back, you need to put him back in the Statehouse. Plus, he married well. (Aug. 14, 2001)
I want to thank [VFW] Commander-in-Chief [John W. Smart]. John has been in the Oval Office. He is a true advocate for the veterans. He has done a fine job. And, like me, he married well. (Aug. 20, 2001)
I wish my wife were with me. Like Harry Truman, I married well. (Aug. 21, 2001)
First, let me say something about your governor. I appreciate so very much his hospitality. I know you appreciate his leadership. You’ve got a good one as Governor of Wisconsin and make sure you send him back here in two years’ time. And like me, he married well. (Sep. 3, 2001)
And I want to thank you all for coming to support my good, close friend, George Pataki. He has done a — If for no other reason you ought to send him back, it’s because, like me, he married well. (Feb. 6, 2002)
How would you know, if they ever truthfully answered the question in exit polling??? Do lie detector testing? No person will admit to being a bigot in public as the smell lingers forever.
I love this swing voter meme.
Yeah, counties changed from Dem to Rep, that means the voters in the counties changed their voter from Dem to Rep.
That is the only thing that could have caused that result?
Nothing else comes to mind?
The approval ratings for the US House and Senate are very very low. Those are ratings for the establishment. And the establishment is Republican or Democrat.
During the Republican presidential primaries the establishment ran against Donald Trump. A poll would find that Donald Trump was losing and then he would win that state’s Republican primary election. This continued right up until the Republican convention when the establishment threatened to take the nomination from the man who the electorate supported.
During the general election the establishment Democrats bashed the Republican candidate every time they got a chance. And even on election night the polls said that Donald Trump would lose this or that state and then Donald Trump would win that state.
A dominate factor in the last presidential election was that very few potential voters were willing to openly support Donald Trump. But they voted for him.
He was the only candidate who gave a voice to those complaining about illegal immigration and Global Free Trade.
How do you change that? The establishment hated him for it and they still do.
Either Democrats or Republicans will have to steal his issues. But the Democrats will never ever accept that illegal immigration has to end or that deportations are necessary to send that message to latin America. And the Republicans will never ever accept that Global Free Trade has to end.
And so both parties are trapped. Changes? Nibble, nibble, nibble!
I do think there is a better way to formulate the PPACA’s reinsurance agreement and Part D provides a template.
However part of the problem with any legislation is durability. When W was president and the GOP controlled both legislative chambers there was serious talk of eliminating the estate tax. One of our industry’s top lobbyists (a Clinton administration veteran) said, “Don’t worry, if this passes the next time the Democrats control the lawmaking apparatus they’ll bring back the estate tax.” A similar issue surrounds the PPACA. This is just one of many issues that will probably cause the PPACA to be altered.
I remember our conversations. You were a bit encouraged I was tackling this as a topic. I do listen. PPACA RC was supposed to be short term and not longer than 4 years. I do not expect the ACA to be forever. It will migrate and hopefully to something better. Thank you for your comment John. 🙂
It’s not a fair comment to say that Republicans deliberately sabotaging a law designed to help people and move toward universal health insurance shows flaws in the law.
First, has this level of deliberate sabotage, even to the point of trying to deny as any people as possible of coverage — including the ridiculous Supreme Court decision — and trying to make people pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars more for health insurance and health care, ever been seen in modern history? Not easy to anticipate this amount of deliberate damage being inflicted, especially considering the heavy Republican provenance in the structure of the law.
Second, you have to establish that a different approach — say, single payer — could not have been sabotaged by legislators equally bent on doing so. Every law has weak points; it would just have different ones.
In very recent history, 19 Republican governors have turned down Medicaid expansion even though it pays 90% of costs. The would be Medicaid patients are going to show up somewhere in the state to be treated (maybe when they are sicker and costlier to treat) — and the costs will end up being folded into everybody’s private premiums and other gov programs …
… all at higher prices than Medicaid’s low, low fees. Or should we say higher than ONLY 10% of those low, low fees!!!
Meantime, the same states give away billions of tax savings to attract jobs. But won’t take free money to create really high quality health care jobs.
In one sense the money is not really free — in one sense: the same states SENT THE MONEY TO WASHINGTON IN THE FIRST PLACE AND FOR SOME REASON DON’T WANT IT BACK.
Hard to beat all that for crazy. Can anybody come up with anything crazier?
Thanks run, I must admit I admire your tenacity!
Legend- I think you’re being naive. But I must say you’re right. No law is perfect.
Run this is such a complicated topic you could post daily on the intricacies
It Is complex and I find myself going back to review things time and time again For example, ACA means testing for subsidies could have been as simple as applying the same limits to it as is found in Medicare. Maybe a subsidy stops at 400% FPL (not just the 9%); but, you could hold cost at 9% 0f income up to 170,000 joint return and 85,000 individual. A family of 4 up to $96,000 might see a small stipend. Not going to happen now as Repubs will do nothing to make healthcare insurance more palatable.
The issue is still with the healthcare industry complex and the fee for services cost model. Fix that and insurance will become easier, rates of increase will dissipate, and insurance costs will decrease or stabilize.
And Price at HHS is doing his best to make that fee for services worse and worse.
No legislation, but the trump admin could crush healthcare of all kinds in this country.
I need to read on that a bit again. I used to just talk with Maggie. She retired and her health is not so good. I lost a good source and friend.
Kudos to run75441. One of the best analyses I’ve seen amongst 100’s of professional post mortems.
Using Occam’s Razor……. maybe Democratic policies are UNPOPULAR. I mean if I were to list, in no particular order, what Democrats stand for it would be
1) Increased government control.
2) increased taxes
3) stifling economic growth because of global warming
4) open borders
5) Identity politics (race/gender/LGBT)
6) soft on crime and terrorism.
None of these resonates with an electoral majority of the country. They’ve seen the results of these policies, and want no part of it. Which of these are you willing to abandon?
The electorate overwhelming voted for the other person rather than Trump. If you argue the EC, there is another argument for that also. Are you a Facist or a Nazi? Which are you?
Look at the latest report by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund comparing health care performance among advanced nations. America is at the bottom; the top three performers are Britain, Australia, and the Netherlands. These leaders have very different systems. Key in this report is the improvement in mortality rates for the US since 2004 for the US due to having greater access to healthcare.
Besides my commentaries on healthcare which do not catch much sunlight publically, Paul Krugman had this to say on the topic of the ACA and other countries. “Britain has true socialized medicine. The government provides health care directly through the National Health Service. Australia has a single-payer system, basically Medicare for All. The Dutch have what we might call Obamacare done right: individuals are required to buy coverage from regulated private insurers, with subsidies to help them afford the premiums.
The Dutch system works, which suggests that a lot could be accomplished via incremental improvements in the A.C.A. (Paul Krugman).
Note this comment by PK: The political logic that led to Obamacare rather than Medicare for all still applies. The 156 million people who currently get insurance through their employer are largely satisfied with their coverage. Moving to single-payer would take away this coverage and imposing new taxes oh them. You would have to convince most of these people they would save more in premiums than they pay in additional taxes, and that their new coverage would be just as good.
Indeed this might be true, but it would be one heck of a hard sell. Is this really where progressives want to spend their political capital?
What would I do instead? I would enhance the A.C.A. and not replace it; although, I would strongly support reintroducing some form of public option that could eventually lead to single-payer.”
Many of us have been repeating the same message as Paul Krugman. There is much good about the ACA and there is much which could be better.
As the report states: “Comparing countries’ health care system performance using standardized performance data can offer benchmarks and other useful insights about how to improve care. Among the 11 countries we studied, the U.S. was ranked last in overall health system performance, while spending the most per capita on health care. The insurance, payment, and delivery system of the ACA have improved some aspects of health care system performance, but the U.S. still greatly lags countries with universal health insurance coverage. The top performing countries—the U.K., Australia, and the Netherlands—could offer important lessons to the U.S. and other countries.” (click on the image for interactive)
When I am discussing the costs of the healthcare industrial complex and the fee for services business model, I verbal much of it. On this chart from the Commonwealth study, you can see the cost results of healthcare country by country. The delivery of healthcare could be greatly improved from where the ACA brought us if the political beast of the US would get out of the way. We almost had a public option but for the Senator from Aetna Lieberman. Still not the end all as costs of healthcare are represented by what you pay insurance companies. The nation has not faced up to this challenge and will not do so until constituents challenge Congress and the political parties.
Whatever the ACA has provided for tens of millions of constituents is what the Republicans and Trump want to take back instead of improve. And what did I say to little John? Go away Sammy, you are in over your head.
Nah, he is just a little aaaa upset about living in his grandmother’s basement since Mom told him to take a hike.
You drink Bourbon?
Run, good series of comments and retorts.
I note though that most of them are ‘Monday Night quarterbacking” which may be constructive but only to the extent that the conditions at the time are repeated … i.e. the teams’ players and those of the opposition team.
One commenter hits the nail on the head — voter’s vote their subjective emotions… they always have.
What were the emotions?
On the conservative’s side it was that their established party leaders were not able to do what they kept telling their constituents they would do .. if they weren’t caught lying then they were caught misleading and hence the anti-establishment wave took over. None except TRump told them what they wanted to hear .. throw out all the illegal (Mexian and South American) immigrants, put up a wall to keep them out, clean out the DC swamp of special interests, put women back in their place (grab pussies galore), keep the Muslims out since they might be terrorists intent on blowing up Manhattan (or your favorite city), get tougher on [black] crime [& welfare], eliminate the regs that prevent jobs growth and prosperity (among which was the targeted EPA and Climate Science detractors), undo these disastrous trade agreements that took all the good jobs away from ‘mericans, reduce taxes, increase defense (China might over-run us if we don’t) to make ‘merican great [might makes right] again.
This was as pure an ultra-nationalist agenda as I’ve heard since Reagan. The underlying code was keep ‘merica white and if not ,then make sure it’s white Anglo-Saxon Christian dominated. bully any other nation that get’s in our way and use our military to make it so.
Telling people what they want to hear appeals to their emotions and nationalism is the most effective conservative weapon, along with massive propaganda — the ends justify the means. Trump appealed to these emotions and capitalized on the fact that it’s not what’s rational and reasonable, but what people want to hear that counts. I’ve heard most of Hitler’s speeches (in native language) during the rise of National Socialism before the party took control.. Trump just followed Hitler’s well known prescription.
He capitalized on our black president backlash… southern sentiments and closet racists. He capitalized on the women’s liberation movement .. e.g. put them back in their place, which included Hillary. He recognized that the black president back-lash could be used to oppose Hillary …. 1st female president — which no misogamist can tolerate. It was one thing to be led by a black man, and it’s not a lot different, and perhaps worse to be led by a woman. It’ a mans world was his coded message and it resonated with conservatives, including females (those married to conservatives?).
nationalism racism xenophobia misogyny
Tough talk, Bully Leader, the establishment can’t cut the mustard to lead ‘Mercian back to “greatness” again. All pure emotional appeal.
The only questions are:
1. How to persuade, cajole people’s emotions on enough of the independents to switch to a more honest and rational set of policies and realities? I’m not sure how this can be done without some kind of a disaster occurring first which the public will clearly blame on Trumpism.
2. Where is the liberal leader that will be able to attract the masses to his (her???) personality, looks, and messages. That leader hasn’t materialized yet.. lots of names in the potential’s column but none have come to the fore yet… and there’s only 15 more months to the 2018 mid-terms… you might think this is plenty of time until the 2O20 election, but without a leader coming to the front before the 2018 mid-terms there’s no groundswell which has to grow from now until the 2020 election.
The dems are still trying to figure out how to counter the nationalist, racist, misogyny that prevailed and will certainly be used again. Don’t be fooled by the 40% Trump approval ratings… those are for his inability to get things done… not for what he stands for.
The dems need a charismatic leader, someone who inspires the emotions that would oppose those of Trumpism, enough to swing those who abandoned the dems in 2016… it won’t convince the racists, anti-immigrant [Mexcans] or misogynists or the old white men, or southern born again “christian” righteousness crowds, and closet racists, but shift enough independents and perhaps some of the center right to pull away from the far right to preserve some form of rational democracy… as shitty as it is it’s better than chaos. .. which is the path toward which we are headed.
“The dems are still trying to figure out how to counter the nationalist, racist, misogyny that prevailed and will certainly be used again. Don’t be fooled by the 40% Trump approval ratings… those are for his inability to get things done… not for what he stands for.”
This is exactly right. Trump voters are not some kind of new invention. They are, and always have been, Rep voters. Difference is that Trump brought out Rep voters who could not find a candidate racist enough for them to go out and vote. The approval rating of Trump means nothing, they will certainly all vote for him again.
Imho, the Dems need to call out these voters for what they are, “the racists, anti-immigrant [Mexcans] or misogynists or the old white men, or southern born again “christian” righteousness crowds, and closet racists,”.
Yes, deplorables. Yes, clinging to their guns and religion.
Doesn’t matter if you are nice to those people, they are never, ever going to vote Dem. And it doesn’t matter if this upsets some independents(which only exist in registration only), right voting independents will never, ever vote Dem.
And you don’t do it just to call people names.
You do it in a way that you encourage your base to come out and vote in order to make sure those deplorables do not win. That is all elections are about, turnout.
And we had better do it really fast, cause the way things are looking right now, the Birchers 40 year plan to dominate state legislatures(greatly bolstered by Citizen’s United) is looking at changing the entire political system in the US.
The 2020 census, and the subsequent gerrymandering, will make what happened after the 2010 census look like Democracy In Action.
And as is starting now, if these Rep legislatures manage enough power to make law that divides electoral votes by congressional districts, the game will be over. And US democracy will die for at least another generation.
Time to stop bringing knives to a gun fight.
In 2010, Trump came to the political scene by basis of a stone cold racist meme, birtherism. People, especially the media, never called him out on that. Rep voters supported him, as did Rep pols. They used this racist garbage to solidify their party. Of course, they never thought he would take over their party, as eventually people would shy away from that racism.
They were wrong. And they were wrong simply because they could not admit that their party has been based on racism since the Civil Rights Act. They just did not understand they were just like Trump.
I agree for the most part but disagree somewhat with your take:
“They were wrong. And they were wrong simply because they could not admit that their party has been based on racism since the Civil Rights Act. They just did not understand they were just like Trump.”
They understood it and knew it perfectly well… what they banked on though is that the general GOP voter (those who are not racists) wouldn’t understand it that way. The difference was that Trump made it eminently clear that he was a racist proponent. The GOP establishment operated under the belief that they couldn’t win a general election with that clear of an understanding of their position. Trump just proved them wrong.
I agree for the most part but disagree somewhat with your take:
“They were wrong. And they were wrong simply because they could not admit that their party has been based on racism since the Civil Rights Act. They just did not understand they were just like Trump.”
They understood it and knew it perfectly well… what they banked on though is that the general GOP voter (those who are not racists) wouldn’t understand it that way. The difference was that Trump made it eminently clear that he was a racist proponent.
The GOP establishment operated under the belief that they couldn’t win a general election with that clear of an understanding of their position. Trump just proved them wrong.
Looks like a duplicate post, maybe eliminate one? Which do you prefer?
We can disagree. I believe the general GOP voter is racist. I have thought so for decades. Their votes for Trump just etched it into stone.
I confess that of those GOP voters I know well enough, and they count in the few dozens, I can say most of them (roughy 60%) are clearly and unabashedly (to me) racists and xenophobe. I can also say that a minority of them are clearly not in the least bit racist in any degree what-so-ever, and in fact are not only not racist or xenophobes, but are socially liberal in every respect. They are roughly 25% of my known GOP voters. Their reasons for voting GOP are purely large gov’t and fiscal conservatism, free-market types.
I can’t say anything about the other approximate 15% however, and my acquaintances are limited to mostly Californian’s (a few from scattered locations in Mid-West, North East, and South). I’ve had vehement argument with my daughter (liberal to the nth degree) who has close friends who vote GOP where-upon I told her that if they favor the GOP they’re racists or support racism even if they’re not openly racists. and place a higher priority on small gov’t and low tax rates for their own pecuniary benefits than on social racism in this country. My daughter took great offense in defense or her friends (who are incidentally very socially liberal in terms of sexism and gender, gay rights, etc.) and almost disowned me for accusing her friends of being racists or supporting it by voting the GOP ticket.
Those GOP voters I now who are definitely not racists believe that the liberals will be in office often enough to make slow head-way to slowly eliminate racist laws and systems that perpetuate it. But they vote for the GOP for the chance to limit federal gov’t growth, reduce taxes, and push more laissez-fair economic policies.
I just googled “Proportion of GOP voters who are socially liberal”
The most direct result was a gallop poll in 2015.
The Gallop poll numbers are roughly the same as my own GOP voting acquaintance sample To wit: “20% are socially moderate/liberal but economically conservative”
Not that poll results are indicative of reality however since it’s highly probable that responders are not fully truthful… especially if they’re closet racists.. behind ye old voting booth curtain.
I only make note of the poll results since I’m very confident for a variety of reasons and experiences with my GOP voting friends that the 25% or so who aren’t racists are not in the least bit racist and are socially liberal. I’ve known some of these since they were pre-teens and parents were mixed… fiscally conservative or just fully liberals but none were racists or xenophobic.
The message is that conservatives make a priority choice … if they’re fiscally conservative, small gov’t, starve the beast types, they chose that priority over their opposition to racist institutions and laws and conservative religious belief systems. And it’s no coincidence I think that those of the 25% or so fiscally conservative types, but social liberals and non-racists, are nearly all in an economic business endeavor in which their own pecuniary interests are coincident with fiscal conservatism, catering to wall street, lower taxes on their businesses and personal incomes or tin heir clients interests.
In other words they prioritize themselves and own interests over those of U.S. society’s interest at large. At least that’s my interpretation of their base choice prioritization… hidden of course behind propaganda about “stronger economic growth”, more efficient uses of tax dollars, etc.
My own take is simple.. if you vote for a party that doesn’t prioritize opposition to racism and xenophobes, and actions, laws and funding to reduce it, you’ support a racist political position. You can say you’re not racist and even not be personally a racist, but you support racism by your vote, which means you aren’t really putting your money (vote)where you mouth is. The white man speaks with forked tongue.
I hate to say it but the left has two choices IMHO. We can tell the truth about what we see and want to do and hope people are knowledgeable enough to accept them as good solutions OR we can find out what the people want to hear, tell them we will do it and then when elected do what we want to do but keep telling the same bullshit story over and over again lying through our teeth. The first strategy is our default plan, its heavy on detail, policy, history, equality, justice, freedom and the American Way and it goes over the heads of all the Republicans, the Independents and the apathetic. Or we can come up with the best bullshit we can, keep screaming it like a banshee and win elections. Am I cynical? Yes. Thinking lefties may have to admit that no one wants to hear from us, we are boring elite snobs who think we are smarter than everyone else. We may have to copy the conservative playbook, it sure as hell works for them no matter what they do.
“My own take is simple.. if you vote for a party that doesn’t prioritize opposition to racism and xenophobes, and actions, laws and funding to reduce it, you’ support a racist political position. You can say you’re not racist and even not be personally a racist, but you support racism by your vote, which means you aren’t really putting your money (vote)where you mouth is. The white man speaks with forked tongue.”
Yep, that is why I say they are all racist, though I strongly discount any polls from these people. As you say, you vote for racist ideas and beliefs, you are racist no matter what you say to Gallup.