Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[David Horn]

(06-27-2017, 07:17 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: In all but two countries in which Pew has polled in this survey, people have more respect for former President Obama than for you-know-who.  



The good news for Donald Trump; Russia seems to like him much more than it liked Obama. Go figure.

The third-worst decline is in Germany; Donald Trump's ancestry is half German. The rest is Scots, but Scotland is not a sovereign entity yet, so it is still included in the UK. I'm guessing that it is awful.

What should be most scary is the difference in perceptions in South Korea. South Koreans must have thought themselves safer with Obama as President than with Donald Trump. South Koreans probably expected President Obama to travel to Beijing and tell Chinese leadership that they can have North Korea should it invade the South or fire missiles that ravage Seoul or should it fire missiles against the USA that violate Chinese airspace.

Most of the countries in which President Trump has far less trust than did President Obama are not hotbeds of anti-Americanism. But the distinction between America and Trump could get shaky. I can imagine participating in an anti-Trump demonstration in Toronto or Montreal.

It's telling that the pro-Trump nations are Russia and Israel. 

[pbrower2a]

ARG poll: http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll

New Hampshire:

Approve 25%
Disapprove 60%

For registered voters, it's 27/60. Party breakdown:

R 59/27
D 10/83
Undeclared 13/70

This may be an exaggeration, but it is a big warning.

1. New Hampshire is a legitimate swing state. It has been close in 2000, 2004, 2012, and 2016. It was close to the national average in 2008, if that counts for anything, and it wasn't a runaway for Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996. It was the closest loss for Donald Trump in 2016. It may have gone Democratic six of the last seven times, but it usually provides some electoral interest on Election Night.

2. Look at how lukewarm support for Donald Trump is from New Hampshire Republicans. 59%? That's the sort of support that Governor Corbett (R-PA) got in from Pennsylvania Republicans 2010 when he was enmeshed in the scandal involving the football program at Penn State. One usually needs about 80% support within one's own Party to have a chance of winning.

3. The last time that New Hampshire was a runaway for a Democratic nominee for President was 1964, when LBJ got over 63% of the vote against the messed-up campaign of Barry Goldwater.

4. This corroborates another poll in which Donald Trump had abysmal support in New Hampshire. The only electoral votes that I can now imagine the President winning in 2020 to the north and east of the Potomac is the single electoral vote of the Second Congressional District of Maine -- for which I simply have no data.

[pbrower2a]

And expressing how people see things in terms closer to the gist of the theory of Howe and Strauss:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...103269454/

The wrong elephant show (Ringling Brothers/Barnum & Bailey) retired a few months ago.

[Ragnarök_62]

(06-23-2017, 10:48 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(06-22-2017, 09:01 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(06-22-2017, 10:41 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That some at least on the red side vote for dupes and creeps just because folks like Eric call them deplorable or whatever, shows abundantly how deplorable they truly are.

Yes, you have the alt-right set of deplorables, but just as in organic chemistry, there's a left and a right sort.  Deplorables are
chirality .

Here's some left wing deplorables:




Right wing sort.





Yup...  things, they're a getting loopy.

Of course, one can do as Rags does and..

The students in that takeover are reacting to Nazis, Racists and Haters who have been active on the campus for years. Trump emboldened the Nazis, Racists and Haters and now there is blow back. Sure, some of the Left who are reacting may be doing so in a less than ideal manner. But to cop a phrase from tweener street fighting - "they (he) started it!"

Really? I don't consider segregation as a a smart way of getting back. I don't think those wahoos know any history prior to their teenage years.  So it goes,  dense as lead, minds poorly fed,  many books not read.

[pbrower2a]

Gallup [size=8pt](July 2nd)[/size]



Approve 39% [size=7pt](+2)[/size]
Disapprove 56% [size=7pt](-1)[/size]





Consistent with President Trump doing  much less well in 2020 than in 2016.


PPP for Save My Care (D):

Colorado: 40/56 (-16)
North Carolina: 46/50 (-4)
Iowa: 46/49 (-3)


PPP for a liberal advocacy group. Iowa reverts to swing-state status, and Colorado (one of the President;s barest wins)  is out of reach for him.  

The letter F shall signify a favorability poll, as the only polls that I have for Arizona,  Massachusetts and Oklahoma  



Even -- white



Blue, positive and 40-43%  20% saturation
............................ 44-47%  40%
............................ 48-50%  50%
............................ 51-55%  70%
............................ 56%+     90%

Red, negative and  48-50%  20% (raw approval or favorability)
..........................  44-47%  30%
..........................  40-43%  50%
..........................  35-39%  70%
.......................under  35%  90%

White - tie.

Colors chosen for partisan affiliation

[pbrower2a]

At this point, I suggest that President Trump would go down to defeat as least as severely as the elder Bush in 1992 and perhaps as severely as Hoover in 1932 or Carter in 1976. I see a pattern of failed re-election bids of Presidents in that the states that he barely lost go out of reach (see Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia) and that those that the failed president barely won in the first election turn against him. Surprise wins for the President from the previous election (Iowa is the only such state) turn against him, and those that started to trend against him (Arizona and Texas are such states)  can become trouble.

I am tempted to believe that a map of disapproval ratings might show an even sharper trend. If one has a disapproval rating of 50% or more, then even an unremarkable challenger can win.


Map for this theme:



navy under 40
blue 40-43
light blue 44-47
white 48 or 49
pink 50-54
red 55-59
maroon 60 or higher

* favorability

[Eric the Green]

I may be a negative partisan, but I still think the only way those states can reduce their misery index, is to learn which party is against them, and which one is really for them. Nowadays, they vote their values and their anger at liberals for pointing out their errors. If instead they voted their interests, and dropped their phony ideologies imposed and brainwashed into them about self-reliance, immigration, militarism and religion, they could gain programs like they used to have when they voted Democratic. Government and social programs would improve their life conditions. Investments could be made in new industry there instead of in military adventures abroad. Regulations would hold down pollution, which ruins their health. Instead of voting for their coal bosses, they could vote for new clean industries. Instead of focusing on resentment of black people for getting money from their taxes, and fear of losing their guns, they could get more tax money for themselves for better schools and highways.

Also, some red states in the west have a higher quality of life than red states in the misery belt overall. That's partly because they actually practice some self-reliance in things like exercize, stopping smoking and eating less fat. They are also less hooked on drugs. But the Republican Party's answer to opiates is to put addicts in jail and waste money on drug wars. The Democrats know that treatment programs work better. Again, it's a question of people in the misery belt voting their prejudices instead of their needs.

There is no root cause other than their dedication to Trump and Republicans.

[Ragnarök_62]

Eric The Green Wrote:I may be a negative partisan, but I still think the only way those states can reduce their misery index, is to learn which party is against them, and which one is really for them.

Yeah. I know, long time, few posties.  Anyway, yes Eric can be a negative partisan at times. Wrt, misery index. Well, how about at least the Dems come up with a platform/list of proposals which are FOR something? Even global warming gets ne'er a hearing since it's all about President Trump and his messes. Use stuff with good optics, like we support the conversion to carbon neutral energy sources. "We're in favor of green energy because we don't want the farm belt to become a dust belt, coastal cities become fish houses, etc."

Quote: Nowadays, they vote their values and their anger at liberals for pointing out their errors. If instead they voted their interests, and dropped their phony ideologies imposed and brainwashed into them about self-reliance, immigration, militarism and religion, they could gain programs like they used to have when they voted Democratic. Government and social programs would improve their life conditions.

Why yes of course?  However has Eric ever considered that he, himself has a few too many jokers in the world view deck?
Let's say open borders immigration, perhaps? How about yes, border protection is a necessary thing, and when the border is secured, then let's do the path the citizenship thing?  <- Rags World View Warning. Then of course yes, pointing out the programs that affect them.  Again, where is the platform?  Why isn't it a major source of Democratic Party data for assorted media? There's nothing I can recall which describes the current Democratic position on healthcare? Say the Republican [tax cut for the wealthy, but is called a health care bill because budget items relating to health care like Medicaid will be cut a whole lot. ] That's a problem because wahoos like Rags can dig into the mind of Republican group think. At least one of those big money consultants should see how to turn some lame assed legislation into mush. I mean that thing I came up with a sound byte as stated above. Longer with examples. Just say something on the lines :," HCRA health bill is really a set of budget cuts to programs like Medicaid and other governmental health programs. The proceeds of this budget cut will be used to cut taxes for the wealthy. The top rate goes from X to Y, etc. etc. "

I think the default position is "We Democrats oppose all attempts to repeal Obamacare". This message is mush. It's not engaging or exciting.

Quote:Investments could be made in new industry there instead of in military adventures abroad.

Yes, the MIC is way too big and has lots of stuff which are no longer needed and is fighting an unneeded set of wars of choice The security apparati like the  NSA/CIA/NDIS/ etc. need to be merged and duplications removed. These people also need to slapped if they ignore the bill of rights.  By slapped, I mean if some infraction happened they'd get handed a penalty of a cut in the budget by 1%.  This penalty is intended to be a typical bureaucrat's worst nightmare.  There would be a real, inflation adjusted cut in the budget.

Now, you can get "We, as Democrats support the Bill of Rights and here is how we intend to keep said promise.

Promises without a detail explanation of how to implement them are empty promises. They mean nothing.  Lipstick on a pig, man.

Here's one that's empty and is essentially a lipsticked pig in the poke:  We're gonna do something about the opiate crisis.

1.  The word, crisis is way overused and is to be dismissed as  emotionally eye candy.
2. There is no mention of how to work to / solve the problem/issue raised unless it's more of the same of out of sight/out mind -> war on drugs , being of just lock 'em up. Democrats ought to lay out the results of the war on drugs, propose misdemeanors instead of felonies for possession. Addiction is the problem, not whatever substance. Reference coke epidemic as example of different substance same problem. Expand current treatment and start release of non violent drug offenders.  Of course support weed legalization. This would even work in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, until recently, only package stores could sell booze.  OK, we know you have to be 21 to enter their places. You have to be 21 to get weed, like booze, so you go to the same place, with similar regulations, and the exact same regulatory agency.  ABLE can be come just CABLE

Quote:Regulations would hold down pollution, which ruins their health. Instead of voting for their coal bosses, they could vote for new clean industries. Instead of focusing on resentment of black people for getting money from their taxes, and fear of losing their guns, they could get more tax money for themselves for better schools and highways.

1.  Don't say "guns".  It's a 4 letter word. Not all people are gonna have Eric's world view, wrt..... guns....
2. Be a Libertarian and say, "your right to pollute ends with my body".
3. I think wrt people who are different colors would be state the total cost of SNAP/WIC, whatever and compare that sum of loopholes which are really corporate welfare. If you could change their mind then match inner city misery with red locales.  It's a lot a like.  Main industry moved/shut down, jobs went poof. People are stuck there because they're too poor to move. Also, alternative housing in new location may be unobtainable.  Face it, living in an Appalachian shit hole house should have a lot of similar shit holes in Detroit alone. The "just move ..." isn't really doable.  Move to become homeless?  Stupid.

Quote:Also, some red states in the west have a higher quality of life than red states in the misery belt overall. That's partly because they actually practice some self-reliance in things like exercize, stopping smoking and eating less fat. They are also less hooked on drugs. But the Republican Party's answer to opiates is to put addicts in jail and waste money on drug wars. The Democrats know that treatment programs work better. Again, it's a question of people in the misery belt voting their prejudices instead of their needs.

Yeah, but where's the information? There's way too much #BecauseTrump and #RussiaGate. 
1 BecauseTrump.  Yes, there's plenty of information there. People know what Trump is doing. People also know the GOP is working on a health care bill. The problem is of course, there is no defined policy position for assorted #BecauseTrump emissions.
2. #RussiaGate. Too much spew here. There certainly can't be some idea of what is first true/false vs. assorted conjectures/theories. Ignore conjectures/theories on twitter or whatever and sheesh, fact check stuff. Next, group the facts into some coherent narrative.  If there ain't enough facts just say we're waiting on the special council. Saying crap that isn't true makes you look stupid and you get to be a non credible fake news joint and then  you're ignored.

Quote:There is no root cause other than their dedication to Trump and Republicans.

Yes there is. The Democrats need to get a coherent framework of what they are FOR and get that stuff propagated on the outbound informations stream.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-05-2017, 05:28 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes there is. The Democrats need to get a coherent framework of what they are FOR and get that stuff propagated on the outbound information stream.

You have an excellent point, but the country is so divided that taking positive steps to improve domestic government performance seems as difficult as repealing Obamacare has been for the Republicans.  The unraveling memes suggest that anything the government does will be an expensive boondoggle.  To a great degree, the Democrats have given up on improving domestic services to concentrate on not letting things get worse.

It seems that Trump's flaws will lead to an administration that continues as it began, but will Trump only discredit Trump, or will the unraveling memes take a hit as well?

[Ragnarök_62]

(07-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 05:28 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes there is. The Democrats need to get a coherent framework of what they are FOR and get that stuff propagated on the outbound information stream.

1. You have an excellent point, but the country is so divided that taking positive steps to improve domestic government performance seems as difficult as repealing Obamacare has been for the Republicans.  The unraveling memes suggest that anything the government does will be an expensive boondoggle.  To a great degree, the Democrats have given up on improving domestic services to concentrate on not letting things get worse.

2. It seems that Trump's flaws will lead to an administration that continues as it began, but will Trump only discredit Trump, or will the unraveling memes take a hit as well?

1. ... Implies self flagellation by the masses there. If so many are deluded that over bloated simulacrums will fix stuff, then I see a nice reset.

2. This would be the Herbert Hoover scenario.  Here, the party in power and the stuff they prattled on about get smacked. Here, Wall Street gets the first smack. Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result... the all American kind, mind you, what we're doing a lot of, if that doesn't work, then do ever more and then that should do the trick. Same mindsets, same mindfucks. Neoliberalism, you see has a limit. It can only keep going if there's a place cheapest to do business on a global scale.
Once that happens the take home pay everywhere is minimized which makes for lower demand. To get profits you have to sell your stuff. So Neoliberals, what does happen there's nobody that can buy pretty much anything?  We could have a Game of Thrones [if the people with money start wars with each other] or something like torches and pitchforks [insert whatever modern equivalents thereof could be]

So, if given the current state of affairs, you get a huge "That sucks".   Or, who knows "that's a drag."

[pbrower2a]

(07-05-2017, 12:15 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I may be a negative partisan, but I still think the only way those states can reduce their misery index, is to learn which party is against them, and which one is really for them. Nowadays, they vote their values and their anger at liberals for pointing out their errors. If instead they voted their interests, and dropped their phony ideologies imposed and brainwashed into them about self-reliance, immigration, militarism and religion, they could gain programs like they used to have when they voted Democratic. Government and social programs would improve their life conditions. Investments could be made in new industry there instead of in military adventures abroad. Regulations would hold down pollution, which ruins their health. Instead of voting for their coal bosses, they could vote for new clean industries. Instead of focusing on resentment of black people for getting money from their taxes, and fear of losing their guns, they could get more tax money for themselves for better schools and highways.

Between trashy media, religious quackery, and even opioid dependency, some people often have little opportunity to exercise rationality in normal life, so why should one expect such people to act rationally in politics? But the poorest people feel life hard in their economic lives. For poor white people, Donald Trump offers nostalgia for a time in which there were plenty of well-paid industrial jobs for white people, when the cost of living was lower, and when people were more likely to heed a preacher than a professor. For such people his "Make America Great Again" offers a hope for a better world by returning to what existed in the past. Of course there are things that he cannot solve.

Even so, the industrial jobs are not returning; we are through the age in which people could get their happiness through spending on manufactured goods. In contrast to the comparatively austere times just after World War II we have a glut of manufactured stuff.  Production of stuff is mostly for replacement due to deterioration, loss, or gross obsolescence. Non-replacement is mostly due to population growth. The cost of living has increased largely due to an increase in population. If one is sixty one can remember when the population of the USA was about half what it is now, and... the Lord just isn't creating any more real estate. Anyone who owns rental properties in an area of population or economic growth has an easy way of getting more money easily -- just raise the rent, as Donald Trump does. Note also that more people implies a greater need for public infrastructure from highways and bridges to sewers and power lines. More infrastructure does not imply any economy of scale beyond a certain point.

Unless we are to have the horror of genocide, crop failures that lead to mass death from famine, a plague that kills off half the people, or apocalyptic war... population is not going to shrink fast enough to make life better for survivors. Zero Population Growth is a good idea for allowing some balance -- but the Right seems to oppose the usual controls on runaway population growth that raises rents and cuts pay. After all it can profit (as does Donald Trump) by raising the rent. For every Donald Trump there are hundreds of slumlords. In rural areas that means landlords of tenant farmers or big landlords  who hire plenty of farm workers cheaply. Big landowners in rural areas and big urban landlords are much of the backing of the Right in most countries.  But New York, Boston, and California renters have an obvious cause to oppose the agenda of rentier landlords. Farm workers in the Mississippi delta region might be helpless against the Junker-like agrarian bosses.  This may explain why economic distress in high-density urban areas pushes people to the Left and rural poverty in the South pushes politics to the Right.

Quote:Also, some red states in the west have a higher quality of life than red states in the misery belt overall. That's partly because they actually practice some self-reliance in things like exercise, stopping smoking and eating less fat. They are also less hooked on drugs. But the Republican Party's answer to opiates is to put addicts in jail and waste money on drug wars. The Democrats know that treatment programs work better. Again, it's a question of people in the misery belt voting their prejudices instead of their needs.

If one is a real farmer or rancher -- or farm laborer or ranch hand -- one must stay in shape just to do one's work. But opiates? As a rationalist I dislike them, but I can see better ways than a judicial and penal war on addicts (especially non-white addicts!) Treatment is far more effective than incarceration because jail terms do nothing to solve the mess inside an incarcerated person. Prevention can come from offering people viable alternatives to wallowing in drugs. Our educational system well prepares people for a world in which one does a job and goes home to vegetate in front of a TV, chips in one hand and beer or sugary soft drinks in the other, and no capacity for criticism of the content of the television programming piped in (or on occasion the heavily-touted feature film or the vapid video game). Someone with a high-quality education looks upon such as if a penal term.

Just think of the contrast between the 'Sixties and now on drugs. In the 'Sixties many of the Best and Brightest sought chemicals offer 'mind expansion'. Now the drugs heavily in use (including illicit meth, opioids that may have started with legitimate medical need, and the completely-licit booze) and are intended to numb a mind and conscience. Don't forget the numbing schlock of the 'plug-in drug', a/k/a television.

Quote: 

There is no root cause other than their dedication to Trump and Republicans.

Donald Trump is a symptom of a cancer of the American soul -- especially the mass white soul. The 2016 election showed that non-white members of the middle class rejected Donald Trump resoundingly even though they had economic interests fitting an Eisenhower-style conservatism. Update Eisenhower-style conservatism some and you have Obama.

I do not yet have polls for any of the States of the High Plains except for Oklahoma (which is more like West Virginia than like Nebraska) or Texas (which straddles regions and does not even constitute a region in its own right. To be sure, the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas have about as many electoral votes together as Michigan or Georgia, two states that will get much attention in 2018 and 2020.

Donald Trump is something that America has little heritage of dealing with -- the demagogue. He will fail to solve problems; he has already sold out the masses that he gulled. Donald Trump is a sick joke to the educated middle class as a rent-gouging landlord who exploits the need of much of the educated middle class to live in high-cost areas like New York City, Boston, Washington, and big urban centers on the West Coast. But as someone who fleeces the educated, secular middle class in high-cost urban areas he could pose as a sort of folk hero to people not so well off. The demagogue offers the biggest scam ever pulled off, one that makes the likes of Enrob executives and Bernie Made-off look like small-scale grifters by contrast -- someone who hurts others for the wish-fulfillment of those not well off. The solution for poor white people is to put more effort into education and rely less upon mass media. Hurting the middle-class by compelling them to pay more for what they need on behalf of the elites while giving poor, angry people some self-righteous satisfaction as a return for giving them lower wages and higher costs of living? Now that is a hustle!

[Eric the Green]

Lots of people have been miserable in history. But there's no inherent reason why they should support their bosses who create their misery (like Trump, and Republicans who represent the oligarchy) in response, instead of those politicians who oppose the bosses. Les miserables are themselves responsible to make a choice that will answer their needs, as opposed to their prejudices. If they don't, then they alone are mainly responsible for their own misery.

[Eric the Green]

(07-05-2017, 09:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 05:28 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Yes there is. The Democrats need to get a coherent framework of what they are FOR and get that stuff propagated on the outbound information stream.

You have an excellent point, but the country is so divided that taking positive steps to improve domestic government performance seems as difficult as repealing Obamacare has been for the Republicans.  The unraveling memes suggest that anything the government does will be an expensive boondoggle.  To a great degree, the Democrats have given up on improving domestic services to concentrate on not letting things get worse.

It seems that Trump's flaws will lead to an administration that continues as it began, but will Trump only discredit Trump, or will the unraveling memes take a hit as well?

We'll see. But the Democrats, although they should indeed present positive alternatives, have no real hope of enacting anything right now, so that is a deterrent to offering "improved domestic services." Where they have some power, in a few blue states and some cities, perhaps they can do something.

[pbrower2a]

(07-06-2017, 11:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Lots of people have been miserable in history. But there's no inherent reason why they should support their bosses who create their misery (like Trump, and Republicans who represent the oligarchy) in response, instead of those politicians who oppose the bosses. Les miserables are themselves responsible to make a choice that will answer their needs, as opposed to their prejudices. If they don't, then they alone are mainly responsible for their own misery.

They may have an alternative to showing loyalty to brutal, exploitative bosses -- especially if those bosses have the power to torture or kill them.  But to challenge those bosses they risk being killed, murdered, or both (as with so grisly means of execution as crucifixion, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, being crushed by elephant, or being fed alive to half-starved dogs) and perhaps getting loved ones similarly treated. Consider how brutally the Spanish put down the indigenous rebellion in Peru in 1781. See also Nero, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Francois Duvalier, Saddam Hussein, and ISIS. See also the norms of the feudal agrarian order of medieval Europe.

Brutality against helpless people is the key to maintaining an exploitative, repressive, inequitable hierarchy in political and economic life. Man is far more adept at creating Hell than at creating Paradise.

Should America go down the totalitarian route as did its three main enemies of World War II, then culpability will be not only that of the leaders themselves but also with anyone who does the dirty work, whether a judge who authorizes the torture of confessions out of innocent people, a camp guard who enforces the rules with sadistic means, a soldier who participates in massacres, someone who disseminates hateful propaganda on behalf of the regime, a policeman who arrests people solely for their identity, or someone who denounces pariahs in return for some reward (let us say some of the property of the damned). In such cases there is an appropriate sentence, one that might not be avoided of one doesn't face justice by courts established by occupying forces or some tribunal of revolutionary justice (imagine the July 20 plotters succeeding).

It's called HELL!

[Eric the Green]

(07-06-2017, 12:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-06-2017, 11:43 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Lots of people have been miserable in history. But there's no inherent reason why they should support their bosses who create their misery (like Trump, and Republicans who represent the oligarchy) in response, instead of those politicians who oppose the bosses. Les miserables are themselves responsible to make a choice that will answer their needs, as opposed to their prejudices. If they don't, then they alone are mainly responsible for their own misery.

They may have an alternative to showing loyalty to brutal, exploitative bosses -- especially if those bosses have the poser to torture or kill them.  But to challenge those bosses they risk being killed, murdered, or both (as with so grisly means of execution as crucifixion, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, being crushed by elephant, or being fed alive to half-starved dogs) and perhaps getting loved ones similarly treated. Consider how brutally the Spanish put down the indigenous rebellion in Peru in 1781. See also Nero, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Francois Duvalier, Saddam Hussein, and ISIS. See also the norms of the feudal agrarian order of medieval Europe.

I was just referring to how people vote, as per my original comment. My point being that the misery belt is so because of how people there have voted in the past few decades.

[Eric the Green]

(07-05-2017, 05:28 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

Eric The Green Wrote:I may be a negative partisan, but I still think the only way those states can reduce their misery index, is to learn which party is against them, and which one is really for them.

Yeah. I know, long time, few posties.  Anyway, yes Eric can be a negative partisan at times. Wrt, misery index. Well, how about at least the Dems come up with a platform/list of proposals which are FOR something? Even global warming gets ne'er a hearing since it's all about President Trump and his messes. Use stuff with good optics, like we support the conversion to carbon neutral energy sources. "We're in favor of green energy because we don't want the farm belt to become a dust belt, coastal cities become fish houses, etc."

Quote: Nowadays, they vote their values and their anger at liberals for pointing out their errors. If instead they voted their interests, and dropped their phony ideologies imposed and brainwashed into them about self-reliance, immigration, militarism and religion, they could gain programs like they used to have when they voted Democratic. Government and social programs would improve their life conditions.

Why yes of course?  However has Eric ever considered that he, himself has a few too many jokers in the world view deck?
Let's say open borders immigration, perhaps? How about yes, border protection is a necessary thing, and when the border is secured, then let's do the path the citizenship thing?  <- Rags World View Warning. Then of course yes, pointing out the programs that affect them.  Again, where is the platform?  Why isn't it a major source of Democratic Party data for assorted media? There's nothing I can recall which describes the current Democratic position on healthcare? Say the Republican [tax cut for the wealthy, but is called a health care bill because budget items relating to health care like Medicaid will be cut a whole lot. ] That's a problem because wahoos like Rags can dig into the mind of Republican group think. At least one of those big money consultants should see how to turn some lame assed legislation into mush. I mean that thing I came up with a sound byte as stated above. Longer with examples.  Just say something on the lines :," HCRA health bill is really a set of budget cuts to programs like Medicaid and other governmental health programs. The proceeds of this budget cut will be used to cut taxes for the wealthy. The top rate goes from X to Y, etc. etc. "

I think the default position is "We Democrats oppose all attempts to repeal Obamacare". This message is mush. It's not engaging or exciting.

Quote:Investments could be made in new industry there instead of in military adventures abroad.

Yes, the MIC is way too big and has lots of stuff which are no longer needed and is fighting an unneeded set of wars of choice The security apparati like the  NSA/CIA/NDIS/ etc. need to be merged and duplications removed. These people also need to slapped if they ignore the bill of rights.  By slapped, I mean if some infraction happened they'd get handed a penalty of a cut in the budget by 1%.  This penalty is intended to be a typical bureaucrat's worst nightmare.  There would be a real, inflation adjusted cut in the budget.

Now, you can get "We, as Democrats support the Bill of Rights and here is how we intend to keep said promise.

Promises without a detail explanation of how to implement them are empty promises. They mean nothing.  Lipstick on a pig, man.

Here's one that's empty and is essentially a lipsticked pig in the poke:  We're gonna do something about the opiate crisis.

1.  The word, crisis is way overused and is to be dismissed as  emotionally eye candy.
2. There is no mention of how to work to / solve the problem/issue raised unless it's more of the same of out of sight/out mind -> war on drugs , being of just lock 'em up. Democrats ought to lay out the results of the war on drugs, propose misdemeanors instead of felonies for possession. Addiction is the problem, not whatever substance. Reference coke epidemic as example of different substance same problem. Expand current treatment and start release of non violent drug offenders.  Of course support weed legalization. This would even work in Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, until recently, only package stores could sell booze.  OK, we know you have to be 21 to enter their places. You have to be 21 to get weed, like booze, so you go to the same place, with similar regulations, and the exact same regulatory agency.  ABLE can be come just CABLE

Quote:Regulations would hold down pollution, which ruins their health. Instead of voting for their coal bosses, they could vote for new clean industries. Instead of focusing on resentment of black people for getting money from their taxes, and fear of losing their guns, they could get more tax money for themselves for better schools and highways.

1.  Don't say "guns".  It's a 4 letter word. Not all people are gonna have Eric's world view, wrt..... guns....
2. Be a Libertarian and say, "your right to pollute ends with my body".
3. I think wrt people who are different colors would be state the total cost of SNAP/WIC, whatever and compare that sum of loopholes which are really corporate welfare. If you could change their mind then match inner city misery with red locales.  It's a lot a like.  Main industry moved/shut down, jobs went poof. People are stuck there because they're too poor to move. Also, alternative housing in new location may be unobtainable.  Face it, living in an Appalachian shit hole house should have a lot of similar shit holes in Detroit alone. The "just move ..." isn't really doable.  Move to become homeless?  Stupid.

Quote:Also, some red states in the west have a higher quality of life than red states in the misery belt overall. That's partly because they actually practice some self-reliance in things like exercize, stopping smoking and eating less fat. They are also less hooked on drugs. But the Republican Party's answer to opiates is to put addicts in jail and waste money on drug wars. The Democrats know that treatment programs work better. Again, it's a question of people in the misery belt voting their prejudices instead of their needs.

Yeah, but where's the information? There's way too much #BecauseTrump and #RussiaGate. 
1 BecauseTrump.  Yes, there's plenty of information there. People know what Trump is doing. People also know the GOP is working on a health care bill. The problem is of course, there is no defined policy position for assorted #BecauseTrump emissions.
2. #RussiaGate. Too much spew here. There certainly can't be some idea of what is first true/false vs. assorted conjectures/theories. Ignore conjectures/theories on twitter or whatever and sheesh, fact check stuff. Next, group the facts into some coherent narrative.  If there ain't enough facts just say we're waiting on the special council. Saying crap that isn't true makes you look stupid and you get to be a non credible fake news joint and then  you're ignored.

Quote:There is no root cause other than their dedication to Trump and Republicans.

Yes there is. The Democrats need to get a coherent framework of what they are FOR and get that stuff propagated on the outbound informations stream.

Democrats could do better about proposals right now, when the priority is to block the GOP, which is all they can do now anyway; but I think we've had lots of campaigns over the last 40 years, and people should know by now what the Democrats propose and what Republicans propose, and what they have done. It's not that hard to figure out. Instead, the Republican voters have locked themselves into their prejudices. Yes, that includes their fear that liberals are going to take their guns away, but also the other things I mentioned; of course many red-state and red voters generally may vary about exactly which prejudice or outdated views they hold.

[pbrower2a]

Majority Of Republicans Think Colleges Are Bad For The U.S., Poll Shows

Quote:More than half of the Republicans surveyed for a Pew Research Center poll released Monday say colleges and universities are hurting the country, a drastic shift from how the same group viewed such institutions two years ago.

Fifty-eight percent of Republicans say colleges have a negative effect on the nation, according to the survey, which also polled respondents on institutions like churches, banks, the media and labor unions. Thirty-six percent of GOP survey participants say colleges are having a positive impact on the U.S.

Those numbers represent a dramatic change from 2015, when 54 percent of Republicans said they had a positive view of colleges. And although younger Republicans tend to have more favorable views of colleges than their older counterparts, the number of Republicans under 50 years old who view college positively has dropped 21 points since 2015.

Sharp Partisan Divisions in Views of National Institutions





1. Is it any surprise that Donald Trump did so well among under-educated white people? The educational system did not serve them well, and they probably resented teachers in K-12 education (which is typically as far as they got). People with genuine educations are typically proud of their education. But if one is in Michigan and never went beyond high school, all that one knows about the University of Michigan is about the "Wolverines".

The talent for selective contempt against a wayward college professor or the ability to criticize college policies usually requires a college education in itself.

...It may now surprise people that in the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower  won huge majorities among college educated people, and even in a landslide loss in 1964, Barry Goldwater won a majority of college-educated people. Of course such was more than fifty years ago, and fewer people then attended college, let alone had degrees from college; also, college education was still heavily associated with economic elites who had a stake in economic conservatism and knew such from childhood. Until the GI Bill, college was still largely a  WASP phenomenon -- well-heeled WASPs, that is, before the large number of Polish-American, Italian-American, and even Irish-American kids attending college. That may be a difference. It is possible that being well-educated tends to cause people to prefer certain temperaments in leaders, and I have frequently said that Eisenhower and Obama are similar in temperament.

Liberals see education as a solution; right-wingers see education as a problem. Yes, shutter Harvard (and Stanford, the University of Chicago, and all other renowned colleges and universities) and put Corinthian Colleges (the awful for-profit vocational schools that the Obama Administration shut off college loans for students attending them, effectively bankrupting them).

2. But Trump did badly among poorly-educated blacks, Asians, and non-Cuban Hispanics while doing similarly badly among educated blacks, Asians, and non-Cuban Hispanics. I'm guessing that the non-white ethnic groups depend heavily upon formal education to get where they are, and that they are more likely to be mentors to poor people of their ethnic groups. White people are much more atomized in that respect.

3. Right-wingers love Big Business, hate labor unions, and hold colleges in contempt. The economic sadists who dominate the GOP (yes, I recognize this as inflammatory language, but it is regrettably true) seem to believe that life for all but themselves is to be a miserable time of being sweated and starved in This World in return for great rewards in Heaven for those who suffer in contented compliance. Anyone who stirs up dissent, whether journalists, college professors, or 'union bosses' deserves to go to Hell and will in the Afterlife.

But what about FoX News? It simply does not go far enough in praising the Great and Glorious Leader even to the extent that his farts are great wisdom of the ages.

4. Banks and lending institutions still have a bad name for what they did in the previous decade -- but right-wingers are more likely to excuse them.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-10-2017, 10:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 4. Banks and lending institutions still have a bad name for what they did in the previous decade -- but right-wingers are more likely to excuse them.

A mild addition...

I've noted a red distrust of domestic government action paired with a comparable blue distrust of the private sector. Neither distrust is entirely unjustified. Humans seek power and wealth. If you don't keep eyes open and pressure on, the interests of the people will be swamped by power hunger and greed from one place or another.

I'd as soon stop arguing over which group is messing up things more, and keep a watchful eye in both places.

[Eric the Green]

Probably the drop in approval for colleges among young people is due to the outdated curriculum and heavy costs of college, from the point of view of many young millies who are economically challenged today.

The low approval for college among conservatives reflects their reflexive acceptance of constant references to the "elitism" of colleges, the opposition to "political correctness," their general dislike of intellectuals, and the preference for superstition over knowledge, especially when their ideologies are challenged (as in the debate over climate change and government support for cleaner energy).

[Eric the Green]

(07-10-2017, 11:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-10-2017, 10:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 4. Banks and lending institutions still have a bad name for what they did in the previous decade -- but right-wingers are more likely to excuse them.

A mild addition...

I've noted a red distrust of domestic government action paired with a comparable blue distrust of the private sector.  Neither distrust is entirely unjustified.  Humans seek power and wealth.  If you don't keep eyes open and pressure on, the interests of the people will be swamped by power hunger and greed from one place or another.

I'd as soon stop arguing over which group is messing up things more, and keep a watchful eye in both places.

The main difference is that the government is needed to do the watching, and more especially the preventing, of the power and greed of the private sector. Some businessmen operate with social principles, but others must be required to do what they would do anyway, had they a social conscience. The government, on the other hand, has to be watched to see that it is not captured by greedy private interests, as well as by corrupt officials. The people need to be in charge of their government, if it is to serve their interests.