Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[dckingsfan]

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/743516166/npr-newshour-marist-poll-americans-not-sold-on-trump-or-democrats

post-racist-tweet poll shows that the racist tweets don't make a difference in changing hearts and minds and that the independents are still such ~*principled voters*~ who are ~*focusing on the issues*~

This is very interesting... both the "areas in which Democrats' policy proposals are on solid footing" and the "areas that are less popular". Almost a blue print for how to win?

[Pointgod]

So, from out discussions I decided to try something (not sanctioned). I asked folk if they were registered as usual. But then instead of asking if they were going to vote - I asked them what they thought about the two parties. At least half were disenchanted. To those I then asked if they thought either party was doing any good. Then if it was worth voting for either party.

An amazing number of those folks that weren't registered then didn't take the voter registration information packet. I am usually able to convince most to vote with a different tactic.

I haven't completely figured out what this means.

Fascinating.

How effective do you believe that appealing to emotions would be? It seems to be proven that facts don’t matter to most voters, it’s about how a candidate makes them feel. It’s been the Republican tactic for decades.

[pancakes3]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-politics-aoc-threat/louisiana-policemen-fired-over-facebook-post-suggesting-ocasio-cortez-be-shot-idUSKCN1UH2JI

like, it's cool that the officers were fired, and quickly. but it's also incredibly f'd up.

[daoneandonly]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-07-19/the-most-popular-and-least-popular-governors

THE 15 MOST POPULAR governors in the nation are all Republicans, according to a survey by Morning Consult, a global technology and media company.

According to the most recent report, Republican governors' net approval rating is 17 points higher than that of Democratic governors, on average. And Democrats make up eight of the 10 most unpopular governors.

[Pointgod]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-politics-aoc-threat/louisiana-policemen-fired-over-facebook-post-suggesting-ocasio-cortez-be-shot-idUSKCN1UH2JI

like, it's cool that the officers were fired, and quickly. but it's also incredibly f'd up.

They should be black listed from ever working in any job in law enforcement again.

Again this should be a warning to anyone that Trumps racism isn’t dangerous. It’s already gotten people killed, now he’s putting members of Congress in direct danger.

[dckingsfan]

How effective do you believe that appealing to emotions would be? It seems to be proven that facts don’t matter to most voters, it’s about how a candidate makes them feel.

This is interesting - seems like one of the reasons that Clinton lost in the last election - she just didn't have an emotional bond with most voters. Wondering which D candidate can have that "favorability" in spades?

Clearly, I was able to use it (both Rs and Ds suck) to keep them disinterested in registering and voting. I think many voters disdain toward both parties is greater than the draw from either party.

And Trump does seem to have an emotional bond to many voters - one that seems difficult to break.

[I_Like_Dirt]

This is interesting - seems like one of the reasons that Clinton lost in the last election - she just didn't have an emotional bond with most voters. Wondering which D candidate can have that "favorability" in spades?

Clearly, I was able to use it (both Rs and Ds suck) to keep them disinterested in registering and voting. I think many voters disdain toward both parties is greater than the draw from either party.

And Trump does seem to have an emotional bond to many voters - one that seems difficult to break.

This was the entire point of the Cambridge Analytical scandal. CA was flat out admitting that voting was an emotional act, rather than a logical one, and they were right. The entire point was effectively to use emotions to strangle elections. It works both ways, honestly. The obvious one is to stoke emotions so that people vote without really thinking the issues through clearly and act on the emotion that they charge them with. Also, as you suggest, to sap the energy out of would-be voters for the other side so they lose their emotion and ultimately don't vote as consistently.

[pancakes3]

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2019-07-19/the-most-popular-and-least-popular-governors

THE 15 MOST POPULAR governors in the nation are all Republicans, according to a survey by Morning Consult, a global technology and media company.

According to the most recent report, Republican governors' net approval rating is 17 points higher than that of Democratic governors, on average. And Democrats make up eight of the 10 most unpopular governors.

#1 and #2 on the list, Barker and Hogan, are pro-choice, believe in climate change, opposed Kavannaugh's confirmation, oppose Trump's immigration policies, and generally subscribe to a number of traditionally dem policy platforms.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

Remember when Republicans and their supporters argued that Hillary's Email Server was a grave threat to national security

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

Remember when Republicans and their supporters argued that Hillary's Email Server was a grave threat to national security

It’s almost like Republicans are completely full of ****. If only voters would wake up and realize the same thing and put this party out of power for decades.

[Pointgod]

So another far right doofus is the new British Prime Minister. I guess people around the world will never learn. I’m looking forward to seeing how much better off the people of the UK are going to be after a no deal Brexit(it will tank their economy) since you know economic reasons were totally the why they voted for Brexit and not xenophobia and racism.

[Jamaaliver]

US mistrust on the rise, with government seen as worst: poll

Americans distrust the news media, but see government and political leaders as even more untrustworthy, a survey showed Monday.

The Pew Research Center found 69 percent of Americans say the federal government intentionally withholds important information from the public, while 61 percent say the news media intentionally ignores important stories.

Nearly two-thirds say it is hard to tell the difference between what is true and false when they hear elected officials, and almost half said the same about information they encounter on social media.

The survey highlighting growing mistrust among Americans in institutions and in each other, which could make it more difficult to deal with social and political issues.

AFP

[dckingsfan]

So another far right doofus is the new British Prime Minister. I guess people around the world will never learn. I’m looking forward to seeing how much better off the people of the UK are going to be after a no deal Brexit(it will tank their economy) since you know economic reasons were totally the why they voted for Brexit and not xenophobia and racism.

The changes in Europe are pretty fascinating - including Merkle essentially losing her position due to immigration.

Those that advocate for restrictions rely on a couple of key arguments.

Immigration weaken the use of existing languages, weaken existing religion(s), decrease family values, change cultural norms, etc..

Immigrants use social welfare programs, leading to urban slums and inundate our social service programs.

Immigration hurts the sending country (if they lose high-skilled labor).

Immigration lowers the income of the citizens that are currently here, especially our low-skilled workers.

But none of them are true. And until those arguments are beaten down and the general public understands this or until we come up with the counter emotional arguments - the anti-immigration folks will win that war.

The problem I see if that there isn't an effective emotional counter argument. There are definitely logically arguments (especially in the US) like increased GDP, our demographic issue (age), need for skilled workers, etc. But the current set of politicians that are pro-immigration have been very ineffective at getting their message out.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The changes in Europe are pretty fascinating - including Merkle essentially losing her position due to immigration.

Those that advocate for restrictions rely on a couple of key arguments.

Immigration weaken the use of existing languages, weaken existing religion(s), decrease family values, change cultural norms, etc..

Immigrants use social welfare programs, leading to urban slums and inundate our social service programs.

Immigration hurts the sending country (if they lose high-skilled labor).

Immigration lowers the income of the citizens that are currently here, especially our low-skilled workers.

But none of them are true. And until those arguments are beaten down and the general public understands this or until we come up with the counter emotional arguments - the anti-immigration folks will win that war.

The problem I see if that there isn't an effective emotional counter argument. There are definitely logically arguments (especially in the US) like increased GDP, our demographic issue (age), need for skilled workers, etc. But the current set of politicians that are pro-immigration have been very ineffective at getting their message out.

It's tough to sell those economic arguments when the long-term wage growth hasn't been particularly great during that time and basically all of the benefits of that immigration have been syphoned off by higher end corporate levels. Those kinds of arguments have rung increasingly hollow over the years as governments have bailed on infrastructure, quality of life, etc. and the private sector has massively increased its profits in a move towards quasi-monopoly status in most sectors.

Merkel has done an absolutely fantastic job overall and I've been in awe of her as a politician in general. She's made human arguments for immigration in ways other politicians have simply been unable to do. Germany took in more Syrian refugees than France, Italy, Greece, Italy and Sweden combined. Berlin alone took in almost as many Syrian refugees as all of Greece. Germany has a language barrier as a European country that was didn't get into colonialism to the same extent and so hasn't been a big draw for immigrants when they could go to France or England. That suddenly changed in a big way. With any other politician at the helm, I'm sure Germany would be an absolute quagmire right now. They still have serious problem but it's been an amazing performance on Merkel's part, as far as I'm concerned.

[Ruzious]

This Ratcliffe clown is like a made for tv charicature of an idiot prosecutor using a bad script. He even looks like he's being played by Ed Helms. Where do they come up with these people?

[dckingsfan]

The changes in Europe are pretty fascinating - including Merkle essentially losing her position due to immigration.

Those that advocate for restrictions rely on a couple of key arguments.

Immigration weaken the use of existing languages, weaken existing religion(s), decrease family values, change cultural norms, etc..

Immigrants use social welfare programs, leading to urban slums and inundate our social service programs.

Immigration hurts the sending country (if they lose high-skilled labor).

Immigration lowers the income of the citizens that are currently here, especially our low-skilled workers.

But none of them are true. And until those arguments are beaten down and the general public understands this or until we come up with the counter emotional arguments - the anti-immigration folks will win that war.

The problem I see if that there isn't an effective emotional counter argument. There are definitely logically arguments (especially in the US) like increased GDP, our demographic issue (age), need for skilled workers, etc. But the current set of politicians that are pro-immigration have been very ineffective at getting their message out.

It's tough to sell those economic arguments when the long-term wage growth hasn't been particularly great during that time and basically all of the benefits of that immigration have been syphoned off by higher end corporate levels. Those kinds of arguments have rung increasingly hollow over the years as governments have bailed on infrastructure, quality of life, etc. and the private sector has massively increased its profits in a move towards quasi-monopoly status in most sectors.

Merkel has done an absolutely fantastic job overall and I've been in awe of her as a politician in general. She's made human arguments for immigration in ways other politicians have simply been unable to do. Germany took in more Syrian refugees than France, Italy, Greece, Italy and Sweden combined. Berlin alone took in almost as many Syrian refugees as all of Greece. Germany has a language barrier as a European country that was didn't get into colonialism to the same extent and so hasn't been a big draw for immigrants when they could go to France or England. That suddenly changed in a big way. With any other politician at the helm, I'm sure Germany would be an absolute quagmire right now. They still have serious problem but it's been an amazing performance on Merkel's part, as far as I'm concerned.

The question of migration can break Europe apart.

She knows what she speaks - it has taken her down.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/will-the-latest-migration-crisis-bring-down-angela-merkel

[Pointgod]

So another far right doofus is the new British Prime Minister. I guess people around the world will never learn. I’m looking forward to seeing how much better off the people of the UK are going to be after a no deal Brexit(it will tank their economy) since you know economic reasons were totally the why they voted for Brexit and not xenophobia and racism.

The changes in Europe are pretty fascinating - including Merkle essentially losing her position due to immigration.

Those that advocate for restrictions rely on a couple of key arguments.

Immigration weaken the use of existing languages, weaken existing religion(s), decrease family values, change cultural norms, etc..

Immigrants use social welfare programs, leading to urban slums and inundate our social service programs.

Immigration hurts the sending country (if they lose high-skilled labor).

Immigration lowers the income of the citizens that are currently here, especially our low-skilled workers.

But none of them are true. And until those arguments are beaten down and the general public understands this or until we come up with the counter emotional arguments - the anti-immigration folks will win that war.

The problem I see if that there isn't an effective emotional counter argument. There are definitely logically arguments (especially in the US) like increased GDP, our demographic issue (age), need for skilled workers, etc. But the current set of politicians that are pro-immigration have been very ineffective at getting their message out.

Well the answer isn’t to completely ignore it and not address the obvious xenophobia and racism, the answer is to call it out for what it is, but also explain why. This is the part where the Democrats have been poor when it comes to messaging. The only reason Republicans use racism as a political tool is because they believe the American people are stupid and can’t offer any policies that either make the majority of Americans safer or their lives better.

And they need to offer a better alternative in a less academic and matter of fact way, instead using a way that connects to people.

I’m pretty sure the American people don’t appreciate being lied to or Republicans playing them for idiots. It needs to be called out.

[dckingsfan]

So another far right doofus is the new British Prime Minister. I guess people around the world will never learn. I’m looking forward to seeing how much better off the people of the UK are going to be after a no deal Brexit(it will tank their economy) since you know economic reasons were totally the why they voted for Brexit and not xenophobia and racism.

The changes in Europe are pretty fascinating - including Merkle essentially losing her position due to immigration.

Those that advocate for restrictions rely on a couple of key arguments.

Immigration weaken the use of existing languages, weaken existing religion(s), decrease family values, change cultural norms, etc..

Immigrants use social welfare programs, leading to urban slums and inundate our social service programs.

Immigration hurts the sending country (if they lose high-skilled labor).

Immigration lowers the income of the citizens that are currently here, especially our low-skilled workers.

But none of them are true. And until those arguments are beaten down and the general public understands this or until we come up with the counter emotional arguments - the anti-immigration folks will win that war.

The problem I see if that there isn't an effective emotional counter argument. There are definitely logically arguments (especially in the US) like increased GDP, our demographic issue (age), need for skilled workers, etc. But the current set of politicians that are pro-immigration have been very ineffective at getting their message out.

Well the answer isn’t to completely ignore it and not address the obvious xenophobia and racism, the answer is to call it out for what it is, but also explain why. This is the part where the Democrats have been poor when it comes to messaging. The only reason Republicans use racism as a political tool is because they believe the American people are stupid and can’t offer any policies that either make the majority of Americans safer or their lives better.

And they need to offer a better alternative in a less academic and matter of fact way, instead using a way that connects to people.

I’m pretty sure the American people don’t appreciate being lied to or Republicans playing them for idiots. It needs to be called out.

With you on this one. We need to make sure that the R policies are stupid and are having unintended consequences. Then lay out there better way... and that is the problem I am having - it is hard to articulate the D party line. For Trump its easy, I am keeping them out because - see the points above.

I think the way Merkle presented her view ended up being a losing strategy.

[queridiculo]

She knows what she speaks - it has taken her down.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/will-the-latest-migration-crisis-bring-down-angela-merkel

Do explain, and how does that article support your position?

[dckingsfan]

She knows what she speaks - it has taken her down.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/will-the-latest-migration-crisis-bring-down-angela-merkel

Do explain, and how does that article support your position?

First, the back and forth on this goes back a way in this thread. So, I may miss a point or two.

The point being that missteps in immigration policy can bring down or weaken your government. Or not being able to adequately articulate the reasons and get support for the policy.

That has clearly been the case with Merkel and the Christian Democratic party. The article merely points out that she and the Christian Democratic party are still grappling with the after affects of that policy.

And then - trying to learn from that situation - how do you explain the current D policy on immigration and get support from a majority or even super majority of the nation.

I bought up the four ways (I can show that they aren't true but it takes time to explain why) those on the anti-immigration side couch the issue:
Immigration weakens the use of existing languages, weakens existing religion(s), decreases family values, changes cultural norms, etc..

Immigrants use social welfare programs, leading to urban slums and inundate our social service programs.

Immigration hurts the sending country (if they lose high-skilled labor).

Immigration lowers the income of the citizens that are currently here, especially our low-skilled workers.