Author Topic: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate  (Read 9192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 133,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,021
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #25 on: May 05, 2018, 11:16:51 »
So we can see that compromise has died in the American independent and left-leaning voters, but why has never really existed in "conservatives"? Glad you asked!

Source

I missed how your Twitter sourced article proved that small c-conservatives never compromise.

Doesn't the fact there was a US civil war (partially) over the issue of slavery kind of weaken Mr Grey's thesis that the US was built on slavery?


Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services pai
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 266,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,198
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #26 on: May 05, 2018, 11:55:58 »
.... or that the democrat slave owners wouldn't comprimise with the republicans to end slavery.

Slavery was pretty much a democrat thing and they still try make political hay with the subject.

Those two statements hold as much water as anything your highly biased, left wing blogger, Ethan Grey, has to say on the subject.

His very first untruthful first sentence, "Donald Trump won the GOP primary and the presidency because campaigning on whiteness-first messaging still has potency in the 21st century" sets the tone for the rest of his drivel.
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2018, 12:16:55 »
That first sentence assumes a lot that has to be proven.  Extending from the argument that cultural chauvinism and identity politics were among the reasons for Trump's victory to the argument that it was "the" reason will require more proof, as will the thesis that "whiteness" is an acceptable synonym for such a large mass of people.

There were other contributing factors, such as the fact that Democratic strategy included using Trump as a foil to muddy the primary and drag down those thought of as "serious" candidates.  The media gave him an easy ride, and he got beyond their control.  If you disagree, go back and re-read all the lamentations published after the election by people who regretted not covering the Republican primary more fairly and objectively.

A rant asserting the recent adoption of identity politics - a long-time technique of a great many groups who are decidedly opposed to Republicans and conservatives in the US - by some Trump voters does not fit the description of an excuse for why "compromise...has never really existed in "conservatives"".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #28 on: May 05, 2018, 19:26:54 »
I missed how your Twitter sourced article proved that small c-conservatives never compromise.
To be more precise it's a Twitter article with many sources.

Regardless the over-arching premise of this article is that there is a deeply held belief in white entitlement (if not supremacy) that drives conservatives generally and Trump voters particularly. As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person - or as we've seen with Trump and his supporters more recently simply implemented by a non-white/black person - such a policy or law is not to be supported in any way, regardless how helpful it may be to white people generally.

Ergo uncompromising.

Quote
Doesn't the fact there was a US civil war (partially) over the issue of slavery kind of weaken Mr Grey's thesis that the US was built on slavery?
How so? It's a fact that a very significant part of the early-American economy was built on slavery. The civil war proves at least in part that many in America wanted to preserve slavery as a means to continue building the economy.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #29 on: May 05, 2018, 19:46:05 »
There is a simpler explanation that doesn't involve attributing malign motives to large swathes of people - they prefer their own culture.

"As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person"

Untrue.  Plenty of laws and policies in the US have been helpful to black people.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2018, 08:55:50 »
There is a simpler explanation that doesn't involve attributing malign motives to large swathes of people - they prefer their own culture.
*Edit #2: I should think if conservatives were genuinely so concerned about maligning the motives of large swathes of people Trump's "Mexicans are rapists", etc. would be thoroughly offputting. Funny that it doesn't seem to be.

Regardless, the article does not ascribe "malign motives" it describes what are entitlement motives among white conservatives. Are officers "malign" when they act upon the wrongful denial of a salute from an NCM? It's about hierarchy and subordination and the entitlements therein.

With regard to culture you would probably have a point if it could be demonstrated conclusively that there are indeed clearly defined and differentiated cultures that are (coincidentally) identifiable by relative melanin content in superficial tissues. As far as I can see blacks and whites in America speak the same language, learn the same facts and history in school, go to many of the same church denominations and believe in the same deities, watch essentially the same tv and movies, support the same sports teams, form the same ideal family units and pledge the same allegiance to their flag.

*Edit: And even if there is a clearly defined and different culture between whites and blacks, how does culture alone explain the rejection of a desegregated healthcare system that would've significantly benefited whites?

Quote
"As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person"

Untrue.  Plenty of laws and policies in the US have been helpful to black people.
Plenty of laws and policies in the US have been passed by independents and non-conservatives. The point isn't whether or not blacks are ever treated fairly, it's whether or not one identifiable type of voter ever wants to treat blacks fairly. The polls and studies sourced in this article suggest fairly convincingly that they do not is a well-supported proposition.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2018, 11:17:00 by beirnini »

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2018, 23:07:22 »
People vote for candidates with off-putting attributes.  Examples: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump.  It doesn't mean those voters approve.  Several prominent defenders of Bill Clinton admitted defending him because he was the Democratic president - strict political partisanship - even though they found his personal conduct repulsive.  No-one gets to define the threshold of acceptability for others: each voter determines what he is willing to tolerate.  Others are free to feel as outraged as they choose.  Both sides have freedom of thought and expression.

Comparing military regulations and discipline to the free exercise of a vote is not an effective position to adopt.

Cultures: suburban white, urban black.  Do you propose to argue they are not distinct and differentiable?

>The point isn't whether or not blacks are ever treated fairly

Then you should abandon or modify this absolute statement: "As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person ... such a policy or law is not to be supported in any way, regardless how helpful it may be to white people generally.".  Too broad a brush.

What is being overlooked (deliberately or ignorantly, doesn't matter) is this: people who share interests might, given a choice of only two practical candidates, all vote for the same candidate.  Their calculation might give greater weight to political interests than to personal values.  It tells us nothing about their personal shortcomings, or the many shades and strengths to which they adhere to particular points and positions.  Examples: some people tired of the Democratic war against their religious liberty (the reality, however it might be debated on the head of a pin, is irrelevant compared to the perception) voted for Trump because he was the only candidate not representing a continuation of such policies; some people subject to or witnessing losses of employment voted for Trump because he was promising to change things rather than simply asserting that those jobs are gone and are never coming back.  Again, the perception is what is important.  Even a faint hope will almost always carry more weight than none at all.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Pencil Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 328
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2018, 09:11:30 »
I missed how your Twitter sourced article proved that small c-conservatives never compromise.

Doesn't the fact there was a US civil war (partially) over the issue of slavery kind of weaken Mr Grey's thesis that the US was built on slavery?

I disagree. There were always people who were opposed to slavery, even at the founding of the USA, but many of the founding fathers were slave owners as is well documented. By the time the of the civil war, abolitionism had become more and more widespread - slavery and the slave trade had been abolished in England without a war but the US was late in abolishing slavery and it had to come to civil war for it to happen. Then during the Reconstruction, slavery was replaced by Jim Crow and segregation. This whole trauma is woven tightly into the fabric of the USA and the repercussions continue.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 133,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,021
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2018, 10:53:01 »
I disagree. There were always people who were opposed to slavery, even at the founding of the USA, but many of the founding fathers were slave owners as is well documented. By the time the of the civil war, abolitionism had become more and more widespread - slavery and the slave trade had been abolished in England without a war but the US was late in abolishing slavery and it had to come to civil war for it to happen. Then during the Reconstruction, slavery was replaced by Jim Crow and segregation. This whole trauma is woven tightly into the fabric of the USA and the repercussions continue.

I accept that. My point (clearly, poorly made) was that at the time of US civil war, slavery was not part of the industrial Northern States- it was a feature of the much economically weaker agrarian South. I accept also that the removal of Federal troops from the South in the 1880s allowed Jim Crow to take root. I accept that this trauma runs deep in the US. My point is in parallel to Brad's- the original article asserted but proved nothing of the sort that everyone who voted for Trump was a racist. I think even Canada, people vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons- both simple and complicated.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2018, 11:45:39 »
People vote for candidates with off-putting attributes.  Examples: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump.  It doesn't mean those voters approve.  Several prominent defenders of Bill Clinton admitted defending him because he was the Democratic president - strict political partisanship - even though they found his personal conduct repulsive.  No-one gets to define the threshold of acceptability for others: each voter determines what he is willing to tolerate.  Others are free to feel as outraged as they choose.  Both sides have freedom of thought and expression.
There are off-putting attributes that will and will not speak to one's executive capacity (e.g. willingness to commit oval office adultery or ordering the burglary of the offices of your political opponent) and to one's suitability to be a shaper of public opinion in the media.  As you rightly point out a writer who baselessly "maligns the motives of large swathes of people" is concerning if not unacceptable.  So I have to still wonder how is that same characteristic not similarly concerning if not unacceptable in a politician and member of the executive unless, as the article goes into some detail, such a characteristic is not actually a flaw but a feature.
Quote
Comparing military regulations and discipline to the free exercise of a vote is not an effective position to adopt.
Again, as the article goes into some detail when we're talking about a social system of hierarchy and subordination and entitlements, a system that in part was fought over at the cost of millions of lives in the American Civil War.  It is a perfectly apt comparison and position.
Quote
Cultures: suburban white, urban black.  Do you propose to argue they are not distinct and differentiable?
Do you take issue with the study cited in the article that supports white entitlement was the determining factor to rejecting desegregated healthcare even though it would have helped whites equally? Because I fail to see how as you propose culture largely explains that, especially when urbanization wasn't so pronounced in the '50's and '60's.
Quote
Quote
The point isn't whether or not blacks are ever treated fairly
Then you should abandon or modify this absolute statement: "As the article describes in some detail historically if a policy or law were to seen as being helpful in any way to a non-white/black person ... such a policy or law is not to be supported in any way, regardless how helpful it may be to white people generally.".  Too broad a brush.
I don't think so.  Seeing as Trump - within his powers and far more than any President before him - has gone out of his way with almost single-minded purpose to undo everything Obama ever did either with executive orders, appointments (or lack thereof) or attempted legislation I'm not really prepared to abandon that just yet. Trump's motivation goes far beyond mere partisanship.

Beyond that as I said before laws and policies have been put into place by independents and non-conservatives, regardless the objection of conservatives. That's democracy. There are non-zealous, non-ideologically driven politicians and civil servants that occupy the vast majority of positions in government and the bureaucracy as well. Just because blacks are treated fairly by the bureaucracy now and again does not preclude a faction in the electorate that is, as the studies and polls in this article demonstrate, against the fair and equal treatment of blacks. One need only look to Kim Davis to see what a bureaucracy filled with conservative zealots opposed to enacting policy and law that run against their beliefs would look like.  We're not there yet, and I hope we never will, but considering how much support she continues to receive from her politically like-minded and fellow travelers it isn't outside the realm of possibility either.
Quote
What is being overlooked (deliberately or ignorantly, doesn't matter) is this: people who share interests might, given a choice of only two practical candidates, all vote for the same candidate.  Their calculation might give greater weight to political interests than to personal values.  It tells us nothing about their personal shortcomings, or the many shades and strengths to which they adhere to particular points and positions.  Examples: some people tired of the Democratic war against their religious liberty (the reality, however it might be debated on the head of a pin, is irrelevant compared to the perception) voted for Trump because he was the only candidate not representing a continuation of such policies; some people subject to or witnessing losses of employment voted for Trump because he was promising to change things rather than simply asserting that those jobs are gone and are never coming back.  Again, the perception is what is important.  Even a faint hope will almost always carry more weight than none at all.
The article describes in some detail that "denial of racism, alongside hostile sexism, predicted a vote for Donald Trump significantly more than other factors like economic dissatisfaction. This kind of correlation between racial resentment and the probability of voting for Trump has been observed in other studies". If you have a issues with the methodology of the studies and polls themselves, or with the conclusions drawn from them then by all means share them. But your opinion that Trump voters particularly and conservative voters generally vote on some other calculus is just that; your opinion. It isn't supported by the data.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2018, 13:55:28 »
The different identifiable segments of the whole voting population were sliced and diced after the election, and Hillary didn't hold Obama's fraction of several of the voting blocs, including blacks.  I accept it as established that Obama was at nearly all points during his administration more popular personally than the policies he favoured.  That evidence tends to deprecate racism as an explanation, and reinforce Hillary and her political positions as the source of her own demise.

You can go on cherry-picking the handful of studies that support your position.  They're a fart in a hurricane.  Your selected author isn't a righteous iconoclast disproving the conventional wisdom of political analysts on both sides of the aisle; he's angry and frustrated that his causes have at least suffered a four-year interruption of advancement and at worst an eight-year period of reversals and he situated his estimate.

Regardless, the idea that white racism propelled Trump into office could be proven or unproven and would still be irrelevant to the notions that compromise never really existed among conservatives, or that the blame for a dearth of compromise could be narrowly laid at any one pair of feet.  To reiterate a couple of examples I may have mentioned before which poisoned compromise: Reagan's compromise with Tip O'Neill over immigration; Harry Reid's iron-fisted no-compromise management of the Senate.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 292
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2018, 14:04:35 »
beirnini

I wonder if you have read any of Thomas Sowell's quotes and comments regarding slavery and racism.   

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 157,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,788
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2018, 15:36:47 »
Again, as the article goes into some detail when we're talking about a social system of hierarchy and subordination and entitlements, a system that in part was fought over at the cost of millions hundreds of thousands of lives in the American Civil War.

Fixed that for you.  Much like most modern political debate discourse jabbering, it is irritating when those participating either don't bother or don't care to ensure that what they say is factually correct.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 483,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,717
    • The job.
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2018, 16:19:04 »
For reference to the discussion of American Civil War casualties,

New York Times
New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll
APRIL 2, 2012
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html


Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2018, 07:51:12 »
Fixed that for you.  Much like most modern political debate discourse jabbering, it is irritating when those participating either don't bother or don't care to ensure that what they say is factually correct.
Thanks for the correction and apologies for the irritation.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2018, 07:56:07 »
beirnini

I wonder if you have read any of Thomas Sowell's quotes and comments regarding slavery and racism.   
I haven't. Is there some writing of his that is relevant to this thread that you recommend?

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2018, 08:11:21 »
The different identifiable segments of the whole voting population were sliced and diced after the election, and Hillary didn't hold Obama's fraction of several of the voting blocs, including blacks.  I accept it as established that Obama was at nearly all points during his administration more popular personally than the policies he favoured.  That evidence tends to deprecate racism as an explanation, and reinforce Hillary and her political positions as the source of her own demise.

You can go on cherry-picking the handful of studies that support your position.  They're a fart in a hurricane.  Your selected author isn't a righteous iconoclast disproving the conventional wisdom of political analysts on both sides of the aisle; he's angry and frustrated that his causes have at least suffered a four-year interruption of advancement and at worst an eight-year period of reversals and he situated his estimate.

Regardless, the idea that white racism propelled Trump into office could be proven or unproven and would still be irrelevant to the notions that compromise never really existed among conservatives, or that the blame for a dearth of compromise could be narrowly laid at any one pair of feet.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but in over 15 years of itinerant forum discussions I can't think of one instance where my mind was changed after endless lobbing of heated rhetoric, usually fallacy-riddled assertions, and poorly sourced and cited (at best) opinions. I've no reason to believe this time will be any different. On the rare occasion I was brought to reconsider anything it was after the presentation or dissection of particularly germane facts or data. Brushing away what is probably hundreds, if not thousands of hours of cited research as "farts in a hurricane" does little to convince me of anything (assuming that is your object) besides your ability to use language rather poetically.

*Edit: I'd like to think we can do better than American voters.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 08:18:47 by beirnini »

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2018, 11:02:54 »
Until those people can explain from where "white-conscious" voters emerged if they were not already part of the Republican base - were they part of the Democrat base; had they sat out the past two elections and passed up a chance to vote against a black man and his decidedly not-white-favouring policies; are they traditionally part of the roughly 20% in the middle that decide presidential elections - then the mere discovery that they voted based on cultural affinity just tells us what common sense should already have told us.  Asserting they voted their interests in this election isn't very interesting if they have voted their interests for several consecutive elections.

The people who decided the election are the ones who switched from Democrat to Republican after voting Obama, or declined to participate after voting Democrat for Obama.  That is where the explanations must be sought.

Thousands of hours of research doesn't carry much weight in a field that has generated tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of research and assessment.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2018, 07:05:15 »
Asserting they voted their interests in this election isn't very interesting if they have voted their interests for several consecutive elections.
You're somehow drawing the wrong conclusion from this article as no such assertions are made. The studies pertaining to relative compensation for the general population and desegregated healthcare for Southern whites in particular demonstrate that voters regularly do not vote in their interests but rather their status to the detriment of their interests. In particular the healthcare and welfare net studies suggests "white-conscious" voters are greatly motivated by status over African Americans.

Quote
Thousands of hours of research doesn't carry much weight in a field that has generated tens if not hundreds of thousands of hours of research and assessment.
Re-iterating your opinion about farts and hurricanes doesn't make it any more convincing. At least one study that squarely contradicts the conclusions of the studies I've provided or a methodical dissection and refutation of the data, procedures or conclusions of at least one of the provided studies will go much farther to that end.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #44 on: July 05, 2018, 19:15:48 »
You missed the point.  I accept that the polls and whatnot demonstrate that some arbitrarily defined categories of white people are motivated by arbitrarily defined "white-consciousness" to vote for "white issues".  I'm looking for evidence that they suddenly became "white-conscious" recently - after the 2012 election.  If they were voting "white" all along (it's hardly plausible that they were Obama voters), then they were "base" voters, not "swing" voters, and they aren't to blame for the change in election fortunes between 2012 and 2016.  A tirade directed at their vote in 2016 with a view to blaming them for the outcome is not an explanation of how Hillary lost part of Obama's coalition.

The most probable explanation is still: Hillary is responsible for losing part of Obama's coalition.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2018, 00:31:11 »
I looked at the 2012 and 2016 Wikipedia articles about the respective US presidential elections.

In no particular order, here are some things that piqued my interest.  Where I compare, the 2012 number will be first as the former/earlier and 2016 as the latter/later.  Caveat: I'm not sure how directly comparable (or reliable) the demographic breakdown measures (polls) are.

Voter turnout up slightly, 54.1% to 55.4%.

Share of vote to Libertarians way up (0.99% to 3.27%) and to Greens up (0.36% to 1.06%).  Republican share down roughly 1.4% (47.32% to 45.93%), Democratic share down roughly 3.2% (51.19% to 48.02%).  Observation: those numbers say nothing about the EC distribution (efficiency) or exactly who moved where, but Hillary lost much more.  I suppose it could have been mostly Republicans who went Libertarian and Democrats who went Green, but that would imply a lot of Democrats went Republican.  The breakdown by Ideology (liberal, moderate, conservative) shows Trump more or less held the same numbers and Hillary slipped in all three groups to the benefit of third parties.  In particular, a lot of liberals and moderates were lost to third parties, for which "white consciousness" is not a likely explanation.

By Party, Trump lost among all 3 groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents).  Hillary lost Democrats and Independents, and actually gained a bit among Republicans.  Observation: another measure which illustrates that a bleed to the benefit of third parties.

By Race/Ethnicity: Trump claimed a slightly lower fraction of whites (59% to 58%), higher fractions of blacks (6% to 8%), asians (26% to 29%), and hispanics (27% to 29%), and a lower fraction of others (38% to 37%).  Observation: a decreased share of whites and increased share among the primary non-white groups doesn't intuitively fit well with blaming "white consciousness".

From the results by state, the increased share in the Libertarian and Green vote would have been enough to flip FL (29), MI (16), PA (20), and WI (10), but not OH (18).  The first four sum to 75 EC votes - more than enough to have elected Hillary; she would have needed 39 so several lesser combinations would have sufficed.

So now I don't merely believe Hillary lost part of the Obama coalition; I also believe she lost most of that to tickets other than Trump/Pence.  It's still possible to believe that Trump got more votes by appealing to "white consciousness" than he otherwise might have, but the biggest finger seems to point at the people who pulled the lever for Libertarians and Greens, particularly in battleground states.

That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2018, 03:02:20 »
[...]If they were voting "white" all along (it's hardly plausible that they were Obama voters), then they were "base" voters, not "swing" voters, and they aren't to blame for the change in election fortunes between 2012 and 2016.
[...]
The most probable explanation is still: Hillary is responsible for losing part of Obama's coalition.
My intention with referencing this article and the studies cited within is to present data that describes conservative voter motivation. This description is used to support the contention that compromise in the conservative electorate has long since died, assuming it ever existed in the first place. Several of these studies support the notion that most people are significantly motivated by status regardless the better interests they might impinge. Intuitively we know this is true by the prevalence of over-leveraging. Big mortgages and big car loans for the biggest, newest houses and cars to show off one's status (however sustainable) are everywhere. Maxed out credit cards on consumer goods are seemingly the norm, not the exception. Everyone is at least in part driven by status. "White-conscious" voters are driven even further by status relative to African Americans and other visible minorities (with a significant overlap of concern for male status over females, i.e. sexism).

I'm not particularly interested in how or why Hillary lost/Trump won, at least as it pertains to this thread.

Offline beirnini

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 4,325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 67
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2018, 07:20:32 »
It would seem I've been warned probably about the use of "crypto-fascist" when referring to Trump. In the spirit of forum rules and at the risk of taking the thread on a tangent I submit for consideration Harvard political scientist Robert Paxton's definition of fascism from his book The Anatomy of Fascism;
Quote
Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. (p. 218)
- Political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline? Check. Humiliation? Check. Victimhood? Check.
- Compensatory cult? None definitively or formally, but his supporters have consistently exhibited mania for, devotion to, and excessive admiration towards him which add up to cult-ish behaviour. His go-to insult is weirdly "low-energy" as well.
- Mass-based party of committed nationalist militants? Not yet, but his implied support of the thugs in Charlottesville does not bode well.
- Collaborates uneasily but effectively with traditional elites? An apt description of his relationship with the GOP.
- Abandons democratic liberties? Only in the present climate could an American president say that "President-For-Life" a la Jinping is something that should be given a shot and it barely causes a ripple. His unqualified praise for autocrats (Putin, Jinping, KJU) and autocrat wannabe's (Erdogan, Duterte) is concerning to say the least as well.
- Redemptive violence? Internal cleansing? External expansion? No on all counts, but his attitude to immigrants and muslims is questionable.

That's far more than anyone should be comfortable with. Whether it's crypto-fascist, latent-fascist, or ur-fascist, there's something deeply wrong politically going on in that man.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2018, 10:11:38 »
I see both Obama and Trump being parties of 1. Each used their respective parties as jumping off platform, but it was really about them and not the party. I think many voters picked up on that and voted to show their frustration with their traditional party. Hillary and the DNC were to closely joined at the hip. Internal politics within each of the major parties is likely poisoning support for them. 

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,637
Re: Compromise Has Died in the US Electorate
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2018, 15:18:26 »
>compromise in the conservative electorate has long since died

But that's not what the linked article shows.  The linked article basically shows that some guy is angry that more white voters than he expected have recently discovered identity politics, and that they are not in the Democratic tent.  And that makes him one among many people who wrote articles after the 2016 election along the lines of "Hey, white people have become a group that votes along identity (cultural) lines.  No fair."  And since these particular white voters were just about the last group to start doing it (2016) compared to all the other identity/grievance factions, I suppose that you might be able to claim that compromise has died in the white-conscious sub-faction of the conservative electorate.  But they don't represent all conservatives, and it didn't happen "long since".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.