Way too extreme': Some Democrats warn against moving left

[spurraider21]

I am actually referring to the number of individual townships and small rural areas that actually get out to vote. If you want to ignore those people, go ahead, make that mistake again.

its not the townships that vote, or counties that vote. it's people. there are all those maps of how trump won some absurd percentage of counties, but its the individual votes that represent the will of the people. one person, one vote, etc.

its not about ignoring people from those towns. its about attributing the right amount of weight, which should be done by population. a rural town with a population of 350 isn't going to have equal say as the town next door with 4,000 people. nor should it.

States are full of small towns and villages that have stories like steel mills closing and such, and these don't seem to matter as much because those affected aren't part of a protected class, most of the time, and because the town itself is individually insignificant statistically. It doesn't sell copy to talk about Joe Bob's job going away. Not sensational enough. Big media likes to report on what sells copy, and people read what concerns them and their own areas.

i dont deny that those towns have stories, and those people's struggles are every bit as real as somebody from a bigger city. sensationalism isn't the factor, either. its just a matter of assigning weight to individuals, not some artificial lines on where a town/city/county ends

[DMC]

its not the townships that vote, or counties that vote. it's people. there are all those maps of how trump won some absurd percentage of counties, but its the individual votes that represent the will of the people. one person, one vote, etc.

its not about ignoring people from those towns. its about attributing the right amount of weight, which should be done by population. a rural town with a population of 350 isn't going to have equal say as the town next door with 4,000 people. nor should it.

It's about ignoring the plight of the towns, as I said already, and the fact that they are often swayed by populists. Going too far left scares them into a "Revelations is right" mindset.

i dont deny that those towns have stories, and those people's struggles are every bit as real as somebody from a bigger city. sensationalism isn't the factor, either. its just a matter of assigning weight to individuals, not some artificial lines on where a town/city/county ends

You didn't say anything I didn't already say. It's about selling the most copies of a story, these days that's clicks, and Joe Bob's friends and relatives aren't going to get them there but multiply Joe Bob x all the rural dwellers in the US and you have a formidable group who's voice is often so silent that polls won't capture it.

[spurraider21]

It's about ignoring the plight of the towns, as I said already, and the fact that they are often swayed by populists. Going too far left scares them into a "Revelations is right" mindset.

You didn't say anything I didn't already say. It's about selling the most copies of a story, these days that's clicks, and Joe Bob's friends and relatives aren't going to get them there but multiply Joe Bob x all the rural dwellers in the US and you have a formidable group who's voice is often so silent that polls won't capture it.

towns dont vote. the individuals do

[ElNono]

but multiply Joe Bob x all the rural dwellers in the US and you have a formidable group who's voice is often so silent that polls won't capture it.

Not sure sure about that. While rural population covers about 97% of the nation, it only accounts for less than 20% of the population (roughly 60 million people).

Of those, you have to subtract ineligible voters (children, etc), plus their turnout numbers which are actually no different than those of non-rural voters.

(Census bureau numbers here: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb16-210.html)

This can probably be calculated, but their incidence over a federal election is likely to be roughly 20% also. If you split their voting into 70%-30% between parties (IIRC, last presidential election was 66% GOP vs 34% Dem), that would be a 24 million vote advantage.

Now, 138 million people voted in the last presidential election, so the incidence of those 24 million votes would be roughly 17%. It's likely no slouch on highly compe ive states, but overall, I don't know I would really call it formidable.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that while the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace.

[boutons_deux]

"the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace."

bull

Rural Depopulation in a Rapidly Urbanizing America

https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation

Rural America has been depopulating for 100+ years, matching urbanization.

In rural counties, there's no god jobs, no future, poor education, health care unavailable nearby, etc.

[Spurminator]

Are you saying the majority of the country is urban?

By a mile.

https://www.census.gov/library/stori...l-america.html

Urban areas make up only 3 percent of the entire land area of the country but are home to more than 80 percent of the population.

[Winehole23]

By a mile.

https://www.census.gov/library/stori...l-america.html

DMC seems to be upholding the sacred democratic principle of one acre, one vote.

[DMC]

towns dont vote. the individuals do

No Philo. When you get a clue and a couple elections under your belt, let me know, you pedantic, naive .

This "whitelash", do you think it comes from Starbucks?

[DMC]

Not sure sure about that. While rural population covers about 97% of the nation, it only accounts for less than 20% of the population (roughly 60 million people).

Of those, you have to subtract ineligible voters (children, etc), plus their turnout numbers which are actually no different than those of non-rural voters.

(Census bureau numbers here: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb16-210.html)

This can probably be calculated, but their incidence over a federal election is likely to be roughly 20% also. If you split their voting into 70%-30% between parties (IIRC, last presidential election was 66% GOP vs 34% Dem), that would be a 24 million vote advantage.

Now, 138 million people voted in the last presidential election, so the incidence of those 24 million votes would be roughly 17%. It's likely no slouch on highly compe ive states, but overall, I don't know I would really call it formidable.

Perhaps the biggest problem is that while the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace.

"The electoral system magnifies the voices of the poor, sparsely populated and conservative countryside at the expense of voters in densely populated cities who tend to be richer, racially diverse, and liberal." - The Economist

" In the roughly 3000 counties beyond the 100 largest, Trump trounced Clinton by about 11.5 million votes. In the decisive states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the electoral map was a sea of Republican red interrupted only by lonely blue islands in big cities and college towns. " -The Atlantic

A state has only so many electoral votes. If that state (California, for example) is historically blue, having 100 million more democrats won't change anything. However, in the pink states where rural turned suburbanite voters reside, the tide can change based on how scary the left seems to get. Some socialism seekers seem to think that the democratic base would love nothing more than a socialist agenda, nothing more than the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, 50% income tax and free healthcare for all, but the democrats aren't all gender fluid loving folks. There are plenty midwest farmers who are staunch dems who are also Christians and gun owners/hunters and see farm subsidies as a reason to remain a democrat, but if the left goes too far with the anti-American rhetoric with people like Talib and AOC, they are going to risk putting those aforementioned folks in tough positions.

This is why someone like Biden is a frontrunner. Show me an extreme left position that can become a frontrunner in the DNC. They on Bernie for a reason.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Oh wow I'm supposed to listen to a bunch of Trump voters who said center-right Hillary Clinton was too far to the left for them? What a disaster that would be if the Democrats focus on courting that 30% that will never leave Trump.

more like 40%

[Millennial_Messiah]

"the Rural population has kept relatively steady, Urban population continues to grow at a much rapid pace."

bull

Rural Depopulation in a Rapidly Urbanizing America

https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/rural-depopulation

Rural America has been depopulating for 100+ years, matching urbanization.

In rural counties, there's no god jobs, no future, poor education, health care unavailable nearby, etc.

it's for people who like/don't mind driving long distances to the city in order to save big money on rent/house price/property taxes.

[Winehole23]

it's for people who like/don't mind driving long distances to the city in order to save big money on rent/house price/property taxes.

Not everyone who lives in the country has a city job to drive to, silly.

[ElNono]

"The electoral system magnifies the voices of the poor, sparsely populated and conservative countryside at the expense of voters in densely populated cities who tend to be richer, racially diverse, and liberal." - The Economist

" In the roughly 3000 counties beyond the 100 largest, Trump trounced Clinton by about 11.5 million votes. In the decisive states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the electoral map was a sea of Republican red interrupted only by lonely blue islands in big cities and college towns. " -The Atlantic

A state has only so many electoral votes. If that state (California, for example) is historically blue, having 100 million more democrats won't change anything. However, in the pink states where rural turned suburbanite voters reside, the tide can change based on how scary the left seems to get. Some socialism seekers seem to think that the democratic base would love nothing more than a socialist agenda, nothing more than the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, 50% income tax and free healthcare for all, but the democrats aren't all gender fluid loving folks. There are plenty midwest farmers who are staunch dems who are also Christians and gun owners/hunters and see farm subsidies as a reason to remain a democrat, but if the left goes too far with the anti-American rhetoric with people like Talib and AOC, they are going to risk putting those aforementioned folks in tough positions.

This is why someone like Biden is a frontrunner. Show me an extreme left position that can become a frontrunner in the DNC. They on Bernie for a reason.

Those 11.5 million votes statistically are not significant as a sample of the voting electorate. They're actually less than 10%... we can split them by 50 to get the general median per state, but it's statistically the same incidence.

In all the pink states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, that you mention (Florida too, I might add), there's also one or more urban areas. The reason Trump won there, like in the Rust Belt in general, has very little to do with rural people, but the fact that a lot of urban and suburban people actually voted for him (for reasons we've gone through a lot of times here).

I know there's some romanticism about the 'silent majority', the notion that there's some passive, but major force in the shadows... that is demonstrably false. The numbers just don't add up. It probably was true 30-40 years ago, not today. And the trend is that it's gonna continue to dwindle down.

I don't particularly care too much about the staunch democrat or the staunch republican. Those are, roughly, 30% of the electorate in either direction. And to be fair, Trump had to sell quite a bit of anti-free market to win (the Rust Belt con about manufacturing is well do ented, same for the cheap/best healthcare, that his trust fund buddies were gonna lose money, etc etc etc). Obama was gonna close Gitmo too... campaign spiel is just that. I would agree Bernie would probably be a guy that would have a hard time moderating his speech past the primaries, but on the other hand, I don't think any of the others would.

But it's too early anyways for any kind of substantive analysis, tbh... until we get some votes coming in the primaries, we won't really know what the real pulse is.

[Millennial_Messiah]

Not everyone who lives in the country has a city job to drive to, silly.

so essentially they're either dirt poor or retired old fogies

[Winehole23]

so essentially they're either dirt poor or retired old fogies

not sure if serious

[Millennial_Messiah]

not sure if serious

who else would actually want to live in the country? seriously

[Capt Bringdown]

Nixon started the EPA and passed several expansive amendments to the voting rights act in 1970 including lowering the voting age to 18 iirc. Also, Republicans were overwhelmingly pro-abortion back then (it was looked at a limited government thing) so if you have any understand of history saying someone is similar in the political spectrum policy wise to early 1970s republicans is not really some massive insult. Youre just projecting that you have no understanding of America history at all.

Nixon obv was a racist POS based on the tapes (he was for abortion in cases of rape and if a black married a white iirc lol) and paranoid but policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican

Not sure if you are responding to my comment. If so, your ad hominem tantrum is bizarre.

The context of this thread is the establishment/centrist idea that policies such as Universal Health care and a guaranteed income are "too left" for Democrats.
Hence, my point, that historically speaking, these "too left" ideas were put forth by a Republican icon 40+ years ago.

This demonstrates how far the Overton Window has shifted to the right in the past 40+ years. Both parties are beholden to market-centric neoliberal ideology with regards to government solving problems such as health care and unemployment.

(me)Today's neolib dims are to the right of Richard Nixon = (you) policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican
On some issues of course. Ask the Cambodians or Laotians about how Nixon was "pretty great."

It is the centrist, neoliberal dims who are objecting to "too left" ideas such as universal health care. Do you see the irony?

[AaronY]

Not sure if you are responding to my comment. If so, your ad hominem tantrum is bizarre.

The context of this thread is the establishment/centrist idea that policies such as Universal Health care and a guaranteed income are "too left" for Democrats.
Hence, my point, that historically speaking, these "too left" ideas were put forth by a Republican icon 40+ years ago.

This demonstrates how far the Overton Window has shifted to the right in the past 40+ years. Both parties are beholden to market-centric neoliberal ideology with regards to government solving problems such as health care and unemployment.

(me)Today's neolib dims are to the right of Richard Nixon = (you) policy wise he was pretty great for a Republican
On some issues of course. Ask the Cambodians or Laotians about how Nixon was "pretty great."

It is the centrist, neoliberal dims who are objecting to "too left" ideas such as universal health care. Do you see the irony?

Lol I never did anything at hominem at all nor was what I said a "tantrum"

It's shifted right on some issues but way, way, WAY left on others such as gay marriage, pornography, film and tv censorship, race matters such as having a black president of the most powerful nation on Earth for the first time in world history, more social acceptance of various lifestyles, etc it's amazing how Bernie Bros who literally hate this country with a passion try to minimize those things.

Imagine being a gay person..youre treated like dog from the beginning till 2013 then you can get married and accepted. Seems like a big deal but not to The Bernie Bros who in my experience mock people for pointing out good progressive accomplishments like that

The highest minimum wage ever in history adjusted for inflation was $8.69 anyway btw, wages were bound to drop per capita when women pursuing careers massively increased the labor participation rate, etc.

Things are somewhat worse and I want to change and help working people which is why I vote Democrat but when people cry like a and act like 1870s coal mining days its beyond eye rolling levels.

Also I said Nixon was good for a Republican for the reasons so mentioned and which you were obviously wholly unaware of. there are always going to be Republicans and unlike a Bernie Bro I know they are never going to be Democrats so as a Democrat I have lower standards for them

[Spurtacular]

The highest minimum wage ever in history adjusted for inflation was $8.69 anyway btw,

And is that using a baseline of the national law min wage or the min wages from state to state?

Because plenty of states have much higher min wages than the national min wage.

I think you maybe got snowed, Y.

[ElNono]

I'm gonna pile on, and present:

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019...ear/index.html

[Spurs Champs99]

The Republicans are too right wing.

The Democrats are becoming too left wing.

Some of the progressive left policies are good: single-payer healthcare, etc.

But what I cannot stand by the far left is the white shaming, the woke stuff.

If you run a iden y politics-centric campaign, you will lose the election.

There is nothing wrong with centrism.

Middle of the road means not extreme.

[TheGreatYacht]

The Republicans are too right wing.

The Democrats are becoming too left wing.

Some of the progressive left policies are good: single-payer healthcare, etc.

But what I cannot stand by the far left is the white shaming, the woke stuff.

If you run a iden y politics-centric campaign, you will lose the election.

There is nothing wrong with centrism.

Middle of the road means not extreme.

Both sides are about iden y politics and fear mongering. The right does it with muslims and Mexicans. The left does it with whites.

Centrism is what got us Trump. The Democrats are too far right. Until we have a majority of Democrats like AOC, Ilhan Omar and Bernie your statement of "Democrats are too left-wing" is null.

[boutons_deux]

"Centrism is what got us Trump"

your ed takes are approaching pgardn level

[TheGreatYacht]

"Centrism is what got us Trump"

your ed takes are approaching pgardn level

Here is your lovely Obama. Prove me wrong dip . Or are you a Demo like PeeGarden?

[Spurminator]

But what I cannot stand by the far left is the white shaming, the woke stuff.

If you run a iden y politics-centric campaign, you will lose the election.

Which Democratic politician do you see running a campaign full of white shaming and "woke stuff?"