To further my earlier point, someone on social media shared an advert for ordinary guests to appear on a BBC daytime TV programme, specifically UK-based people who wanted Trump to win. The first 50 comments were almost entirely pissed off progressives blasting the BBC for daring to give a platform to racists, misogynists and fascists and in doing so entirely missed the point. These progressives are angry, and their anger is largely a result of being hurt and confused because they do not understand how ordinary men and women could support someone like Trump. And yet instead of listening to those who support Trump in order to understand why they feel that they, they want to deny them the freedom to express their views and opinions. It's like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object - populists are pissed off because they face barriers to express themselves freely, and progressives are pissed off because there are not enough barriers to stop populists from expressing their views. Why can't we just have a conversation?
One thing I'd like to see happen in the aftermath of this is for polls to be banned. Their predictions for the last few major votes have been catastrophically wrong and I feel the constant narrative that they create of the populists being the underdog is skewing opinions and emotions leading up to polling day.
I'm quite certain it's the views of people like Leuth, as opposed to say SDAddick, that swung the results in favour of Brexit and Donald Trump.
I was 50/50 ish on Brexit, but it was definitely Leuth type comments that swung it for me. (I was against Trump).
We had 13 years (1997-2010) of being unable to voice legitimate concerns over LEVELS of immigration, without being shouted down and labelled as racist or bigots, that's a very long time. It wasn't just immigration, it was other matters like people on benefits living in 5 or more bedroom houses, whilst some working first time buyers, couldn't even afford a one bed flat. Labour disregarded their core voters and UKIP rose from nothing.
The tactic of allowing unfair policies and not being allowed to have an opinion has spectacularly backfired.
10 years ago this post would have been labelled racist, even 5 years ago.
Today many people now appreciate that it's better to talk, but not everyone.
Agreed and echoes exactly what I said after the Brexit vote.
If progressives want to achieve anything in this world, they need to stop treating everyone who does not share their point of view as being racists, misogynists, or in favour of 'Muslim death camps'. They (we, I suppose in certain circumstances) also need to stop assuming that by virtue of being progressive they are automatically more intelligent or more enlightened or even morally superior to those who are not entirely progressive. Compare with the election of Corbyn as leader and his supporters, exemplified perfectly by the so-called independent "news" source The Canary that was started purely because they felt the media was not reporting fairly on Corbyn; it basically labels anyone who is not a Corbyn supporter a fascist.
The world will always be a better place if everyone can just treat each other with a bit more respect. The problem is, the right can hardly cry foul for being talked down to by the left if they themselves choose to make massive, derogatory, generalisations about ethnic minorities, for example.
We also now face a very tough time for winning over people through reasoned argument because with both Brexit and Trump, major elections have been won by campaigns that were, at times, built on outright lies and even when opponents showed them to be lies, most of the voters shrugged their shoulders chose to believe the lies anyway because they sat better with their own preconceived ideas, even if those preconceived ideas were being proved to be wrong.
How do you go about winning arguments when facts are no longer listened to?
More Latino men voted for Trump than White men voted for Clinton? That's pretty interesting.
'Latino' covers a wide range of ethnicities .. not just Mexican .. many Cubans are dyed in the wool republicans .. also you have a multitude of immigrants to the USA from all points south of the Rio Grande .. ambitious and patriotic people
To further my earlier point, someone on social media shared an advert for ordinary guests to appear on a BBC daytime TV programme, specifically UK-based people who wanted Trump to win. The first 50 comments were almost entirely pissed off progressives blasting the BBC for daring to give a platform to racists, misogynists and fascists and in doing so entirely missed the point. These progressives are angry, and their anger is largely a result of being hurt and confused because they do not understand how ordinary men and women could support someone like Trump. And yet instead of listening to those who support Trump in order to understand why they feel that they, they want to deny them the freedom to express their views and opinions. It's like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object - populists are pissed off because they face barriers to express themselves freely, and progressives are pissed off because there are not enough barriers to stop populists from expressing their views. Why can't we just have a conversation?
One thing I'd like to see happen in the aftermath of this is for polls to be banned. Their predictions for the last few major votes have been catastrophically wrong and I feel the constant narrative that they create of the populists being the underdog is skewing opinions and emotions leading up to polling day.
Neither side wants to listen to the other or have their views challenged. Facts are biased and all opinions are shouted down with insults in this day and age.
The rise of social media has worsened this in my opinion, allowing everyone to live within their own echo chamber of beliefs.
To further my earlier point, someone on social media shared an advert for ordinary guests to appear on a BBC daytime TV programme, specifically UK-based people who wanted Trump to win. The first 50 comments were almost entirely pissed off progressives blasting the BBC for daring to give a platform to racists, misogynists and fascists and in doing so entirely missed the point. These progressives are angry, and their anger is largely a result of being hurt and confused because they do not understand how ordinary men and women could support someone like Trump. And yet instead of listening to those who support Trump in order to understand why they feel that they, they want to deny them the freedom to express their views and opinions. It's like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object - populists are pissed off because they face barriers to express themselves freely, and progressives are pissed off because there are not enough barriers to stop populists from expressing their views. Why can't we just have a conversation?
One thing I'd like to see happen in the aftermath of this is for polls to be banned. Their predictions for the last few major votes have been catastrophically wrong and I feel the constant narrative that they create of the populists being the underdog is skewing opinions and emotions leading up to polling day.
Neither side wants to listen to the other or have their views challenged. Facts are biased and all opinions are shouted down with insults in this day and age.
The rise of social media has worsened this in my opinion, allowing everyone to live within their own echo chamber of beliefs.
Social media is totally poisonous. One of the nicest blokes I know become a venomous troll towards anyone right of Corbyn when behind the safety of a keyboard.
More Latino men voted for Trump than White men voted for Clinton? That's pretty interesting.
no figures from the lesbian, gay, transgender etc. community ?.. and those whose brunchtime preference is a Bacon, Tomato and Lettuce sarnie ?
I imagine they simply asking people who they voted for then checked a mark next to a list of gender and skin colour. I imagine a small number of people were misgendered or misidentified.
More Latino men voted for Trump than White men voted for Clinton? That's pretty interesting.
no figures from the lesbian, gay, transgender etc. community ?.. and those whose brunchtime preference is a Bacon, Tomato and Lettuce sarnie ?
I take your point Lincs, but if someone has based a large part of their campaign on marginalising certain groups as scapegoats, it is interesting to see a (small) representation of how that breaks down in voting preference.
I'm quite certain it's the views of people like Leuth, as opposed to say SDAddick, that swung the results in favour of Brexit and Donald Trump.
I was 50/50 ish on Brexit, but it was definitely Leuth type comments that swung it for me. (I was against Trump).
We had 13 years (1997-2010) of being unable to voice legitimate concerns over LEVELS of immigration, without being shouted down and labelled as racist or bigots, that's a very long time. It wasn't just immigration, it was other matters like people on benefits living in 5 or more bedroom houses, whilst some working first time buyers, couldn't even afford a one bed flat. Labour disregarded their core voters and UKIP rose from nothing.
The tactic of allowing unfair policies and not being allowed to have an opinion has spectacularly backfired.
10 years ago this post would have been labelled racist, even 5 years ago.
Today many people now appreciate that it's better to talk, but not everyone.
Agreed and echoes exactly what I said after the Brexit vote.
If progressives want to achieve anything in this world, they need to stop treating everyone who does not share their point of view as being racists, misogynists, or in favour of 'Muslim death camps'. They (we, I suppose in certain circumstances) also need to stop assuming that by virtue of being progressive they are automatically more intelligent or more enlightened or even morally superior to those who are not entirely progressive. Compare with the election of Corbyn as leader and his supporters, exemplified perfectly by the so-called independent "news" source The Canary that was started purely because they felt the media was not reporting fairly on Corbyn; it basically labels anyone who is not a Corbyn supporter a fascist.
I'm just not sure how much that mattered in our election. I think it was change and jobs and nationalism (and we can debate what that means).
What we have here was a candidate, who won, who said racist (Most Mexicans are rapists), Islamaphobic (ban all Muslims) misogynistic (Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her whatever) things and mocked disabled people.
While I have no doubt that there were people who had racist motivations in voting for Brexit, Brexit is not a person, it's a concept, with a lot of different roads to that conclusion.
I'm not in the UK and intentionally haven't been reading the Brexit thread so I don't know what all is being said. I do agree that leftists, at least those who would like to be some sort of populists, to have a concern for all, need to stop talking down to some people.
I also believe that there are people who voted for Brexit and Trump who need to realize 1) Immigrants are not stealing your jobs, nor are they raping and killing people, 2) Our country (and Britain, I believe) is socially and demographically getting diverse and will only get more diverse, that is a fact, and America, at least, was founded on some principles of diversity (even if we're slow with others, 3) Gay people will not ruin marriage, we've had it for three years and marriage is still intact, 4) The world is changing and women and minorities are going to have more power in it economically and politically, that is a demographic fact and a law of averages.
I'm quite certain it's the views of people like Leuth, as opposed to say SDAddick, that swung the results in favour of Brexit and Donald Trump.
I was 50/50 ish on Brexit, but it was definitely Leuth type comments that swung it for me. (I was against Trump).
We had 13 years (1997-2010) of being unable to voice legitimate concerns over LEVELS of immigration, without being shouted down and labelled as racist or bigots, that's a very long time. It wasn't just immigration, it was other matters like people on benefits living in 5 or more bedroom houses, whilst some working first time buyers, couldn't even afford a one bed flat. Labour disregarded their core voters and UKIP rose from nothing.
The tactic of allowing unfair policies and not being allowed to have an opinion has spectacularly backfired.
10 years ago this post would have been labelled racist, even 5 years ago.
Today many people now appreciate that it's better to talk, but not everyone.
Agreed and echoes exactly what I said after the Brexit vote.
If progressives want to achieve anything in this world, they need to stop treating everyone who does not share their point of view as being racists, misogynists, or in favour of 'Muslim death camps'. They (we, I suppose in certain circumstances) also need to stop assuming that by virtue of being progressive they are automatically more intelligent or more enlightened or even morally superior to those who are not entirely progressive. Compare with the election of Corbyn as leader and his supporters, exemplified perfectly by the so-called independent "news" source The Canary that was started purely because they felt the media was not reporting fairly on Corbyn; it basically labels anyone who is not a Corbyn supporter a fascist.
I'm just not sure how much that mattered in our election. I think it was change and jobs and nationalism (and we can debate what that means).
What we have here was a candidate, who won, who said racist (Most Mexicans are rapists), Islamaphobic (ban all Muslims) misogynistic (Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her whatever) things and mocked disabled people.
While I have no doubt that there were people who had racist motivations in voting for Brexit, Brexit is not a person, it's a concept, with a lot of different roads to that conclusion.
I'm not in the UK and intentionally haven't been reading the Brexit thread so I don't know what all is being said. I do agree that leftists, at least those who would like to be some sort of populists, to have a concern for all, need to stop talking down to some people.
I also believe that there are people who voted for Brexit and Trump who need to realize 1) Immigrants are not stealing your jobs, nor are they raping and killing people, 2) Our country (and Britain, I believe) is socially and demographically getting diverse and will only get more diverse, that is a fact, and America, at least, was founded on some principles of diversity (even if we're slow with others, 3) Gay people will not ruin marriage, we've had it for three years and marriage is still intact, 4) The world is changing and women and minorities are going to have more power in it economically and politically, that is a demographic fact and a law of averages.
I take your point but I think it stems from the same issue: Brexiters were unwilling to listen to Remainers and Trump supporters were unwilling to listen to those who were anti-Trump, largely because the latter in each case would talk down to the former. Both Trump supporters and Brexiters would constantly base their support on statements that were factually wrong (e.g. benefit tourism, unlimited Muslim/Mexican migrants, ethnic minorities are criminals, £350bn for the NHS etc.) yet would refuse to listen to anyone trying to educate them because of the way this was being done. You will never convince someone to support your side of the argument if your tone is 'you're too stupid to understand what you're voting for so support me instead'. Meaning the Trump and Brexit campaigns were able to harness this apathy towards the status quo and had pretty much identical campaigns, i.e.
'We know you're pissed off and the status quo/political class is not listening to you. We may not have the best ideas but we understand that you are suspicious of how things are changing so we will put the kybosh on that change. Most importantly the only real way to get the political class to listen to you is to vote for us instead of them!'
Oh well, going to be hellish for large sections of the minorities in the US, you have a vice president who when governor forced women to have funerals for miscarried children.
And this sums up the election and the referendum for me, the excuse used by a lot of people (and some on here)
"We may not have the best ideas" - yeah sure they deffo put it like this
Building a giant wall and getting the Mexicans to pay for it? Close our borders to any immigration? Force transpeople to use the bathroom of their birth-gender? Bringing back the blue passport?
No one pretended these were the best solutions or best ideas, but what they were was simple. Easy ideas that stick in the mind easily.
Let's be honest there's a certain percentage that will nearly always vote left or right and there's possibly a similar percentage, that are more down the middle and will decide at the time.
I'm a down the middle guy. I voted for Blair, but became increasingly frustrated over those 13 years and last time voted Tory. If Labour had acted, in what I consider to be a fair way, then there's a good chance they would still be in power and there would have been no Brexit vote.
(I know this is UK & not US, but there's a similarity, in terms of where the swing vote went).
More Latino men voted for Trump than White men voted for Clinton? That's pretty interesting.
no figures from the lesbian, gay, transgender etc. community ?.. and those whose brunchtime preference is a Bacon, Tomato and Lettuce sarnie ?
I take your point Lincs, but if someone has based a large part of their campaign on marginalising certain groups as scapegoats, it is interesting to see a (small) representation of how that breaks down in voting preference.
I would suspect (just conjecture) that the vast majority of those who voted Clinton would have voted that way irrespective of Trumps diatribes .. on the other hand, his 'scapegoating' tactics may have brought him a bigger percentage of the 'WASP' vote, changing the minds of many who might well have been persuaded to vote for Clinton ... 93% of black women (from the reported sample) voted Clinton and not for Trump .. I don't recall too many Trumpisms that were specifically anti black women
I'm quite certain it's the views of people like Leuth, as opposed to say SDAddick, that swung the results in favour of Brexit and Donald Trump.
I was 50/50 ish on Brexit, but it was definitely Leuth type comments that swung it for me. (I was against Trump).
We had 13 years (1997-2010) of being unable to voice legitimate concerns over LEVELS of immigration, without being shouted down and labelled as racist or bigots, that's a very long time. It wasn't just immigration, it was other matters like people on benefits living in 5 or more bedroom houses, whilst some working first time buyers, couldn't even afford a one bed flat. Labour disregarded their core voters and UKIP rose from nothing.
The tactic of allowing unfair policies and not being allowed to have an opinion has spectacularly backfired.
10 years ago this post would have been labelled racist, even 5 years ago.
Today many people now appreciate that it's better to talk, but not everyone.
Agreed and echoes exactly what I said after the Brexit vote.
If progressives want to achieve anything in this world, they need to stop treating everyone who does not share their point of view as being racists, misogynists, or in favour of 'Muslim death camps'. They (we, I suppose in certain circumstances) also need to stop assuming that by virtue of being progressive they are automatically more intelligent or more enlightened or even morally superior to those who are not entirely progressive. Compare with the election of Corbyn as leader and his supporters, exemplified perfectly by the so-called independent "news" source The Canary that was started purely because they felt the media was not reporting fairly on Corbyn; it basically labels anyone who is not a Corbyn supporter a fascist.
I'm just not sure how much that mattered in our election. I think it was change and jobs and nationalism (and we can debate what that means).
What we have here was a candidate, who won, who said racist (Most Mexicans are rapists), Islamaphobic (ban all Muslims) misogynistic (Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her whatever) things and mocked disabled people.
While I have no doubt that there were people who had racist motivations in voting for Brexit, Brexit is not a person, it's a concept, with a lot of different roads to that conclusion.
I'm not in the UK and intentionally haven't been reading the Brexit thread so I don't know what all is being said. I do agree that leftists, at least those who would like to be some sort of populists, to have a concern for all, need to stop talking down to some people.
I also believe that there are people who voted for Brexit and Trump who need to realize 1) Immigrants are not stealing your jobs, nor are they raping and killing people, 2) Our country (and Britain, I believe) is socially and demographically getting diverse and will only get more diverse, that is a fact, and America, at least, was founded on some principles of diversity (even if we're slow with others, 3) Gay people will not ruin marriage, we've had it for three years and marriage is still intact, 4) The world is changing and women and minorities are going to have more power in it economically and politically, that is a demographic fact and a law of averages.
I take your point but I think it stems from the same issue: Brexiters were unwilling to listen to Remainers and Trump supporters were unwilling to listen to those who were anti-Trump, largely because the latter in each case would talk down to the former. Both Trump supporters and Brexiters would constantly base their support on statements that were factually wrong (e.g. benefit tourism, unlimited Muslim/Mexican migrants, ethnic minorities are criminals, £350bn for the NHS etc.) yet would refuse to listen to anyone trying to educate them because of the way this was being done. You will never convince someone to support your side of the argument if your tone is 'you're too stupid to understand what you're voting for so support me instead'. Meaning the Trump and Brexit campaigns were able to harness this apathy towards the status quo and had pretty much identical campaigns, i.e.
'We know you're pissed off and the status quo/political class is not listening to you. We may not have the best ideas but we understand that you are suspicious of how things are changing so we will put the kybosh on that change. Most importantly the only real way to get the political class to listen to you is to vote for us instead of them!'
Yes. I see what you're saying now, and all of the this.
And look, I share those concerns. I want people without college degrees (the key demographic in our election) to have jobs, to have healthcare, to feel like they have a future, and to be part of the fabric of this country--even if I think it's a completely false dichotomy that they need to "take a country back" in which they are literally the majority. And that will require things that are not cheap and are not easy--education, technical schools and training, infrastructure projects sourced 100% in the US (which will raise costs), and an expansion of healthcare to cover everyone. And in the short term, that will raise the national debt.
The tone of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) was uplifting as the RNC's was scary, but it ignored the fact, once again, that real wages froze 45 years ago, that people are still recovering from losing their homes, their life saving, their retirement funds, etc. in the 2008 crash. We still have a lot of people in this country who do not get good healthcare, and we have major health insurance companies making record profits. That is completely unacceptable ethically, and that is before you get to how much we spend on healthcare as part of our GDP and the poor ROI we get.
The Democratic party, as a coalition behind Obama, has become so stretched that it covers the center right to the pretty leftist (Sanders, Warren to some degree). And as has been the criticism of the Democratic party many times down the years, it feels like it represents very few. Ideologically, what do they stand for (because they are right now the only party with policies)? Expansion of taxation on the rich with 1-2 new tax brackets. Expansion of privatized healthcare to cover everyone. More investment in green energy. Those are really narrow things when we have seen our country shift from one of farming and manufacturing to seeing those jobs disappear, and with us needing to retool our energy policies, our healthcare, and our infrastructure for the betterment of all of us.
"We may not have the best ideas" - yeah sure they deffo put it like this
Building a giant wall and getting the Mexicans to pay for it? Close our borders to any immigration? Force transpeople to use the bathroom of their birth-gender? Bringing back the blue passport?
No one pretended these were the best solutions or best ideas, but what they were was simple. Easy ideas that stick in the mind easily.
You're right, they are simple, they do stick in the mind.
But the people who presented them did thing they were the best ideas. And they are wrong.
More Latino men voted for Trump than White men voted for Clinton? That's pretty interesting.
I might have it wrong but that's not how I read it.
There were 23,583 respondents of which 34% (8,018) were White Men and 5% (1,179) were Latino Men. 31% (2,486) of the White Men voted for Clinton and 33% (389) of the Latino Men voted for Trump.
More Latino men voted for Trump than White men voted for Clinton? That's pretty interesting.
no figures from the lesbian, gay, transgender etc. community ?.. and those whose brunchtime preference is a Bacon, Tomato and Lettuce sarnie ?
I take your point Lincs, but if someone has based a large part of their campaign on marginalising certain groups as scapegoats, it is interesting to see a (small) representation of how that breaks down in voting preference.
I would suspect (just conjecture) that the vast majority of those who voted Clinton would have voted that way irrespective of Trumps diatribes .. on the other hand, his 'scapegoating' tactics may have brought him a bigger percentage of the 'WASP' vote, changing the minds of many who might well have been persuaded to vote for Clinton ... 93% of black women (from the reported sample) voted Clinton and not for Trump .. I don't recall too many Trumpisms that were specifically anti black women
Perhaps him just being anti-woman was enough for them?
I'm quite certain it's the views of people like Leuth, as opposed to say SDAddick, that swung the results in favour of Brexit and Donald Trump.
I was 50/50 ish on Brexit, but it was definitely Leuth type comments that swung it for me. (I was against Trump).
We had 13 years (1997-2010) of being unable to voice legitimate concerns over LEVELS of immigration, without being shouted down and labelled as racist or bigots, that's a very long time. It wasn't just immigration, it was other matters like people on benefits living in 5 or more bedroom houses, whilst some working first time buyers, couldn't even afford a one bed flat. Labour disregarded their core voters and UKIP rose from nothing.
The tactic of allowing unfair policies and not being allowed to have an opinion has spectacularly backfired.
10 years ago this post would have been labelled racist, even 5 years ago.
Today many people now appreciate that it's better to talk, but not everyone.
Agreed and echoes exactly what I said after the Brexit vote.
If progressives want to achieve anything in this world, they need to stop treating everyone who does not share their point of view as being racists, misogynists, or in favour of 'Muslim death camps'. They (we, I suppose in certain circumstances) also need to stop assuming that by virtue of being progressive they are automatically more intelligent or more enlightened or even morally superior to those who are not entirely progressive. Compare with the election of Corbyn as leader and his supporters, exemplified perfectly by the so-called independent "news" source The Canary that was started purely because they felt the media was not reporting fairly on Corbyn; it basically labels anyone who is not a Corbyn supporter a fascist.
I'm just not sure how much that mattered in our election. I think it was change and jobs and nationalism (and we can debate what that means).
What we have here was a candidate, who won, who said racist (Most Mexicans are rapists), Islamaphobic (ban all Muslims) misogynistic (Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her whatever) things and mocked disabled people.
While I have no doubt that there were people who had racist motivations in voting for Brexit, Brexit is not a person, it's a concept, with a lot of different roads to that conclusion.
I'm not in the UK and intentionally haven't been reading the Brexit thread so I don't know what all is being said. I do agree that leftists, at least those who would like to be some sort of populists, to have a concern for all, need to stop talking down to some people.
I also believe that there are people who voted for Brexit and Trump who need to realize 1) Immigrants are not stealing your jobs, nor are they raping and killing people, 2) Our country (and Britain, I believe) is socially and demographically getting diverse and will only get more diverse, that is a fact, and America, at least, was founded on some principles of diversity (even if we're slow with others, 3) Gay people will not ruin marriage, we've had it for three years and marriage is still intact, 4) The world is changing and women and minorities are going to have more power in it economically and politically, that is a demographic fact and a law of averages.
I take your point but I think it stems from the same issue: Brexiters were unwilling to listen to Remainers and Trump supporters were unwilling to listen to those who were anti-Trump, largely because the latter in each case would talk down to the former. Both Trump supporters and Brexiters would constantly base their support on statements that were factually wrong (e.g. benefit tourism, unlimited Muslim/Mexican migrants, ethnic minorities are criminals, £350bn for the NHS etc.) yet would refuse to listen to anyone trying to educate them because of the way this was being done. You will never convince someone to support your side of the argument if your tone is 'you're too stupid to understand what you're voting for so support me instead'. Meaning the Trump and Brexit campaigns were able to harness this apathy towards the status quo and had pretty much identical campaigns, i.e.
'We know you're pissed off and the status quo/political class is not listening to you. We may not have the best ideas but we understand that you are suspicious of how things are changing so we will put the kybosh on that change. Most importantly the only real way to get the political class to listen to you is to vote for us instead of them!'
Tree hugger, loony lefty, do gooder and now, apparently, traitor, are among the expressions used by right wingers to describe left wingers. Like I wrote earlier, it's not one way traffic.
I'm quite certain it's the views of people like Leuth, as opposed to say SDAddick, that swung the results in favour of Brexit and Donald Trump.
I was 50/50 ish on Brexit, but it was definitely Leuth type comments that swung it for me. (I was against Trump).
We had 13 years (1997-2010) of being unable to voice legitimate concerns over LEVELS of immigration, without being shouted down and labelled as racist or bigots, that's a very long time. It wasn't just immigration, it was other matters like people on benefits living in 5 or more bedroom houses, whilst some working first time buyers, couldn't even afford a one bed flat. Labour disregarded their core voters and UKIP rose from nothing.
The tactic of allowing unfair policies and not being allowed to have an opinion has spectacularly backfired.
10 years ago this post would have been labelled racist, even 5 years ago.
Today many people now appreciate that it's better to talk, but not everyone.
Agreed and echoes exactly what I said after the Brexit vote.
If progressives want to achieve anything in this world, they need to stop treating everyone who does not share their point of view as being racists, misogynists, or in favour of 'Muslim death camps'. They (we, I suppose in certain circumstances) also need to stop assuming that by virtue of being progressive they are automatically more intelligent or more enlightened or even morally superior to those who are not entirely progressive. Compare with the election of Corbyn as leader and his supporters, exemplified perfectly by the so-called independent "news" source The Canary that was started purely because they felt the media was not reporting fairly on Corbyn; it basically labels anyone who is not a Corbyn supporter a fascist.
We also now face a very tough time for winning over people through reasoned argument because with both Brexit and Trump, major elections have been won by campaigns that were, at times, built on outright lies and even when opponents showed them to be lies, most of the voters shrugged their shoulders chose to believe the lies anyway because they sat better with their own preconceived ideas, even if those preconceived ideas were being proved to be wrong.
The Brexit "lie", are you referring to the £350m to the EU line?
I'd be surprised if that line and that line alone turned peoples minds that much.
Anyone with half a brain, and many of those who voted for brexit possess that much, would know that claims made by people who aren't in government or are in government but not in a position to make spending decisions, shouldn't be taken as gospel anyway.
Just like the millions who voted didn't believe the claims from Cameron & co that the world was going to stop if people voted out.
It seems the past few elections have turned much more into social media driven, aggressive, lying & hyper emotional battlegrounds, rather than sticking to facts and talking plainly and simply about the options. Politics needs to grow up quickly and many of those outrageous attention seeking reactions on social media need to stop.
I'm quite certain it's the views of people like Leuth, as opposed to say SDAddick, that swung the results in favour of Brexit and Donald Trump.
I was 50/50 ish on Brexit, but it was definitely Leuth type comments that swung it for me. (I was against Trump).
We had 13 years (1997-2010) of being unable to voice legitimate concerns over LEVELS of immigration, without being shouted down and labelled as racist or bigots, that's a very long time. It wasn't just immigration, it was other matters like people on benefits living in 5 or more bedroom houses, whilst some working first time buyers, couldn't even afford a one bed flat. Labour disregarded their core voters and UKIP rose from nothing.
10 years ago this post would have been labelled racist, even 5 years ago.
Today many people now appreciate that it's better to talk, but not everyone.
Agreed and echoes exactly what I said after the Brexit vote.
If progressives want to achieve anything in this world, they need to stop treating everyone who does not share their point of view as being racists, misogynists, or in favour of 'Muslim death camps'. They (we, I suppose in certain circumstances) also need to stop assuming that by virtue of being progressive they are automatically more intelligent or more enlightened or even morally superior to those who are not entirely progressive. Compare with the election of Corbyn as leader and his supporters, exemplified perfectly by the so-called independent "news" source The Canary that was started purely because they felt the media was not reporting fairly on Corbyn; it basically labels anyone who is not a Corbyn supporter a fascist.
I'm just not sure how much that mattered in our election. I think it was change and jobs and nationalism (and we can debate what that means).
What we have here was a candidate, who won, who said racist (Most Mexicans are rapists), Islamaphobic (ban all Muslims) misogynistic (Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her whatever) things and mocked disabled people.
While I have no doubt that there were people who had racist motivations in voting for Brexit, Brexit is not a person, it's a concept, with a lot of different roads to that conclusion.
I'm not in the UK and intentionally haven't been reading the Brexit thread so I don't know what all is being said. I do agree that leftists, at least those who would like to be some sort of populists, to have a concern for all, need to stop talking down to some people.
I also believe that there are people who voted for Brexit and Trump who need to realize 1) Immigrants are not stealing your jobs, nor are they raping and killing people, 2) Our country (and Britain, I believe) is socially and demographically getting diverse and will only get more diverse, that is a fact, and America, at least, was founded on some principles of diversity (even if we're slow with others, 3) Gay people will not ruin marriage, we've had it for three years and marriage is still intact, 4) The world is changing and women and minorities are going to have more power in it economically and politically, that is a demographic fact and a law of averages.
I take your point but I think it stems from the same issue: Brexiters were unwilling to listen to Remainers and Trump supporters were unwilling to listen to those who were anti-Trump, largely because the latter in each case would talk down to the former. Both Trump supporters and Brexiters would constantly base their support on statements that were factually wrong (e.g. benefit tourism, unlimited Muslim/Mexican migrants, ethnic minorities are criminals, £350bn for the NHS etc.) yet would refuse to listen to anyone trying to educate them because of the way this was being done. You will never convince someone to support your side of the argument if your tone is 'you're too stupid to understand what you're voting for so support me instead'. Meaning the Trump and Brexit campaigns were able to harness this apathy towards the status quo and had pretty much identical campaigns, i.e.
'We know you're pissed off and the status quo/political class is not listening to you. We may not have the best ideas but we understand that you are suspicious of how things are changing so we will put the kybosh on that change. of them!'
Yes. I see what you're saying now, and all of the this.
And look, I share those concerns. I want people without college degrees (the key demographic in our election) to have jobs, to have healthcare, to feel like they have a future, and to be part of the fabric of this country--even if I think it's a completely false dichotomy that they need to "take a country back" in which they are literally the majority. And that will require things that are not cheap and are not easy--education, technical schools and training, infrastructure projects sourced 100% in the US (which will raise costs), and an expansion of healthcare to cover everyone. And in the short term, that will raise the national debt.
The tone of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) was uplifting as the RNC's was scary, but it ignored the fact, once again, that real wages froze 45 years ago, that people are still recovering from losing their homes, their life saving, their retirement funds, etc. in the 2008 crash. We still have a lot of people in this country who do not get good healthcare, and we have major health insurance companies making record profits. That is completely unacceptable ethically, and that is before you get to how much we spend on healthcare as part of our GDP and the poor ROI we get.
The Democratic party, as a coalition behind Obama, has become so stretched that it covers the center right to the pretty leftist (Sanders, Warren to some degree). And as has been the criticism of the Democratic party many times down the years, it feels like it represents very few. Ideologically, what do they stand for (because they are right now the only party with policies)? Expansion of taxation on the rich with 1-2 new tax brackets. Expansion of privatized healthcare to cover everyone. More investment in green energy. Those are really narrow things when we have seen our country shift from one of farming and manufacturing to seeing those jobs disappear, and with us needing to retool our energy policies, our healthcare, and our infrastructure for the betterment of all of us.
the truth is that in any economy based mainly and ever increasingly on 'trade', the bankers and money movers, the dealers, buyers and commodity brokers just do not care where the food is grown or the shirt, car or computer is made so long as it can be sold for a big profit anywhere else in the world ..
thus, manufacturing and food production become more 'economically viable' in low cost wage areas .. In high cost wage areas the jobs that remain are increasingly roboticised and mechanised .. machines go 24/7, do not strike and need the odd oiling and part replacement and not holidays and expensive healthcare schemes .. this is now also true of most office and admin functions, machines are more efficient at humdrum repetitive tasks than most humans .. so, what to do about the 'unemployed' , what is on offer for those leaving schools and colleges and expecting at the very least a job as a start in life ?
IF the USA for example wants to employ those who are not clever, swift or motivated enough to work as broker, movers and dealers and not have increasing numbers of people idle and drawing benefits, then the answer is to 'bring back' mass production jobs and all the associated service occupations back onshore ..Trump is promising to do this ... it will be interesting to see how far he can get in fulfilling this ideal
More Latino men voted for Trump than White men voted for Clinton? That's pretty interesting.
I might have it wrong but that's not how I read it.
There were 23,583 respondents of which 34% (8,018) were White Men and 5% (1,179) were Latino Men. 31% (2,486) of the White Men voted for Clinton and 33% (389) of the Latino Men voted for Trump.
Pedantism aside, I thought that was fairly clear that's what I meant from the fact we were looking at a table of percentages? Apologies, I perhaps should've phrased it better if that wasn't the case!
Considering the sample size of white men is 7x larger, it would be impossible for the alternative. Still, proportionally that's very surprising.
Comments
One thing I'd like to see happen in the aftermath of this is for polls to be banned. Their predictions for the last few major votes have been catastrophically wrong and I feel the constant narrative that they create of the populists being the underdog is skewing opinions and emotions leading up to polling day.
We also now face a very tough time for winning over people through reasoned argument because with both Brexit and Trump, major elections have been won by campaigns that were, at times, built on outright lies and even when opponents showed them to be lies, most of the voters shrugged their shoulders chose to believe the lies anyway because they sat better with their own preconceived ideas, even if those preconceived ideas were being proved to be wrong.
How do you go about winning arguments when facts are no longer listened to?
The rise of social media has worsened this in my opinion, allowing everyone to live within their own echo chamber of beliefs.
*offer excludes blacks, hispanics, Muslims, LGBT, women, immigrants, Jews, the disabled, the vulnerable etc
What we have here was a candidate, who won, who said racist (Most Mexicans are rapists), Islamaphobic (ban all Muslims) misogynistic (Megyn Kelly bleeding out of her whatever) things and mocked disabled people.
While I have no doubt that there were people who had racist motivations in voting for Brexit, Brexit is not a person, it's a concept, with a lot of different roads to that conclusion.
I'm not in the UK and intentionally haven't been reading the Brexit thread so I don't know what all is being said. I do agree that leftists, at least those who would like to be some sort of populists, to have a concern for all, need to stop talking down to some people.
I also believe that there are people who voted for Brexit and Trump who need to realize 1) Immigrants are not stealing your jobs, nor are they raping and killing people, 2) Our country (and Britain, I believe) is socially and demographically getting diverse and will only get more diverse, that is a fact, and America, at least, was founded on some principles of diversity (even if we're slow with others, 3) Gay people will not ruin marriage, we've had it for three years and marriage is still intact, 4) The world is changing and women and minorities are going to have more power in it economically and politically, that is a demographic fact and a law of averages.
'We know you're pissed off and the status quo/political class is not listening to you. We may not have the best ideas but we understand that you are suspicious of how things are changing so we will put the kybosh on that change. Most importantly the only real way to get the political class to listen to you is to vote for us instead of them!'
And this sums up the election and the referendum for me, the excuse used by a lot of people (and some on here)
No one pretended these were the best solutions or best ideas, but what they were was simple. Easy ideas that stick in the mind easily.
I'm a down the middle guy. I voted for Blair, but became increasingly frustrated over those 13 years and last time voted Tory. If Labour had acted, in what I consider to be a fair way, then there's a good chance they would still be in power and there would have been no Brexit vote.
(I know this is UK & not US, but there's a similarity, in terms of where the swing vote went).
on the other hand, his 'scapegoating' tactics may have brought him a bigger percentage of the 'WASP' vote, changing the minds of many who might well have been persuaded to vote for Clinton ...
93% of black women (from the reported sample) voted Clinton and not for Trump .. I don't recall too many Trumpisms that were specifically anti black women
And look, I share those concerns. I want people without college degrees (the key demographic in our election) to have jobs, to have healthcare, to feel like they have a future, and to be part of the fabric of this country--even if I think it's a completely false dichotomy that they need to "take a country back" in which they are literally the majority. And that will require things that are not cheap and are not easy--education, technical schools and training, infrastructure projects sourced 100% in the US (which will raise costs), and an expansion of healthcare to cover everyone. And in the short term, that will raise the national debt.
The tone of the Democratic National Convention (DNC) was uplifting as the RNC's was scary, but it ignored the fact, once again, that real wages froze 45 years ago, that people are still recovering from losing their homes, their life saving, their retirement funds, etc. in the 2008 crash. We still have a lot of people in this country who do not get good healthcare, and we have major health insurance companies making record profits. That is completely unacceptable ethically, and that is before you get to how much we spend on healthcare as part of our GDP and the poor ROI we get.
The Democratic party, as a coalition behind Obama, has become so stretched that it covers the center right to the pretty leftist (Sanders, Warren to some degree). And as has been the criticism of the Democratic party many times down the years, it feels like it represents very few. Ideologically, what do they stand for (because they are right now the only party with policies)? Expansion of taxation on the rich with 1-2 new tax brackets. Expansion of privatized healthcare to cover everyone. More investment in green energy. Those are really narrow things when we have seen our country shift from one of farming and manufacturing to seeing those jobs disappear, and with us needing to retool our energy policies, our healthcare, and our infrastructure for the betterment of all of us.
But the people who presented them did thing they were the best ideas. And they are wrong.
I might have it wrong but that's not how I read it.
There were 23,583 respondents of which 34% (8,018) were White Men and 5% (1,179) were Latino Men. 31% (2,486) of the White Men voted for Clinton and 33% (389) of the Latino Men voted for Trump.
I'd be surprised if that line and that line alone turned peoples minds that much.
Anyone with half a brain, and many of those who voted for brexit possess that much, would know that claims made by people who aren't in government or are in government but not in a position to make spending decisions, shouldn't be taken as gospel anyway.
Just like the millions who voted didn't believe the claims from Cameron & co that the world was going to stop if people voted out.
It seems the past few elections have turned much more into social media driven, aggressive, lying & hyper emotional battlegrounds, rather than sticking to facts and talking plainly and simply about the options. Politics needs to grow up quickly and many of those outrageous attention seeking reactions on social media need to stop.
thus, manufacturing and food production become more 'economically viable' in low cost wage areas .. In high cost wage areas the jobs that remain are increasingly roboticised and mechanised .. machines go 24/7, do not strike and need the odd oiling and part replacement and not holidays and expensive healthcare schemes .. this is now also true of most office and admin functions, machines are more efficient at humdrum repetitive tasks than most humans .. so, what to do about the 'unemployed' , what is on offer for those leaving schools and colleges and expecting at the very least a job as a start in life ?
IF the USA for example wants to employ those who are not clever, swift or motivated enough to work as broker, movers and dealers and not have increasing numbers of people idle and drawing benefits, then the answer is to 'bring back' mass production jobs and all the associated service occupations back onshore ..Trump is promising to do this ... it will be interesting to see how far he can get in fulfilling this ideal
Considering the sample size of white men is 7x larger, it would be impossible for the alternative. Still, proportionally that's very surprising.