Anecdotal at best.. your experience meeting maybe upwards of 50 people across the midwest cannot possibly be taken with the same consideration as a major polling outlet with 2500x the reach.
I do believe that we're living in two political dimensions - dimension A, and dimension B. (This is purely academic distinction - just for illustrative purposes.)
I was just in Kansas, and all I saw were people that would benefit massively from Liberal/Democratic policies, and yet vote against their best interest Every. Single. Time.
Wrapping blue collar and middle class voters in a blanket of patriotism, near-worship of the military class and first responders, and positioning anything else as anti-American is very powerful.
The upper-middle class people that mostly run the Democratic party and vote progressive are also voting against "their best interest". How do you define interest? Many people don't think that getting more resources from the government, even if they are struggling financially, is in "their best interest". Part of the rejection of the Liberal/Democratic policies is that the "elites" think they know peoples' "best interest" better than the people themselves. Not very democratic, really.
The book is "What's The Matter With Kansas" and it came out in 2004. Old hat at this point, e.g. Koch brothers, Fox News, Identity Politics, etc.
The real story is why the left isn't able to pull them back in, or reach out. There is no question that the Right owns that block and how they keep them, the actual question is what does the left do to change that? Maybe that means taking positions that're not crazy about, or maybe that just means people need to move en masse out of their blue enclaves.
> I was just in Kansas, and all I saw were people that would benefit massively from Liberal/Democratic policies, and yet vote against their best interest Every. Single. Time.
I think this was a true statement a decade ago, but political ideologies have shifted dramatically within the parties.
For one example, look at who was fighting against illegal immigration in order to protect blue-collar union jobs in 2005 versus now.
>I was just in Kansas, and all I saw were people that would benefit massively from Liberal/Democratic policies, and yet vote against their best interest Every. Single. Time.
It's easy to feel that way if you don't understand what is really important to that particular vein of person.
Adversity can be lived and reckoned with as long as there is safety, and overarching stability. People want to be part of something they can be proud of, and that they overcome difficult circumstances makes it all the sweeter. Most importantly though, people just want to be not-interfered with.
When your ostensibly Liberal party has some fiscally attractive ideas, but undermines the very traditional "heart and soul" of the overarching culture, you're going to have a very hard sell. Especially when the other party can sit back and say, "If not for us, they'd have destroyed the American dream, and turned it into a government operated nightmare." Which despite many admirable liberal causes, from the behavior of the political machine elsewhere finds a sizable portion of the populations agreeing with the other side.
Give up on the moral crusade on firearms, get off the Wall Street teat, refocus efforts on organizing and reempowering labor, actually focus on fiscal stability by putting entitlements on a back burner and revamp some of the more fundamental ways our economy is malfunctioning. Use the anti-trust hammer, hold large regional monopolies accountable and make it hurt when they don't deliver. Do something to thwart the problematic forms of financial engineering (private equity abuses, short-term gains over long-term stability, predatory financial products), and for the love of God, get healthcare sorted, and simplify/deantagonize the mechanics of taxation. Shift funding to Research and Education, simplify and raise awareness of ways of civic participation, and maybe consider whether or not some environmental issues can be tackled by the of establishment of Public Works programs.
If anything has stood out to me about the difference between my current generation, and my grandparent's it is that nowadays a civicly minded individual would be hard pressed to be able to actually make a living improving their community.
Funding is trapped in a Market driven by chasing the latest international money making hype scheme rather than actually getting physical labor/goods production done. The service/rent seeking/consumerist paradigm is death and stagnation incarnate. No one is enabled by forced dependence on someone else.
At least, that seems to be the vibe I've picked up on from the Midwest states I've frequented... Which I'll be the first to admit isn't that extensive.
It seems as if you favor Republican policies strongly, as those are the tenants that Republicans should stand for. Entitlements, gun control, and cognizance of the interdependence of man are central to the Democratic party - just as stubborn independence, small government, and free market solutions are to the Republican party. The changes you suggest that Democrats make would make them entirely indistinguishable from Republicans.
Well, don't shoot the messenger. I just talk to people. That's what I've consistently heard.
I don't label people, or toss am in buckets. I just ask em what they want. The general streak is leave me alone, I don't like the game being stacked against me, keep me safe, free, and capable of making an honest living, and most importantly don't rook me.
Also if you think Republicans have ever been pro-labor, you are sadly mistaken in that regard. Public Works are also generally non-starters except for those who were around in the early 1900's in my experience, and are the quintessential of fundamental interdependence, but also have a tendency to be small localized efforts;something appealing to conservatives more so than not. Enforcing responsibility for corporate actions has always been lackluster on the Republican side as well; Democrats haven't done great on that either. Anti-trust is starting to boot back up again bipartisanly, but it has taken some serious levels of gilded age to even rustletbings enough for that.
Did you even read half the things I mentioned? I'll give you there are quote "Republican overtones" there; but I don't ask people to talk to me about their political party, I ask them what they're concerned about. Think people's political label matters a whole lot less in the long run than their input in what represents the biggest problem to deal with. The "Party Branding" as I call it is just mud in the process of trying to chase down what needs to be prioritized and handled. Both sides are spending more time trying to look like they're the best side of humanity that it seems like actually being that seems to fall by the wayside.
The two States I frequent are Texas and Minnesota. If that helps any.
Frankly, I'd probably get thrown out of any modern political rally, because I think they're all doing a terrible job of running an effective government at this point. There are so many systematic warts that have taken root it'll likely be decades til we get to weeding them out, but hey, that's politics.
Just wanted to share my observation, and point out that to the Voters, they aren't voting against their best interest. They just have precious little to go from that the "other guy" will generate better results.
So.... you're saying that the Democratic party needs to abandon its core voters by moving so far to the right that its competing with the Republicans on who can be more conservative?
Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. This comment breaks several of the site guidelines. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here?
"Eschew flamebait."
"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
And in fact, expressing criticisms of the current administration (without mentioning Democrats or their policies in any way), no matter how minor, will get your post deleted, and sometimes your account banned on many right-leaning parts of the internet.
An exercise I undertake to understand the current state of the Republican party is to watch the comment threads on Breitbart (not post, just lurk). Stories about when Trump proposes any amount of gun control will see many, many posts expressing betrayal and outrage--and you can watch them disappear in realtime.
These exact words apply reflexively to the left, you know. It absolutely stuns me that the left is able to correctly identify the things that empirically matter most to middle America based on their voting behavior, then campaigns on the opposite of that and still has the nerve to say they're "voting against their own interest".
The dehumanizing arrogance this kind of rhetoric betrays is profoundly disturbing and everyone who finds themselves thinking this way needs to stop immediately and do some soul searching. Half the country is not too stupid to discover their own values and preferences, and you are not the enlightened shepherd they need to guide them against their own will.
Your comment perfectly exemplifies why the blue collar vote in favor of the GOP is so mystifying. 64% of Americans support stricter gun laws, while 29% oppose them. And yet, many of those 64% vote GOP because they are convinced the DEM are going to confiscate/ban/etc.. That kind of noise comes exclusively from the GOP themselves. Believe me, some jerk signed me up for NRA e-mails once. It is a constant barrage (even today) that OBUMER is gonna take yer guns and herd you into a FEMA camp and DONATE NOW!! In reality, actual DEM proposed legislation places controls on certain features that increase likelihood of successful mass-killing (fully auto, bump stocks, very high capacity mags) and increases background checks.
Regarding abortion, the general consensus among DEMs is that abortion should be legal, safe, and rare. Rare to be obtained by increasing the social safety net for having a kid is not such a profoundly negative economic consequence.
I find it difficult to understand how such positions could be considered "opposite" of "things that empirically matter most to middle America"
It may be a "real" fear. It is not in any way a legitimate fear. That would violate so many constitutional norms (the Constitution itself as well as 1st and 2nd and 4th amendments) as to be a non-starter.
Regarding the AR-15 itself. Yes, I am aware that many DEMS want stricter regulation of "assault weapons" that are really only good as offensive weaponry. The AR-15 is a terrible hunting rifle and hardly any better for defensive purposes. Why does the right love it so much? I suspect because they are the victim of propaganda. However, I'm all ears if you have another theory?
Because it's light and fun. AR-15s are cheap and customizable too. Having lots of different guns at a certain point has zero to do with need, if it ever did. Many people just like to shoot guns, but far fewer say that.
I agree. Heck, it is fun to shoot stuff. I just don't understand why and how this turned into such a powerful political movement. My fun turns out to contribute to mass killing of children. Maybe my fun doesn't justify such lock-step ironclad opposition to additional gun control measures. If an "assault rifle" ban saved one life, and I can keep my .22 semi-auto pistol and my M1, what is the big deal? The NRA makes it seem like DEM gun control measures are an attempt to subvert a whole way of life, which is total nonsense.
Maybe we should focus more attention on why some children are being hurt so badly that they lash out violently, and less on what weapon they use when they do.
I am really struggling to see your point here. Here is a decent link about what is happening in Virginia regarding gun rights: https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/faqs-what-is-happening-wit... . If all those measures pass, guns will still be extremely available for purchase or trade by the citizenry.
Fully automatic weapons have been strictly controlled for decades. Adding controls to them would probably have an unimpressive effect, since legal fully automatic weapons have been used in either 2 or 3 crimes since 1934.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. Just because fully-auto are already strictly controlled does not negate my point that DEMs are highly in favor of such strict control.
It means you lack basic knowledge of the subject, which is a red flag that your viewpoint is not well-formed or generated from fact.
Imagine somebody tells you that abortion should be more strictly regulated, but can't properly describe women's anatomy or the standing law for abortion restrictions.
Imagine somebody tells you that strong crypto should be reserved for the military, intelligence, and law enforcement, but shows a thorough lack of understanding of features like public keys, password hashes, etc. That would be an indicator that they do not really have exposure to the topic and are reacting out of fear rather than a deep consideration of the fundamental freedoms at stake.
Yet such a basic ignorance of the issue is a staple of gun control proponents, even career activists. It is an absolute farce that politicians and lobbyists are demanding to ban tools they cannot even properly identify and that ought to send chills down the spine of any clearheaded person.
Can you actually point to any ignorance of the subject? No you cannot. I never said full-auto was not regulated. You lack basic reading comprehension skills.
Your ad hominem attack is neither helpful nor civil. Furthermore, the idea it uses as a basis is false.
"... In reality, actual DEM proposed legislation places controls on certain features that increase likelihood of successful mass-killing (fully auto, bump stocks, very high capacity mags) ..."
You stated that full auto was a feature that Democrats were proposing to control to decrease likelihood of mass killing. In reality, that problem has not existed for 85 years; proposing to make it less likely is meaningless.
> 64% of Americans support stricter gun laws
The problem with that statistic is that most of that 64% probably have no idea what the laws _actually_ are. As stated in another reply, full auto has been strictly regulated for _decades_. Anyone who thinks full-auto is a problem is either ignorant or lying, and that applies to many of the statements I hear from gun control supporters.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. Just because fully-auto are already strictly controlled does not negate my point that DEMs are highly in favor of such strict control. Who is ignorant or lying here? Do you honestly believe we should STOP regulating full-auto so strictly? Do you have a position on certain semi-auto mechanisms that are very easy for DIY self-convert to full-auto? Or are you just parroting the right-wing caricature that DEMs don't know anything about guns? I suspect that your comment is entirely in bad-faith.
>Truly mystifying indeed that people don't vote for the culture that holds this caricature of them.
You completely missed the point. This is ACTUALLY the type of e-mail the NRA sends out daily (actually sometimes four times a day). Misspelling Obama in a purposefully derogatory way, actually mentioning FEMA concentration camp conspiracy nuttery, actually saying that if you don't act now you are going to lose your guns. This is all real. Not a caricature at all.
I wonder, and I am not trying to be a smart-ass here, if this is the first case of a growth hack (some sort of push notification/alert) that actually lead to someone's death.
The decision to launch a product and the immediate after process take a few months, but the entire product development process took years likely.
Also....it makes me uncomfortable when news stations report "internal email says X". Like...a) if it's not a news outlet that's tech knowledgeable that's always scary b) let's say 5000 employees worked on this. 20x emails per day. 5 year period (10000 days). That is a lot of emails that went into discovery for the attorneys or forensic guys to parse. Theres probably a lot of knowledge in there but humans are smart about that they selectively email (I knew someone that interned in the Obama White House and a large email flow was "documenting for posterity what they wanted to be in the record" through emails to no one in particular, was what she said). The 777 could be messed up, but "staff emails" is such an uncomfortable source. Did the likely top tier law firm really leak email contents?
The process from the first MAX crash to decertification of all MAX aircraft was a few months. Boeing made all the wrong decisions in that period of time. Other companies have handled crises much better. I think GP is referring to this.
It's one very bad thing to have allowed shoddy engineering and all the other failures on the way to the MAX, and quite another much worse thing to then also stick your head in the sand and pretend everything is ok when the shoddy engineering kills people.
It isn't PR speak when you just tell the truth in an email and don't let management bully you into not saying what needs to be said to prop up their take on it.
It can end up a bit dangerous, because they'll be more than happy to drag you through the mud in court to try to discredit you, but a lot of people kinda expect that anyway.
No, the whole culture around email changes when people know for certain it’s part of the public record of the company. I’ve worked in environments where all emails are retained due to government contracts, and an unwritten rule immediately emerges that nothing that could be used against the company is said in emails. Backchannels emerge with IMs, SMS, etc where the real conversations happen.
yeah but you can walk away with a massive exit package. If you are ambitious, unscrupulous and mostly motivated by your own self-interests you needn't burden yourself with such sentimental matters like the age and reputation of your former employer.
I wouldn't be too quick to write Boeing obituary just yet.
The way I don't think twitter mobs represents correctly the sentiments of the general population, I also don't think that online I will never fly boeing again will be with the same share in the real world.
