[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2024-October-01, 12:25, said:

I'm holding out hope that lead poisoning is too blame and in a few more years enough of the *****wits will be dead we can return to politics as usual.

I acknowledge that I am far from sure that my approach is more likely to succeed than your hopeful approach.

I guess that indicats that situation is pretty dire.

[mycroft]

You will notice I was *very careful* to *not* call anyone (here) a racist or idiotic. (I could have been worse in my spoilered section - the equivalent of "systemic racism" when it comes to gender is "embedded patriarchy"; when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity, "societal homophobia". Like systemic racism, it exists whether you realize it or not, whether you actively assist in it, or just passively take advantage of it, or acknowledge it and try to counter it as best you can (knowing there's no way *not* to be advantaged by it, even with active countering). I didn't, because it wasn't necessary.)

I was simply saying "when they're talking about 'Americans', and don't qualify that word with an adjective, they're talking about you (and me). If you're feeling like they are discussing 'everybody but you' (and me), try listening with that in mind and maybe you will see it more." And the *definition* of "these people are considered 'X', everyone else is 'qualified-X' that get handled specially (or ignored unless mentioned specifically or...) is "systemic behaviour". We are treated as "normal", and everything caters to "normal", and doesn't pay attention to "outliers" unless somebody specifically points it out.

These days, the Democrats are realizing that their opponents have absolutely abandoned people who are not "normal", but since they haven't specifically paid attention to them either, they're not catering to the outliers at all; and the outliers notice *and don't vote* because there's nobody paying attention to them. There's a huge "untapped" constituency out there, that are natural Democrats (frankly, for lack of an alternative) who are currently in the "nobody's talking to me, so it doesn't matter who I vote for or even if I vote at all, I'll just be ignored" world. And these people are *not* in danger of going R if they can be turned politically active, so it's a "win-win". It's certainly easier than going for the "traditional undecided" voter - the "normal person" who is right of the Democrats and left of the Republicans. Especially this year, when most of them are actually "republican right, but can't stand/don't trust their leader" - in order to get them, they would have to abandon their base (and, coincidentally, show the "not normals" (and progressives, and actual socialists, and...) that yes, their concerns really aren't important, if some "normal" people can be converted from U to D).

So, they've made a concerted effort to do so (in typical soft-shoe, pussy-footing, "we can't afford to take a stand" D fashion, except for abortion). They've also - for all the wrong reasons, but still - finally broken away from the Boomer Generation control of the party (who look a lot like "65+, white, male, married-so-probably-straight" and who put forward the "safest" candidate last time. Just a coincidence that it looked like them, yeah?) and dropped it down to, well, you know, not "young", not "middle-aged" even, but at least "not collecting Social Security".

And, in a world where it has been proven that "settled" rights of women are dead or in danger, and protections against (overt, proud, public) discrimination by race, sexual orientation, and more are very much as "settled" as Roe, they've put a multi-racial (including black) woman as point, with a pretty "normal" male in second(!) place (a former union man! with a family that was only possible because of some of those "settled" rights! Part of whom are also in at least one of those categories that are in danger of no longer being "settled"!) And they're opening up the conversation to an even younger demographic, and focussing on policies that might speak to those "D or don't vote" Americans. A bit, at least.

And it sounds to "normal" Ds like they're ignoring us (do remember, I am sort of in this category, but I'm younger than the VP, and I am not American, and I vote NDP unless I voting "anti-C" is more important. And while *I* am male, cis, straight and (nominally, if currently non-practising) Christian, my family and friends are definitely not. So, I "hear" them talking to "me") because, you know, they're centering "not-us" almost half the time. I haven't looked, but I bet it's about 30% (okay, probably more, because they are *really* hitting the "abortion is a wedge issue". Because it [-]ing *is*. Women who are worried that might not have voted will because of it, women who voted R because that's what they do may change (if not for themselves, then for their daughters), even NRA-Republicans who aren't the anti-choice hardcore (or were okay with campaigning anti-choice when it was "settled" and therefore not really in danger of going away) might find that their fears of where the people who caught the car will go (no-fault divorce, birth control (even when provided for non-sexual reasons), lack of GYN services for non-pregnancy issues because all the OBGYNs have moved or been scared of lawsuits into less effective medicine, ...) along with the One At The Top (or the Men Behind The Curtain) push them, just this once.

And frankly, it's about time. If you are specifically concerned that it will hurt the Ds that people like you (but not you) don't hear themselves centred (even though they still are, as "no-adjective-Americans") I agree you have a point. But White Males already vote 15-20% R > D, and Old Males 5+% (in 2022, according to Pew, 14%. But Midterms are different) and Older Whites are more committed voters (both to a party, and to vote). There just isn't much "there" there to reach. Sure, there's some "there" to *keep*, and they should try, but again, Older Whites are more committed voters. They'll vote even if they aren't talked to as much, because that's what they do. And they'll vote D if they traditionally voted D, because that's what they do.

[hrothgar]

https://bsky.app/pro...t/3l5hxdgjmgx2x

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2024-September-29, 10:02, said:

I grew up, as many others. both posters here or just others, in a very working class neighborhood where many voted for Democrats in most elections. I cannot recall anyone from that time expressing any concern whatsoever about the problems of immigrants or would-be immigrants. It was a safe and friendly neighborhood and I think back on the people I knew as decent people. But they were not speaking of, and presumably not thinking of, the problems of immigrants. Most people, those I knew then and those I know now, are not totally self-centered. Decent people, on a day to day basis.. But I think if Harris wants their vote, she has to approach this as something other than how it would help immigrants.

To be fair, you grew up in the midwest, immigrants probably weren't something that affected your life in any significant way. Or civil rights for black people, either, I suspect. If you'd grown up in Brooklyn or Chicago, your family probably would have had a very different viewpoint. The immigrants were right there, in your face. Watch "West Side Story" for a very simplified idea of what it was like -- "they" are invading "our" turf.

While it wasn't the same level of problem, Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis were viewed by many similarly to the refugees at our southern border now.

I don't think there's been much of a post-WWII refugee crisis until the last few decades, as conditions in South America degraded. There's been lots of illegal immigration for a long time, but since the farm economy depended on their cheep labor it was rarely considered a "crisis" unless a politician needed to make it one.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2024-October-01, 15:15, said:

To be fair, you grew up in the midwest, immigrants probably weren't something that affected your life in any significant way. Or civil rights for black people, either, I suspect. If you'd grown up in Brooklyn or Chicago, your family probably would have had a very different viewpoint. The immigrants were right there, in your face. Watch "West Side Story" for a very simplified idea of what it was like -- "they" are invading "our" turf.

While it wasn't the same level of problem, Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis were viewed by many similarly to the refugees at our southern border now.

I don't think there's been much of a post-WWII refugee crisis until the last few decades, as conditions in South America degraded. There's been lots of illegal immigration for a long time, but since the farm economy depended on their cheep labor it was rarely considered a "crisis" unless a politician needed to make it one.

In a stramge way you are right that immigration did not affect me. I say strange, because my (adoptive) father was an immigrant. But in day-to-day living, it played no obvious role. His early life was very difficult. His mother died not long after he wasborn, when he was 5 his father but him and his 9 year old brother in some type of care and he, the father, immigrated tothe USA. When my father was 10, he and his brother got on a ship, went threough Ellis Island, and joioned ther father somewhere in Wisconsin. Two years later their father died. The older brother watched over my father until he finished eighth grade and then my father was on his own. My main regret, I can hardly say complaont, is that that period was so awful for him he simply refused to say any mopre about any of it other than what I have said above. But I think it is safe to say that when my mother married him her family would have approved of her marriage to a responsible hard working guy, they wouold not have given a thought to the fact that he was an immigrant who did not even know which country he was born in. So yeah, immigration did not affect me. It was history, but not history we spoke of.

My childhood frineds were White. It is not quite correct to say I did not know anyone who was not White, but it is close to true. I knew a Japanese girl well enough that she made it pretty clear that If I asked her out she would be saying yes. Japamese was fine. I sasw no problem, but she was pretty forward, I was a bit shy, she scared me. College, at the University of Minnesota, broadened my experience at least somewhat.

Ah, Becky says dinner is ready. Enough of my history. But yeah, my early life was with White people, some were immigrants, but it was no big deal.