Cont: Biden for President? Pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
And yes the completely logical and not all insane "You there, yes you who has spent the last 30 years on the same position on Canyanaro assembly line, just learn to code and compete with 20 year olds straight out of college." *Wipes hands* "Well that takes care of that" plan.

If you're going to hire the guy in Lickspittle South Dakota to code for you, you might as well hire the guy in India to do it for 1/25th the cost.

Hillary Clinton's "Well it would be nice if this happened" was not the same thing as a plan.

There's a reason "Well just learn to code" morphed into a troll term.

And "service jobs" are even more pie in the sky. Service jobs scale hard. A town of 500 people can not support a self-sustaining service sector the way an area with a denser population density can. With 5 million people you get a lot of jobs out supporting the people, you can't with 500 hundred.

And even if all of that is 100% wrong, Trump is proof that that's not what people want so we're going to have to come up with another plan.are
Click to expand...
Mark Blyth has a great bit on "Gary from Gary, IN" that follows the declining life quality of a guy who had just made seniority/line supervisor in 1990 all the way to his dotage working as a shelf stocker at Walmart and why some people are not just dubious of the latest politician's economic initiatives, they make them boil over with rage.

ETA: Found a brief version clipped already.
https://youtu.be/Fq_NMyKfNoY
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Mark Blyth has a great bit on "Gary from Gary, IN" that follows the declining life quality of a guy who had just made seniority/line supervisor in 1990 all the way to his dotage working as a shelf stocker at Walmart and why some people are not just dubious of the latest politician's economic initiatives, they make them boil over with rage.

ETA: Found a brief version clipped already.
https://youtu.be/Fq_NMyKfNoY
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the GOP's lack of any mitigation planning is helping them in the areas chained to a dying industry, and any politician who admits that the industry is in fact dying, and the people depending on it need to learn something new or be shunted into competing for a small pool of service jobs locally, and especially if they have an idea of what that something new might be, is automatically the subject of rage? The people prefer to cling to the fantasy that life will return to the glory years and not prepare for the result of the decline they have seen around them to the point of fighting anyone who dares try?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Mark Blyth has a great bit on "Gary from Gary, IN" that follows the declining life quality of a guy who had just made seniority/line supervisor in 1990 all the way to his dotage working as a shelf stocker at Walmart and why some people are not just dubious of the latest politician's economic initiatives, they make them boil over with rage.

ETA: Found a brief version clipped already.
https://youtu.be/Fq_NMyKfNoY
Click to expand...

Perhaps the pertinent bit was clipped out? He was saying nobody could articulate Clinton's plan for the fictional "Gary from Gary, IN," but in reality she did have a plan. The fictional Gary just didn't want to hear it. Trump's "plan" on the other hand was....wave a magic wand and bring the manufacturing plant back? How'd that work out?
 
I'd rather have a politician who admits that the jobs of the past aren't coming back and has a bad idea of how to respond to it, than one who pretends they'll come back. At least the former opens up the exploration of what are the best ways to respond. (To me it starts with reducing the hours people work; then not only would there be more reason to hire more people to reach the same total hours of work at the jobs we do still have, but also, people would spend less time at work, which was supposed to be one of the benefits of automation & increased efficieny.)
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
Are you saying that the GOP's lack of any mitigation planning is helping them in the areas chained to a dying industry, and any politician who admits that the industry is in fact dying, and the people depending on it need to learn something new or be shunted into competing for a small pool of service jobs locally, and especially if they have an idea of what that something new might be, is automatically the subject of rage? The people prefer to cling to the fantasy that life will return to the glory years and not prepare for the result of the decline they have seen around them to the point of fighting anyone who dares try?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying "you've been getting screwed for decades" will resonate more than, "I have a new plan that will fix everything, double extra pinky swear!"

The facts don't matter.

That's the point he was making.
 
wareyin said:
Perhaps the pertinent bit was clipped out? He was saying nobody could articulate Clinton's plan for the fictional "Gary from Gary, IN," but in reality she did have a plan. The fictional Gary just didn't want to hear it. Trump's "plan" on the other hand was....wave a magic wand and bring the manufacturing plant back? How'd that work out?
Click to expand...
I think you let yourself get hung up on a detail and missed the message.

He even prefaced and set up the context at the beginning. Facts don't matter, narratives do. Trump's narrative taps into real resentment that is really felt by real people and they vote.

Reply with facts until you're blue in the face.

Another fact is: we clearly have a less appealing message to those types of people.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I think you let yourself get hung up on a detail and missed the message.

He even prefaced and set up the context at the beginning. Facts don't matter, narratives do. Trump's narrative taps into real resentment that is really felt by real people and they vote.

Reply with facts until you're blue in the face.

Another fact is: we clearly have a less appealing message to those types of people.
Click to expand...

And the pertinent narrative is: How'd that work out? Did Trump bring back that manufacturing plant?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
No, I'm saying "you've been getting screwed for decades" will resonate more than, "I have a new plan that will fix everything, double extra pinky swear!"

The facts don't matter.

That's the point he was making.
Click to expand...

"You've been getting screwed for decades, but lemme screw you worse."

"Yeah, MAGA!"

Is that how it's supposed to work? Is that how it's working this time?
 
Don't get me wrong, I used to constantly want "more logos, less pathos" but when the early primary debates started this cycle and it was long-winded comparisons of technocratic policy, I was shouting "oh knock it off, nobody cares!"

I'm 40 years old and accept that the world doesn't run on facts and trying to win with facts is as useful as passing into the wind.

And that's a well-regarded ivy league professor of political economics essentially saying "yes, everything I specialize in having to do with all the money everywhere, it doesn't mean squat to people who have money problems in their own household."
 
wareyin said:
"You've been getting screwed for decades, but lemme screw you worse."

"Yeah, MAGA!"

Is that how it's supposed to work? Is that how it's working this time?
Click to expand...

If you can get a strong "But I'll screw the people who screwed you (or who you want to think screwed you, or who you've always hated but can use this as an excuse to screw over) even more" message into the subtext as Trump did, then yeah it absolutely can work and did work in 2016.

Trump did NOT win 2016 on a "I will save the rural areas" message. He won it on a "I will punish the people who didn't get screwed over because how dare they" message. Trump was never the rural area's savior, he was a convenient bag of burning dog poop to put on everyone else's porch.

As to how much it's working this time... time will tell. Hopefully not as well.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
If you can get a strong "But I'll screw the people who screwed you (or who you want to think screwed you, or who you've always hated but can use this as an excuse to screw over) even more" message into the subtext as Trump did, then yeah it absolutely can work and did work in 2016.

Trump did NOT win 2016 on a "I will save the rural areas" message. He won it on a "I will punish the people who didn't get screwed over because how dare they" message. Trump was never the rural area's savior, he was a convenient bag of burning dog poop to put on everyone else's porch.

As to how much it's working this time... time will tell. Hopefully not as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, that. Along with some psychology shared here way too far back to find about stock trading strategies. Basically small-timers and day traders want volatility and instability because the stable, predictable game is more like a casino where "the house always wins" and (albeit with terrifying consequences) when it all comes crashing down, hey, it can't be worse than being slowly screwed over for decades.

ETA: There are tens of millions of people who likely hear "stabilize the economy" and the word-concept association to them means "hook a vacuum up to my wallet, suck me dry, and give it all to your wall street buddies."
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
If you can get a strong "But I'll screw the people who screwed you (or who you want to think screwed you, or who you've always hated but can use this as an excuse to screw over) even more" message into the subtext as Trump did, then yeah it absolutely can work and did work in 2016.

Trump did NOT win 2016 on a "I will save the rural areas" message. He won it on a "I will punish the people who didn't get screwed over because how dare they" message. Trump was never the rural area's savior, he was a convenient bag of burning dog poop to put on everyone else's porch.

As to how much it's working this time... time will tell. Hopefully not as well.
Click to expand...

The question is how did it work out for the "Gary from Gary, IN" voter. Yeah, Trump squeaked by with a loss in the popular vote but an electoral win, so bully for him. But how did that bag of burning dog poop help the rural guy? Are those Iowa farmers happy with Trump?
 
wareyin said:
The question is how did it work out for the "Gary from Gary, IN" voter. Yeah, Trump squeaked by with a loss in the popular vote but an electoral win, so bully for him. But how did that bag of burning dog poop help the rural guy? Are those Iowa farmers happy with Trump?
Click to expand...

The fact Trump, a bumbling buffoon reality TV star/failed businessman, was polling within margin of error of one of the most groomed and expected political stars in the country at all should have been alarming.

Whether he actually ended up doing anything or not for that constituency was not the point.

It is a way to feign confusion and not deal with what the actual point was:

It worked.

But yup. Still in bargaining phase.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The fact Trump, a bumbling buffoon reality TV star/failed businessman, was polling within margin of error of one of the most groomed and expected political stars in the country at all should have been alarming.

Whether he actually ended up doing anything or not for that constituency was not the point.

It is a way to feign confusion and not deal with what the actual point was:

It worked.

But yup. Still in bargaining phase.
Click to expand...

A swing and a miss. Look at the title of this thread. What election are we talking about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom