2018 mid-term election

[Distracted1]

The word ISN'T automatically racist. If Gillum was White or Asian or Native American, no one would have thought twice about it. But Gillum is an African American. And there is a long dark history of of the comparison of simians to Blacks. DeSantis is either racially insensitive and oblivious, which just makes him stupid. Or he's blatantly signalling the redneck bigots.

Gillum can't and isn't focusing on this probable racism. Others might, but he and his campaign isn't.

The "racially insensitive=oblivious=stupid" part of your argument is specifically what I am referring to.
There is a substantial set of white voters who would be (and in many cases already are) sympathetic to what are considered "liberal" values (like affirmative action, addressing poverty, addressing income and wealth inequality, etc..) who are driven away from the Democrats when they feel they are always suspect of racism when interacting with minorities.
At a certain point they feel it is pointless to address it anymore. Feeling perhaps something like :"why even bother when the use of the word 'monkey', 'boy', 'articulate', et..al will make me an 'enemy' for ridiculous reasons"
Democrats (of which I am one) are spending too much effort trying to convince everyone that they are racists- and that is putting off a lot of voters who would lean our way without the accusation.
It is entirely possible, that the "Monkey" statement in conjunction with the "articulate" description was a very nuanced attempt to target those voters.
A better strategy (again IMO) for courting them might involve not jumping at every "racist" shadow that flashes by, and instead focusing on the things actually agreed on.

 

[Brainster]

It is odd, however, that he first described his opponent as "articulate." When used alone, it implies that being articulate is out of character (i.e., that black people usually aren't), and hence is a backhanded compliment. When used as praise or recognition, one normally says, "articulate, cogent, and persuasive" or some other conglomeration of adjectives.

So Joe Biden skates on this one (about Obama in 2007):

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

 

[Brainster]

Howard Cosell must be rolling over in his grave.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So Joe Biden skates on this one (about Obama in 2007):

IIRC, he got roasted for it.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Howard Cosell must be rolling over in his grave.

Yeah, if only he lived a bit longer he could have called football players bastards and not even raised an eyebrow.

 

[Sherkeu]

Apparently you are unaware of what a dog whistle (a literal one) is. If you can hear one sounded next to your ears, you are not a human. The whole notion of a figurative dog whistle is supposedly nobody hears it except racists. Hence my amusement at liberals hearing them everywhere.

I'm skeptical that any of these politicians would purposely try to reach out to some unknown percentage of actual racists with even the most subtle language. What is the goal? They aren't going to up and vote democrat, right? In Florida, you cannot alienate minority voters if you want to actually win. You need a broad appeal. So what is the imagined strategy here?
It sounds like a strategy for losing to me.

 

[Distracted1]

I'm skeptical that any of these politicians would purposely try to reach out to some unknown percentage of actual racists with even the most subtle language. What is the goal? They aren't going to up and vote democrat, right? In Florida, you cannot alienate minority voters if you want to actually win. You need a broad appeal. So what is the imagined strategy here?
It sounds like a strategy for losing to me.

I tried to express it clearly in #241.
The dog whistle isn't to rabid racists (what need? They will likely vote for this guy anyway) it could be a dog whistle to those who might feel that getting "roasted" for calling someone articulate is a bit off-putting.

 

[Imhotep]

I'm skeptical that any of these politicians would purposely try to reach out to some unknown percentage of actual racists with even the most subtle language. What is the goal? They aren't going to up and vote democrat, right? In Florida, you cannot alienate minority voters if you want to actually win. You need a broad appeal. So what is the imagined strategy here?
It sounds like a strategy for losing to me.

I don't know, why does anyone cater to their base? To get more of them to vote I guess.

I think the best way to judge if something is a dog whistle is the reaction of the audience. Do they yell and cheer immediately after? (assuming it's in a speech to supporters)

 

[Brainster]

I'm skeptical that any of these politicians would purposely try to reach out to some unknown percentage of actual racists with even the most subtle language. What is the goal? They aren't going to up and vote democrat, right? In Florida, you cannot alienate minority voters if you want to actually win. You need a broad appeal. So what is the imagined strategy here?
It sounds like a strategy for losing to me.

I suspect that a fair amount of racists vote Democrat. However, since Gillum is a black man, I doubt many racists (well, white racists) will vote for him.

Anybody remember when John McCain got the "you're using a dog whistle" treatment? McCain ran an ad showing Obama hanging out with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. The clearly intended message was that he probably wasn't this brilliant thinker if he associated himself with those two airheads. But of course all the liberals heard the whistle. Some of the comments at the time illustrate perfectly why they have zero credibility when it comes to decrying the supposed racism of the GOP:

No matter: Ezra Klein said the McCain campaign was "running crypto-racist ads." Bill Press called it "deliberately and deceptively racist." John Marshall argued that “the McCain campaign is now pushing the caricature of Obama as a uppity young black man whose presumptuousness is displayed not only in taking on airs above his station but also in a taste for young white women." Don Lemon accused the campaign of "creating a political environment that is inciting hate and hate speech."

Creating a political environment that is inciting hate and hate speech? Hmmm, where have I heard that BS recently?

 

[kellyb]

In Florida, you cannot alienate minority voters if you want to actually win. You need a broad appeal.

From wiki: "The 2016 United States presidential election in Florida was won by Donald Trump on November 8, 2016..."

So what is the imagined strategy here?

Fire up your bigot base and get them to the polls fueled by that clean, alternative energy source known as "white power".

 

[LSSBB]

Apparently you are unaware of what a dog whistle (a literal one) is. If you can hear one sounded next to your ears, you are not a human. The whole notion of a figurative dog whistle is supposedly nobody hears it except racists. Hence my amusement at liberals hearing them everywhere.

Because only a dog can tell something is a dog whistle. No one can, like, look at it, and see what dogs do when someone blows on it.

 

[kellyb]

Because only a dog can tell something is a dog whistle. No one can, like, look at it, and see what dogs do when someone blows on it.

It's also merely an analogy. They tend to be imperfect.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Apparently you are unaware of what a dog whistle (a literal one) is. If you can hear one sounded next to your ears, you are not a human. The whole notion of a figurative dog whistle is supposedly nobody hears it except racists. Hence my amusement at liberals hearing them everywhere.

Apparently, some liberals can actually hear dog whistles. British Prime Minister Theresa May heard one recently and had a very bizarre reaction: (Here)

 

[acbytesla]

The "racially insensitive=oblivious=stupid" part of your argument is specifically what I am referring to.
There is a substantial set of white voters who would be (and in many cases already are) sympathetic to what are considered "liberal" values (like affirmative action, addressing poverty, addressing income and wealth inequality, etc..) who are driven away from the Democrats when they feel they are always suspect of racism when interacting with minorities.
At a certain point they feel it is pointless to address it anymore. Feeling perhaps something like :"why even bother when the use of the word 'monkey', 'boy', 'articulate', et..al will make me an 'enemy' for ridiculous reasons"
Democrats (of which I am one) are spending too much effort trying to convince everyone that they are racists- and that is putting off a lot of voters who would lean our way without the accusation.
It is entirely possible, that the "Monkey" statement in conjunction with the "articulate" description was a very nuanced attempt to target those voters.
A better strategy (again IMO) for courting them might involve not jumping at every "racist" shadow that flashes by, and instead focusing on the things actually agreed on.

I don't buy your argument. AT ALL. People aren't as stupid as you seem to portray them. I manage without much difficulty without calling African Americans 'boy' or vaguely alluding to them as monkey or apes or other racially insensitive terms. But that's just me I guess.

Also Gillum hasn't brought it up once. But he has been asked about it.

 

[Belz...]

Apparently you are unaware of what a dog whistle (a literal one) is. If you can hear one sounded next to your ears, you are not a human. The whole notion of a figurative dog whistle is supposedly nobody hears it except racists. Hence my amusement at liberals hearing them everywhere.

Except that, contrary to actual dog whistles, there's no reason why non-racists couldn't learn to recognise them.

 

[LSSBB]

Except that, contrary to actual dog whistles, there's no reason why non-racists couldn't learn to recognise them.

That's not contrary. You can actually identify a literal dog whistle without being able to hear it, so indeed the analogy still applies, and the application by brainster is imprecise - that anyone would only be able to identify that it is a "dog whistle" term if they weren't the "dog".

 

[dudalb]

And there was a series or racist robocalls in the Florida Governors race. The De Santis campaign is piously denouncing them as disgusting, but still is shows how ugly this race is going to get.
And I also won't take the word of a Trump sycophant for anything.
This country is being torn apart, and I am now convinced that those who are not seeing this do so only because they don't want to see it.

 

[quadraginta]

And there was a series or racist robocalls in the Florida Governors race. The De Santis campaign is piously denouncing them as disgusting, but still is shows how ugly this race is going to get.
And I also won't take the word of a Trump sycophant for anything.
This country is being torn apart, and I am now convinced that those who are not seeing this do so only because they don't want to see it.

Most likely.

And then there are the ones who are seeing it, but don't care.

And the ones who see it just fine ... and approve, but won't admit it.

 

[Mumbles]

He's making fun of dogs that bark for some reason when a guy blows a little metal device, because he thinks the dogs are imagining things, since he himself does not hear a whistle, and therefore it couldn't be that.

I'm mostly just amused that people are talking about "dog whistles"...

The "racially insensitive=oblivious=stupid" part of your argument is specifically what I am referring to.
There is a substantial set of white voters who would be (and in many cases already are) sympathetic to what are considered "liberal" values (like affirmative action, addressing poverty, addressing income and wealth inequality, etc..) who are driven away from the Democrats when they feel they are always suspect of racism when interacting with minorities.

All I got from this is "How dare you expect straight white men to understand basic social norms!" And to that I say - welcome to 1/10th of what everyone else goes through!

Now, if I thought DeSantis were trying to win over any nonwhite voters, I'd point out that he should have learned how to not piss people off long ago - but in reality, I think he's only trying to win over white supremacists and the fools who spent years telling us all about how Dolt 45 was not at all racist, so all I can say is that "the republicans are who I thought they were". I have no actual say in any race in Florida, so I guess it's just going to be the black guy who wants to look out for everyone, versus the white supremacist aligned follow-up to the medicare cheat who will happily pollute the environment.

And if Florida as a whole keeps chosing for the latter, well, I'll feel bad for the people who live there and are against the white supremacists that are working to sink half the state into the ocean, but not much I can do about it.

 

[Distracted1]

I don't buy your argument. AT ALL. People aren't as stupid as you seem to portray them. I manage without much difficulty without calling African Americans 'boy' or vaguely alluding to them as monkey or apes or other racially insensitive terms. But that's just me I guess.

Also Gillum hasn't brought it up once. But he has been asked about it.

I guess we just differ then. I referred to an African American as a "boy" just this past Sunday, and frequently use terms such as "monkey around","monkey wrench","monkey see-monkey do", and "monkey suit" without hesitation.

Your allegation that this makes me "stupid", and that my use of the word "monkey" in an expression is a "vague allusion to African Americans" is exactly what I am talking about.
I do not need to defend my innocent use of English. Your vilification of my innocent word choice makes you seem to me a bit less than completely rational- and further, someone you wouldn't want on "your side" even though our viewpoints are very similar.

Were I an independent voter in Florida, being reminded that "the left" considers me an enemy because I refer to a male juvenile as a "boy", and to foolish behavior as "monkeying around" is not going to get me to the polling booth to pull the lever for the Democrats.

That is the (possible) subtlety of the comments by DiSantis I am seeing.