Trump to Congresswomen: Go back to your own country!

[_EAllusion]

Doc, by “Democrats in the media” I am referring to the fact that mainstream journalists are overwhelmingly Democrat. This is true. Is it a point you dispute? If not, then what is the complaint? I referred to a phenomenon wherein those journalists criticize Democrats for not doing enough to appease conservative desires. You asked for examples. One example of this is the genre of deep profiles and solicitation of the views of a particular demographic with conservative views where there is implicit and explicit criticism of Democrats not succeeding because of failure to appeal to them. Do you deny this genre exists?

I gave you your example and you just said nope. Since you refuse to spell out what you don’t get about it, it’s hard to know how to respond.

If are asking for evidence that Democratic elites overestimate the popularity of conservative positions, that’s a separate question. That’s just part of my speculation for why the above happens. It’s a phenomenon that’s common enough that I would think you’d see it, but there is hard poli sci data backing it if you need it. Even Democrats holding office do so:

https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/in ... atism.html

[_moksha]

Who is the face of the Democratic party?

Couldn't just draw a blank on this question.
The crowd deserves to know who they are
sending back to the train engine country.

[_Kevin Graham]

The fact that Trump is now saying he doesn't approve of his crowd screaming "send her back" pretty much proves the point this was never part of a strategy.

I was pleasantly surprised that he even said this though. I half expected him to say something like, "I'm not sure if I have the power to send her back, but we'll look into it."

[_canpakes]

A truth is just that. A truth. It’s usually pretty well defined, fact-based and specific. There aren’t too many ‘or’ options that go with, say, “unripe tomatoes are green”.

Who is the face of the Democratic party?

I couldn’t give an answer, in part because I don’t view democratic candidates or politicians with that sort of characterization, and I don’t see that Democratic voters tend to think that way - In other words, that voting block tends to have a pretty broad range of interests with varying levels of importance between them. Democratic voters don’t act like Republicans do, with unflinching deference to a central leadership figure that is met with their uncritical approval regardless of his actions. In contrast, Democrat voters are happy to hold any Democrat politician’s feet to the fire regardless of their overall credentials and acceptability if that politician is not appearing to address that voter’s keener interests.

This would seem to be the reason why infighting is a thing amongst Democratic voters and pols, in contrast to how Relief Society tend to act. With Relief Society, the lead dog sounds their whistle and the pack falls in line regardless of the lead dog’s direction; with Democrats, the same exercise would be like trying to herd cats.

This relationship amongst R politicians, and between the defacto R leader and the R voter, explains (I believe, anyway) the success of the liar’s strategy mentioned previously. But it’s why Relief Society have an advantage at the voting booth. People are inherently more reactive/emotional than considerate/logical, and the liar’s strategy works well with that. Democrats prefer to eschew the approach because it seems distasteful. They’re right about that, but they suffer for it.

It’s almost impossible to change the mind of anyone who has willingly adopted and practices the liar’s strategy. The only change possible must come from that person themselves, in choosing to abandon the strategy. But these are not folks prone to introspection; they prefer to be guided by others they perceive to represent righteous authority beyond themselves, provide that the authority asserts or claims (often unchallenged) similarity (i.e., politician asserts to be a Christian representing ‘family values’, even as he boinks prostitutes and marries three times).

It’s no surprise that folks more attached to their religious identity also tend to be more conservative, and prone to deploy the liar’s strategy, yet see nothing wrong or hypocritical in doing so. Lying for the Lord (Yahweh), and Lying for their lord (Trump) are essentially the same thing for them.

Apologies if these opinions are worded crudely; it has been a long day and I’m not typically as eloquent as many others within this thread to begin with. : )

[_honorentheos]

I don't think that's an accurate depiction of Republicans given the tea party, freedom caucus, libertarians, and other subgroups that have given Republican leadership fits for years. I would go so far as to say it's a little on the side of pro-Democrat propoganda even.

Point was, this issue isn't in the catagory of facts being facts. It's about dominant narratives defining "facts". The narrative or narratives most critical to the 2020 race are forming and evolving. But they are "or" in nature. Some work to one sides benefit more so than others. That's all.

[_canpakes]

I don't think that's an accurate depiction of Republicans given the tea party, freedom caucus, libertarians, and other subgroups that have given Republican leadership fits for years. I would go so far as to say it's a little on the side of pro-Democrat propoganda even.

Certainly, it’s a fairly crude generalization of a particular tactic. But that tactic seems to see widespread use within the party, in varying intensity - you can even glean it from more establishment sources like National Review, which are much more muted in approach than Trump. It seemed critical to the rise and power of the Tea Party, which seems to have closed up shop under Trump’s reign even though some of their claimed core issues still exist, as strongly as ever.

Point was, this issue isn't in the catagory of facts being facts. It's about dominant narratives defining "facts". The narrative or narratives most critical to the 2020 race are forming and evolving. But they are "or" in nature. Some work to one sides benefit more so than others. That's all.

I wrote that response before reading through the posts of others that followed the one I was responding to. I understand how some might feel that ‘The Squad’ could be used to portray the face of the Democratic Party, but I’d see that as a phenomenon more wedded to Trump’s Base - who will never vote Democratic anyway - rather than how Democratic voters perceive their influence. As an example from the Republican side, I never viewed John McCain - during his tiff with Trump over Obamacare - as being the representative of his own Party’s ideals or direction simply for being out of alignment with ‘party leadership’.

[_Some Schmo]

It’s no surprise that folks more attached to their religious identity also tend to be more conservative, and prone to deploy the liar’s strategy, yet see nothing wrong or hypocritical in doing so. Lying for the Lord (Yahweh), and Lying for their lord (Trump) are essentially the same thing for them.

If someone is religious, it is a sure sign they are easily manipulated. It's open season on their brain. If there's one thing that screams, "I'm Republican!" it's that they rarely think for themselves. They have the illusion they do, but that's a joke.

My favorite line that demonstrates this fact: "No Russian told me who to vote for..."

[_moksha]

It seemed critical to the rise and power of the Tea Party, which seems to have closed up shop under Trump’s reign even though some of their claimed core issues still exist, as strongly as ever.

I think their past rhetoric has been eclipsed now that their more primal and visceral urge for white nationalism has been allowed to express itself. Trump has made that mute tongue speak again, and is evidenced in the phrase "go back to where you came from", they've got a lot of babbling to catch up on.

[_EAllusion]

Republican polling tends to move with whatever the figurehead of the party says or is doing even when that contradicts where the polling was shortly before. This happens with Democrats to an extent too, but the effect is much more pronounced on the Republican side. Conveniently for understanding the phenomenon, it's about half as pronounced on the Democratic side. The strength of the swing varies from issue to issue, but you get 40ish point swings among Republicans where you only get 20ish point swings among Democrats. You name an issue and you can see the flip.

This is my personal favorite:

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/49889083 ... moral-acts

One possible explanation for this is people who vote Republican are disproportionately represented by people who place a lot of value on loyalty. Another possible explanation is that propagandistic right-wing media is better at quickly moving Republican opinion as compared to what occurs with Democratic opinion.

[_canpakes]

The fact that Trump is now saying he doesn't approve of his crowd screaming "send her back" pretty much proves the point this was never part of a strategy.

I was pleasantly surprised that he even said this though. I half expected him to say something like, "I'm not sure if I have the power to send her back, but we'll look into it."

It looks like this development has put him in a bit of a spot. He claims that he was ‘uncomfortable’ with the chant and tried to quickly talk over it - which he did not do, given that he stood mute for nearly 15 seconds to allow the crowd to practice their baser instinctive response.

So, now what? Does he try to use this same strategy at the next rally, and risk seeing his crazed Base begin this chant again - thereby perpetuating the general perception of folks outside of the Base that Trump and his followers are promoting a xenophobic or racist response? Or does he abandon this use of Omar as his foil and find some other bogeyman to present to his Base, for their rabid consumption?

Decisions, decisions ...