5 ms·

You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee

by Aloha 10y ago

You made the comment I was going to make. Though I would have included the following too: > The way we got into a situation with Trump as a major party nominee in the first place was by not talking to people who are very different than we are. The polarization of the country into two parallel political realities is not good for any of us. We should talk to each other more, not less. When it comes down to it.. its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper.

mashmac2 10y ago
>its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.
- Tactic 10y ago
  This sounds like the type of thing that is being advocated against. Telling a large section of the country that what they feel is not true. I'm not certain from what vantage that statement could ever accurately be made. I certainly wouldn't try this tact with your significant other.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  Don't just assume they only feel like they're not getting ahead. A large majority of these folks are in actual fact falling far behind, and that fact is not easily observed in many of the metrics people often use for measurements (like 'household income', and 'unemployment')
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  A lot of them actually aren't, though, by any reasonable metric. Health? Number of close friends? Lifespan? Addiction rate? Income? Unemployment rate? Labor participation rate? By any of those metrics, life in a lot of rural-red communities is getting worse, and has been for years. I'm aware of the "better but it feels worse" pattern - crime rates are the prime example - but it's far too glib to say that covers everything. Inconvenient as it is, sometimes you have to actually improve things to make people feel better. I suspect that most people will not accept any definition of 'ahead' which leaves them sicker, poorer, lonelier, and dying younger. And I don't think there's any reason that they should accept it.
  - Aloha 10y ago
    On some level I feel like my country is unwinding, like somehow over time we have developed these parallel economies and social institutions, and now we don't know how to talk to ourselves anyhow.. and it scares me. The fact that one side can't see the other is struggling is an example of this. There is another observation I have too - and some point everyone became offended at everyone - when I was younger, merely having a different opinion was never offensive, now in certain circles, it sure appears to be. (HN may be one of those circles) In the end.. we need to remember time doesnt stop when this election is over - the morning after we're all still gonna wake up and get on with business - I fear the level of vitriol may be damaging the fabric of my country.. and that makes me nervous.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
soccerdave 10y ago
There is most likely a large portion of voters that are also voting 'against' Hillary. The only realistic vote against Hillary is unfortunately a vote for Trump.
- noobermin 10y ago
  There are two other candidates who have a +1% popularity.
int_19h 10y ago
> We should talk to each other more, not less. It's a nice sentiment, but it implies that both sides have walked away from the middle more or less equidistantly, and the way to fix it is to walk back. The reality is that American left is still mostly center-left, while the American right has been steadily radicalizing over the past two decades. Study after study shows the same thing: the average right wing voter today is more prone to groupthink (i.e. believing in party orthodoxy of the day), more likely to select news & information sources pandering to his agenda regardless of their adherence to truth, and views political opponents more negatively. (This isn't to say that any of these behaviors are exclusive to the right - of course not, and the existence of HuffPo etc is the evidence to that. What's different is how strong and widespread it is.) So for the left, walking back to the middle is not going to solve this, since the other guy walked much further away. To "meet them in the middle", you'd need to cross over to the right, to the point of abandoning the core platform values that have been there for a very long time. That's not going to happen. This is a self-correcting problem, though. The side that goes on a quest for ideological purity at the expense of practicality, inevitably diminishes its own ranks by repeatedly purging those deemed as not pure enough (and on every iteration, the criteria become tighter and tighter). You can see this in practice - if you ask some Republican voters, more than half of their own party are "RINOs". And there's a positive feedback loop here - the smaller the party gets, the harder it is for it to hold onto political power, and the less incentive for someone who wants to actually do something (which requires power) to join or stay. So that bubble is well on its way to bursting, and the best way to resolve matters is to help it along the way. Once it bursts and the right deals with the fallout, then we can talk about meeting in the middle etc.
- Aloha 10y ago
  The right is further along in their process than the left is. But it is starting on the left.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Yes. On the left, though, it's not an irreversible process yet. It can still be contained. On the right, it ran away a long time ago.

by Aloha 10y ago

mashmac2 10y ago

>its become clear to me at least that a large percentage of the country simply put, is not 'getting ahead' - the anger that drove the Trump and Sanders campaigns is very real and must be solved if we are to prosper. The key there is that they _feel_ like they're not getting ahead - a very different thing than not actually getting ahead, and much more dangerous.

Tactic 10y ago
This sounds like the type of thing that is being advocated against. Telling a large section of the country that what they feel is not true. I'm not certain from what vantage that statement could ever accurately be made. I certainly wouldn't try this tact with your significant other.
maxsilver 10y ago
Don't just assume they only feel like they're not getting ahead. A large majority of these folks are in actual fact falling far behind, and that fact is not easily observed in many of the metrics people often use for measurements (like 'household income', and 'unemployment')
Bartweiss 10y ago
A lot of them actually aren't, though, by any reasonable metric. Health? Number of close friends? Lifespan? Addiction rate? Income? Unemployment rate? Labor participation rate? By any of those metrics, life in a lot of rural-red communities is getting worse, and has been for years. I'm aware of the "better but it feels worse" pattern - crime rates are the prime example - but it's far too glib to say that covers everything. Inconvenient as it is, sometimes you have to actually improve things to make people feel better. I suspect that most people will not accept any definition of 'ahead' which leaves them sicker, poorer, lonelier, and dying younger. And I don't think there's any reason that they should accept it.
- Aloha 10y ago
  On some level I feel like my country is unwinding, like somehow over time we have developed these parallel economies and social institutions, and now we don't know how to talk to ourselves anyhow.. and it scares me. The fact that one side can't see the other is struggling is an example of this. There is another observation I have too - and some point everyone became offended at everyone - when I was younger, merely having a different opinion was never offensive, now in certain circles, it sure appears to be. (HN may be one of those circles) In the end.. we need to remember time doesnt stop when this election is over - the morning after we're all still gonna wake up and get on with business - I fear the level of vitriol may be damaging the fabric of my country.. and that makes me nervous.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

soccerdave 10y ago

There is most likely a large portion of voters that are also voting 'against' Hillary. The only realistic vote against Hillary is unfortunately a vote for Trump.

noobermin 10y ago
There are two other candidates who have a +1% popularity.

int_19h 10y ago

> We should talk to each other more, not less. It's a nice sentiment, but it implies that both sides have walked away from the middle more or less equidistantly, and the way to fix it is to walk back. The reality is that American left is still mostly center-left, while the American right has been steadily radicalizing over the past two decades. Study after study shows the same thing: the average right wing voter today is more prone to groupthink (i.e. believing in party orthodoxy of the day), more likely to select news & information sources pandering to his agenda regardless of their adherence to truth, and views political opponents more negatively. (This isn't to say that any of these behaviors are exclusive to the right - of course not, and the existence of HuffPo etc is the evidence to that. What's different is how strong and widespread it is.) So for the left, walking back to the middle is not going to solve this, since the other guy walked much further away. To "meet them in the middle", you'd need to cross over to the right, to the point of abandoning the core platform values that have been there for a very long time. That's not going to happen. This is a self-correcting problem, though. The side that goes on a quest for ideological purity at the expense of practicality, inevitably diminishes its own ranks by repeatedly purging those deemed as not pure enough (and on every iteration, the criteria become tighter and tighter). You can see this in practice - if you ask some Republican voters, more than half of their own party are "RINOs". And there's a positive feedback loop here - the smaller the party gets, the harder it is for it to hold onto political power, and the less incentive for someone who wants to actually do something (which requires power) to join or stay. So that bubble is well on its way to bursting, and the best way to resolve matters is to help it along the way. Once it bursts and the right deals with the fallout, then we can talk about meeting in the middle etc.

Aloha 10y ago
The right is further along in their process than the left is. But it is starting on the left.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Yes. On the left, though, it's not an irreversible process yet. It can still be contained. On the right, it ran away a long time ago.