Subscribe via RSS Feed

Dumbasses of America

[ 323 ] March 19, 2017 |

Trump-visit-17

The genre of “let’s talk to idiotic white voters who support Trump even though he will decimate their lives” is already more stale than bread baked on November 8. However, it does lead to the occasional special anecdote that truly sums up the stupidity of many white people.

Blake Yelverton is taking a break with a burger that doesn’t cut any corners. Cheese and bacon and everything. He’s 23, a burly young man with a big red beard, and he works on his father’s cow farm.

“I don’t believe it’s the federal government’s job to provide health care,” he said. “It’s communism, socialism anyway.”

Yelverton hopes Trump trashes the whole thing, and he’s not too fond of the GOP plan being discussed in Congress either. “They’re doing a lesser evil of Obamacare,” he said.

His insurance?

“I’m on my parents’ plan,” he said.

So, Yelverton, it turns out, benefits from Obamacare. That’s because the law allows parents to keep kids on their insurance until age 26 — a widely-popular element of Barack Obama’s signature health law that Republicans intend to keep in their replacement plan.

Confronted with that information, he pauses for a moment.

“I haven’t been to the doctor in four or five years,” he said.

Smart kid.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (323)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. NBarnes says:

    “I’m young, dumb, healthy, and don’t need health insurance. Trump, fuck ya!”

    • cpinva says:

      by the description of that burger, he’ll be seeing a cardiologist soon.

      • anapestic says:

        At 23, he’s probably not even halfway to needing a cardiologist, even with that diet. He’s a lot more likely to sustain a serious injury that requires medical treatment that will be very, very expensive after he loses the coverage he got under the ACA.

        I’m guessing he was fed his opinions from his parents, though, and they should be old enough to know better.

        • cpinva says:

          “I’m guessing he was fed his opinions from his parents, though, and they should be old enough to know better.”

          I’m old enough to recognize that age is no guarantor of great wisdom. the odds are, if you’re an idiot when younger, you’ll just end up being an older idiot.

        • efgoldman says:

          I’m guessing he was fed his opinions from his parents

          And I’ll bet they
          j-u-u-u-u-u-st skipped over the part about government price supports and other benefits that farmers get.

          • wengler says:

            But farmers deserve that because they work hard and are the salt of the Earth donchaknow. They are real Americans unlike those shiftless inner city thugs that spend their Obama bucks on steaks and lobster.

  2. miwayha says:

    If only Democrats had run on socialism, they would have won over Trump voters like this one.

    • Dr. Waffle says:

      You mean to tell me that Trump supporters aren’t secret socialists? That 40%+ of the voting public is suspicious of anything that smacks of “big government,” unless it benefits them directly? Who woulda thunk it! It’s not like we have 200+ years of political history as evidence!

      • Dumbspear OSparrow says:

        “40%+ of the voting public is suspicious of anything that smacks of ‘big government’ EVEN IF it benefits them directly.”

        FIFY

        • Abbey Bartlet says:

          “40%+ of the voting public is suspicious of anything that smacks of ‘big government’ EVEN IF it benefits them directly UNLESS IT ALSO HURTS THOSE PEOPLE.”

          FTFY.

          • Mellano says:

            From the same article (interviewing a 64-year old Trump supporter who receives $11,000 in insurance subsidies from ACA and whose wife is on SSD):

            Still, the way health care reform is going reminds him of something his daddy told him years ago.

            “Anything the government gets involved in, it’s going south.”

            The horse is guzzling the water here. But I think it’s clear what his daddy (and probably his daddy’s daddy, and his daddy’s daddy’s daddy, and …) really meant.

      • miwayha says:

        You’re right, but you don’t even have to go that far.

        I have extremely generous employer health insurance that I would gladly trade away for single payer. But then again I’m 29, unmarried, no kids, white, male, with a graduate degree in IT, so i’ll be fine no matter what.

        My decidedly left-of-center colleagues who rely on my employer’s insurance to care for their children with disabilities? They’re sympathetic to single payer, but they’re understandably anxious about giving up a reliable way of paying for their kids’ expensive care in exchange for a brand new program. In other words, they’re neoliberal corporate whores.

  3. rea says:

    Farming is one of the top ten most dangerous occupations in the US. Good luck when you break a leg, Blake.

  4. MAJeff says:

    I wonder if the White Working Class Whisperers in the media will ever confront whiteness itself.

  5. Uneekness says:

    cow … farming? It’s either a dairy or a ranch. Jesus.

  6. NewishLawyer says:

    The guy interviewed is thirteen years my junior which means he was born after the fall of the Soviet Union. Where is he getting all of his anti-Communist propaganda like it is 1953?

    I’m old enough to remember when there was an East Germany and discuss the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in elementary school. Yet I don’t remember being drowned in anti-Communist propaganda. I also interestingly don’t recall ever fearing nuclear war but apparently people around my age and few years older did fear such things when they were in elementary school.

    So I am either really oblivious or have a very sane grasp on geo-political realities.

    • miwayha says:

      Rural Georgia is a reeeeeealy fucked up place. I had multiple teachers in high school teach me about the dangers of collectivism as if it were simply true. I honestly don’t think they realized it was just their opinion.

      (Ironically, the high school civics teacher was very leftist, but you’d never know it unless you had a conversation with her outside of working hours. Funny how that works.)

    • LeeEsq says:

      We also weren’t exposed to DARE as much as other people our age were. People our age who grew up elsewhere seemed to get the anti-drug education thick, not that it actually worked based on drug use patterns. Our suburb was a kind of rarefied place and that didn’t expose us to a lot of craziness that other kids are exposed to.

    • UnderTheSun says:

      The same place most Americans do. How many Americans understand that the governing party in Russia, United Russia, is conservative and pro-capitalist rather than being the Communist Party which is only the second most popular party in Russia.
      Now there’s a thought, the liberal interventionists continue with the Moscow regime change crap, support a colour revolution and end up with the Communist Party in control in Moscow. Must see what odds my bookie will give me on that as it could be a nice little earner.

      • ericblair says:

        United Russia is simply a convenient parliamentary vessel for Putin, whose economic philosophy is “gimme”. It is a mafia state that runs on purified corruption, regardless of whatever label from Marxist to fascist the crook in charge wants to slap on it.

        The Russian communist party is somewhat split, but is mostly a fake party that never opposes Putin and is actually a marketing arm of the same vertical system. It’s a party for mostly old people nostalgic for the USSR, while at the same time supporting the Orthodox Church (!) and has advocated for making Putin president for life (like he isn’t already).

        Since there’s no FIFTH COLUMN PLOT by GOSDEP to get rid of Putin, and the country is on its way to an economic collapse of its own making whatever the West thinks, the rest of that is kind of irrelevant.

      • Plenty of Americans do understand that Russia is no longer communist. Some of them like the cut of Putin’s jib indeed. Macho, homophobic, authoritarian, ruthless when it comes to crushing “Islamic terrorism” – what ‘s not to like? In late 2015 my distant Trump loving relatives were favorably comparing Putin to Obama even before Trump got in on the act.

        Oddly enough, the ones who most seem to be unaware that the Cold War is over are those who claim that any concerns about Russia are “redbaiting” and “McCarthyism”

        • MAJeff says:

          Some of them like the cut of Putin’s jib indeed.Macho, homophobic, authoritarian, ruthless when it comes to crushing “Islamic terrorism” – what ‘s not to like?

          I see you’ve met the Catholic Right and World Congress of Families.

          • humanoid.panda says:

            Some of them like the cut of Putin’s jib indeed.Macho, homophobic, authoritarian, ruthless when it comes to crushing “Islamic terrorism” – what ‘s not to like?

            The funny thing about those “PUTIN IS HARD ON ISLAM” people is that they are not aware that had they been Russian, they could, and quite likely would have been, charged with inciting religious hatred. Putin, horrible as he is, understand that in a country with 20% Muslim population, letting these people run arond sprouting that nonsense is dangerous, so his islamophobic stuff is for export only.

            • humanoid.panda says:

              This is a really inside story, but one of the founders of the Russian internet, Anton Nossik, happens to be a dual Israeli citizen, and is a pro-settler nut, who is also one of the more important voices in the Russian “liberal” blogosphere. The guy is now on trial for having incited hatred against Muslims for writing a blog post supporting the bombing of Alleppo and wishing that the Russians bomb Damascus too and kill as many Syrians as possible.

    • Derelict says:

      Having grown up in the ’60s and ’70s, I can tell you that nuclear annihilation was a very real fear because it was a very real possibility. Anti-communist propaganda was not very pronounced in my schools. The closest I ever got to such a thing was my father telling that “Communism would work really well if people were not humans.”

    • The Dark God of Time says:

      When I worked for a mosquito abatement district in 1979, I was subjected to an anti-communist rant by a dairy owner, so there was still a palpable fear of communism on the Right, even when it became clear that the Domino effect didn’t take place in SE Asia after the Communists took over in Vietnam. He’s probably a legacy child of such thinkers.

      “That is not death, which can never die…..”

    • Mellano says:

      I have a tangential Facebook acquaintance who was in diapers, at most, in 1989, and throws around “Commies” epithets without any idea that he’s further from planet Earth than Major Tom. He’s also fond of repeating what seem to be the latest catch phrases from the right wing media borg (“fake news” is the latest), so I assume somewhere between Fox News and Breitbart there are, in fact, very red-faced men ranting and raving about the perils of Communism.

  7. Aimai says:

    My god that article is so awful that it reminds me of S.J.Perlman’s brutal attacks on Hollywood Variety style writing. I don’t have time to dig out my copies–HOgan is always good for things like this–but his take down of Fellini and his use of natural actors like street urchins seems pretty much in this genre. Interview stupid people with trivial, obvious, personas and elevate it to faux grandeur with grudge like “how do you make a marriage…?” Come the fuck on–my atheist jewish urban intellectual parents have been married for 60 years and they didn’t need to come from fritters frog wallow or be republican know nothings to do it.

    The people of Ellaville are proudly unpretentious. They know a lot of people in Atlanta think they are, as Yelverton says, “straight up hicks down here.”

    But they believe this place is great in the ways that matter most. Good schools, safe streets, people who come through for one another.

    When someone’s child died, they held a fundraiser for the family. When the Peeks’ farmhouse burned down on Christmas Eve 1983, people came together and raised money.

    “Everybody was worried about us having Christmas,” Debra Peek said. They donated gifts and clothes for the kids and money for the family to get by. “When people pray for you, you can feel those prayers. There’s a lot of prayers here.”…Staying healthy, the couple realizes, is essential to keeping the farm going.

    Health costs are never far from their thoughts. Debra had a heart attack about three years ago, so she’s now on disability.

    Kenneth’s best bet, he thinks, is to simply reach the age of 65 in September, and qualify for Medicare. And hope that nothing changes for the worse till then.

    You can see the love between them when they speak. She does most of the talking. When he says something, it’s either important or funny.

    “People ask us what it takes to make a happy marriage,” Debra says.

    Her husband pipes up the answer.

    “Two people.”

    • Dr. Waffle says:

      Apparently it’s impossible for some pundits to understand that “good people” are just as liable to consciously support bigoted authoritarians as hood-wearing Klan morons. In fact, the latter only existed because the “good people” tolerated and supported them.

      • Aimai says:

        Also, I love the gendered crap behind “when he says something, its either important or funny” but “she does most of the talking.” What is she? Boring and trivial all the time?

      • NewishLawyer says:

        I’m debating this on another blog where almost everyone except one or two semi-random posters is anti-Trump. The blog is fairly split between Democrats/Liberals, RINOs who just can’t bring themselves to officially identify as Democrats yet (even if they voted for HRC and straight-down Dem), and Libertarians.

        There seems to be an unofficial policy that it is verbotten to think that some of the Democrats problems for gaining a majority are because of ethno-nationalism and gerrymandering even if everyone agrees that the GOP is a disgrace and a mess.

        My theory is that for a lot of people on the blog, they probably know people who vote GOP because of ethno-nationalism and these people might be very close family members. It is hard to confront bigotry if the bigot is your mom who was otherwise a standup mom to you. I grew up in super blue areas and now live in super-blue San Francisco where, if anything, I am a moderate.
        So I’ve never had to grapple with this. My family are Northern Jewish Democrats to the core.

        • MAJeff says:

          Whiteness is a hell of a drug.

        • humanoid.panda says:

          There seems to be an unofficial policy that it is verbotten to think that some of the Democrats problems for gaining a majority are because of ethno-nationalism and gerrymandering even if everyone agrees that the GOP is a disgrace and a mess.

          I am with you on racism, and voter suppression, but gerrymandering is a more complex issue. The 2010 gerrymander is real and terrible, but conservatives, whether GOP+ Southern Dems or GOP by itself, have controlled the House in 60 of the last 70 years…

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

            There are times I question the history books that say the South lost the Civil War.

            • Lurking Canadian says:

              Since lincoln’s operating principle was that the Sourh had reverted to the status of territories, they should have re-admitted the entire Confederacy as one state.

              Try filibustering with two Senators, Bubba.

              • rea says:

                Since lincoln’s operating principle was that the Sourh had reverted to the status of territories

                No. Some of the radical Republicans argued that; Lincoln rejected it.

            • Abbey Bartlet says:

              There are times I question the history books that say the South lost the Civil War.

              "If liberals would just stop being so mean and insisting we lost, we wouldn't hate them!"

          • los says:

            humanoid.panda says:

            2010 gerrymander is real and terrible,

            GOP doesn’t bother waiting for next census. GOP regerrymanders between censuses.

            but conservatives, whether GOP+ Southern Dems or GOP by itself, have controlled the House in 60 of the last 70 years…

            but a (hypothetical) “10%” illegitimate margin is legislatively significant (committee advancement, pubic voice of the minority, etc.)

      • CrunchyFrog says:

        Look at any picture of a town picnic in the south in the early part of the 20th century. Everyone dressed in their Sunday best, proudly posing for the camera. And most likely lynching victim(s) hanging in the background. I’m sure you can find similar pictures of good people in Germany about the same time.

      • MacK says:

        Hood wearing Klan morons can seem like pretty decent people outside a klavern meeting – if you are white and don’t bring up the wrong subjects.

    • sibusisodan says:

      When someone’s child died, they held a fundraiser for the family. When the Peeks’ farmhouse burned down on Christmas Eve 1983, people came together and raised money.

      Is there something aesthetic going on here?

      It’s obviously presenting such that these spontaneous expressions of community are preferable to some kind of societal system which gives the same outcomes.

      Or even that a system would be bad because it gets in the way of the community’s generosity? We should prefer taking the risk of the community not stepping up to help, because feeling good about the community’s acts of generosity is more important than the actual wellbeing of that community?

      That sounds insane when put that baldly.

      • NewishLawyer says:

        But it is a real belief and one that came up during the initial ACA debates. Tom Coburn was confronted by a woman whose husband had a severe neurological condition of some sort and he needed close to round the clock care I believe. He said that the community should help in these cases.

        Political fights in the US (and probably elsewhere) are about who bears the burden of a hardship or responsibility. Generally the left seems to want to shift the burden to the largest and most prosperous member in society. The right wants it shifted as low as possible and to the individual as often as it can.

        The problem here is that not everyone has a support structure necessarily. I’ve contributed to Gofundme campaigns for people in grad school who came down with major illnesses or had children that did. Since my grad school program was in the arts, these people are generally freelancers and/or got some kind of low-paying but not super-demanding office job to support their artistic careers. But they also generally come from the middle class and/or know educated professionals including people like me who left the arts for more profitable work. What happens to those who don’t have support structures?

        But for most people, small government and the community doing something like mentioned above is innately preferable.

        • los says:

          Tom Coburn lives in her “community”?

        • los says:

          NewishLawyer says:

          Generally the left seems to want to shift the burden to the largest and most prosperous member in society.

          (Generally – OK.)

          Most prosperous member? This perception is mostly coincidence. We wouldn’t perceive any “targeting” of wealthiest persons if the rigged social system didn’t illegitimately steer wealth toward wealthiest persons.

          • Woodrowfan says:

            just like when you’re young and have friends helping you move you ask the biggest, strongest guys who played college football to carry the heavy furniture, and not the guy who weighs about 90 lbs.

        • Tyro says:

          But for most people, small government and the community doing something like mentioned above is innately preferable.

          I am pretty sure that for people like Coburn, this is about willful ignorance regarding how big the problems are. When a small town of 1000 people faces a one-time tragedy suffered by one family, everyone can pitch in. When you have a million people and thousands of individual, ongoing, expensive issues, the natural response will be compassion fatigue… and if you talk to people like Coburn a little longer, they regard “compassion fatigue” as the morally correct decision, anything like actual concern is just being a “bleeding heart”

      • ericblair says:

        Or even that a system would be bad because it gets in the way of the community’s generosity? We should prefer taking the risk of the community not stepping up to help, because feeling good about the community’s acts of generosity is more important than the actual wellbeing of that community?

        Imma just gonna guess that they really, really like the idea that they get to decide who is worthy of this treatment and who is not, plus the added bonus of being able to rub it in their faces for the rest of their lives if necessary.

        • LosGatosCA says:

          Nail on the head.

          They feel terrible paying taxes. They feel pretty good about helping white children with tragic illnesses. They LOVE knowing the ‘undeserving’ ain’t gettin’ shit.

          • LosGatosCA says:

            ETA – in a reply –

            They also enjoy making people grovel for crumbs.

            Some variation on miserable human beings enjoy making other human beings as miserable as they feel.

      • waspuppet says:

        They want to feel good about consciously helping, but they also want to pick and choose whom they help.

        • aturner339 says:

          Bingo. Government is (finally) bound to serve all citizens. They’ve got some they don’t want served. That simple.

          • FlipYrWhig says:

            The people who say they support private charity are hyper concerned that the government lavishes too many favors on the undeserving, and indeed believe that Democrats WANT the government to do that because it wins them sweet sweet moocher votes. That’s the “eventually you run out of other people’s money” bit they love to repeat.

            • Liberals and lefties, of various sorts, can also be promoters of private charity, and may in cases believe a leftist government will promote charitable giving and attitudes among citizens, or that leftist voting is correlated with/causes those attitudes among voters.

              • efgoldman says:

                Liberals and lefties, of various sorts, can also be promoters of private charity

                Yeah, but it's that filthy stuff like Planned Parenthood, and performing arts. and literacy programs, and after school programs. Useless shit like that which supports what other people like.
                Now if the weenie libruls would only support dirt truck racing....

                I’m sorry, I’ve fucking had it with these people who know they voted to destroy the goddamned country, but would do it again.

      • Dalai Rasta says:

        If your worldview holds that the suffering of others exists for your moral edification, it makes perfect sense.

        • Karen24 says:

          Even worse, if you believe that suffering is in and of itself the path to holiness, like some Catholics do, then the pain and misery inflicted is wonderful especially when the patient dies. See Theresa of Calcutta and “Jesus kisses.”

      • LeeEsq says:

        It’s a bit of what Newish describes and a bit of what the others deacribe. Ideally, the American right wants the individual or family to bear as much of their costs as possible because that is part of rugged individualism to them. Rugged individualism is at the heat of how the conceptualize freedom. When an individual or family faces something that they can not pay for by themselves, the right prefers spontaneous help from others because that sits better with their concept of freedom than something more systematic and uniform from the impersonal government. Spontaneous help from others also allows for control over who gets aid more than systematic government welfare.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

          Of course, a lot of these true believers in Rugged Individualism claim to follow this guy whose first follower’s big claim to fame was that they held all things in common and met the needs of the poor.

          • LeeEsq says:

            The NT like many other religious books is contains multitudes of interpretations and can get inconsistent with this stuff. You have Jesus taking costly gifts and also advocating for the poor. You have his followers debating whether Christians should keep kosher without resolution. It should be pointed that the early Christians like the Pharisees were weary of the state because they hated the Roman Empire. You could argue that their behavior was more like the voluntarism advocated by Coburn rather than the impersonal welfare state we want, which they might see as more Roman than Christian.

      • Scott P. says:

        Or even that a system would be bad because it gets in the way of the community’s generosity? We should prefer taking the risk of the community not stepping up to help, because feeling good about the community’s acts of generosity is more important than the actual wellbeing of that community?

        Andrew Sullivan has said that one of his reservations about social programs is that it removes the need for charity, which means that it denies people the access to the virtue that comes from donating to charity.

        • sibusisodan says:

          Ugh. If ever a an opinion deserved a slap.

          You want the virtue of giving to charity – no one stops you! If its more difficult because of taxation levels, that just makes it more virtuous.

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

            If its more difficult because of taxation levels

            For the vast majority of Americans, if they have a home mortgage their charitable giving is deductible, which kind of negates the supposed taxation impact.

            I’ve spent nearly half a century, volunteering mostly, in churches and I can tell you that a lot of people are very reluctant to give any significant amount to their church or anyone else.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

          The obvious retort to Sullivan’s argument is that anyone looking at the situation many people are in can only conclude there is an insufficiency of charity in the U.S.

      • PhoenixRising says:

        spontaneous expressions of community are preferable to some kind of societal system which gives the same outcomes.

        …because then deviance can be controlled, at a very granular level.

        Have I mentioned before that I’m from a small town in Ohio?

        This isn’t complicated: The social safety net that lets me live far from my family, in a marriage I chose, in a mixed-race household, without a man, is the problem. But for society wasting their tax dollars on outcasts who choose not to comply with social norms, they’d also be wealthy.

    • Murc says:

      But they believe this place is great in the ways that matter most. Good schools, safe streets, people who come through for one another.

      This sort of formulation is an enormous tell.

      Fred Clark had an amazing post on this about a month ago. You’ll notice a lot of these “real ‘Muric” towns are always eager to fall all over themselves about how their town is full of “good people” who “look out for one another.”

      What they really mean is that they think this is unusual. That other communities are filled with bad people who do not look out for one another.

      • This is also a kind of cliche that the journalists are selecting because it fits their ideas about social psychology, etc.

      • Ronan says:

        Douthat wrote an article a year plus ago about this (Im not going to bother looking it up at the minute) which was basically the white poor in declining towns should learn from African Americans on how to build collective community institutions, and learn to suffer more stoically.

        (also relatedly from Jill Leovy’s Ghettoside’)

        “Only people who weren’t familiar with this kind of “inner-city” environment would attribute its problems to alienation or lack of community solidarity. The truth was that “community spirit” in the sense of both local pride and connections among neighbors was far more in evidence in Watts than elsewhere. It was one of the defining aspects of the ghettoside setting: a substantial portion of the area’s residents were related to each other through extended family ties, marriage, or other intimate connections. Relatives who were only nominally related by blood often saw each other daily, ate together, celebrated together, quarreled and comforted each other. They shared food, money, and living quarters. They raised each other’s children. They traded off transportation and housework. Even people who were not related were networked into this complex mosaic.

        Common-law romantic relationships— the myriad “baby daddy” and “babymama” connections— not only constituted their own distinct category of familial bonds, they roped in a lot of other blood relations, too. And if people had no claim to family ties at all, they invented them. Terms such as “play sister” and “play cousin” were ubiquitous all over South Central and had an important role in organizing social life. Even friendships in Watts often appeared more intimate than elsewhere. In contrast to wealthier neighborhoods, where most people worked at day jobs and neighbors knew each other in passing or not at all, the unemployed people of these places were home all day, hanging out together, confined to a few blocks. It lent the constant calls for “the community to come together” a touch of absurdity. Watts already had more togetherness than most Americans could tolerate.”

      • FlipYrWhig says:

        I’ve always found it exceedingly strange that politicians will say things like “the great thing about Americans is how we come through for each other in a crisis.” Who doesn’t do that?

        • Ronan says:

          “the great thing about X is how we hoard food, hike prices and loot stores in a crisis.”

        • so-in-so says:

          I’ve always found it exceedingly strange that politicians will say things like “the great thing about Americans is how we come through for each other in a crisis.” Who doesn’t do that?

          “American exceptionalism” is a participation trophy.

        • gccolby says:

          I’ve always found it exceedingly strange that politicians will say things like “the great thing about Americans is how we come through for each other in a crisis.” Who doesn’t do that?

          And local politicians in particular will brag about how their community is extra-special in this regard. Which can be normal and harmless enough, but it can have really troubling implications.

          I lived in Nashville in 2010, during the floods. Afterwards, there was a lot of talk from various politicians or media people about how “people didn’t complain or loot or riot, they buckled down and helped each other out.” It wasn’t made explicit that I heard, but these folks were drawing an obvious parallel to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The smug cluelessness and barely-disguised racism of this sentiment made we want to take a shower.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

        Yeah, people in those communities are so connected to one another and come through so well that their lifespans are decreasing, unlike everyone else.

      • so-in-so says:

        Tie it right back to the campaign and tRump telling those inner-city folks they were already living in hell…

      • Booger says:

        Also, I’ll “look out for my neighbors” (e.g., help chainsaw fallen trees on our road after storms) but I’ll be goddammed if I’m not still writing checks to State Farm for when the house burns down/car crashes/I kick the bucket.

        And the number of change jars at the quickie mart cash register for one tragedy after another suggests that the mythic murkin charity is running a little thin theses days.

        And raising money for a family whose child dies? After burial expenses, what…for buying a new child? I do not understand this cult of ‘looking out for one another.’ That’s different way of saying ‘another white person expecting someone else to clean up my mistakes.’

    • The Great God Pan says:

      “People ask us what it takes to make a happy marriage,” Debra says.

      Her husband pipes up the answer.

      “Two people.”

      The correct answer is “one man and one woman,” libtards. Run these Marxists out of town!

    • ColBatGuano says:

      so she’s now on disability.

      simply reach the age of 65 in September, and qualify for Medicare.

      Do their neighbors run these programs?

  8. Uneekness says:

    From the AJC article

    Peek, for his part, is disappointed, and concerned he might not be able to afford health insurance.

    “The way they talked it was supposed to be better,” Peek said.

    But his support for Trump remains. He likes the president’s efforts to tighten-up the nation’s borders and add muscle to the military.

    Still, the way health care reform is going reminds him of something his daddy told him years ago.

    “Anything the government gets involved in, it’s going south.”

    How perfectly self-contained. My guy was supposed to make it better, but his failures aren’t his own. And the gov’t can’t work anyway, except for things I like, the military and border security.

    tl;dr: Only Democrats are bad

    • miwayha says:

      That’s why we have to keep the gubment out of Medicare!

      • efgoldman says:

        That’s why we have to keep the gubment out of Medicare!

        And out of social security, also too.
        And schools
        And roads
        And airports
        And trains
        And fighting diseases
        And making sure our food supply is safe
        And that we have potable water, and sanitation

        Let’s make every fucking place Galt’s Gulch.
        Honest to FSM, sometimes I wish we could, just to shut the motherfuckers up.

    • MikeBoyScout says:

      “going south” heh, indeedy

    • guthrie says:

      Add muscle to the military? Can someone take him on a world tour and show him how the american military is already massively more powerful than any grouping of other countries militaries?

      • Shalimar says:

        As recent articles about our foreign policy regarding North Korea are making clear, Trump sees the military as a stick he can use to force other countries into trade deals more favorable to the United States. Since we will get that money back from subservient client states, it isn’t possible to spend too much on the military.

    • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

      Fascinating how the military is always cited at the best measure of government efficiency.

  9. Mike G says:

    “I don’t believe it’s the federal government’s job to provide health care,” he said. “It’s communism, socialism anyway.”

    But crop subsidies and federal irrigation projects are FREEDOM

    • Aimai says:

      The only thing that quote lacked was the actual ending:
      “It’s communism, socialism…or some damned thing anyway.” Why bother to get it right? Within the epistemic bubble everyone already agrees on everything.

      • StellaB says:

        I view “socialism” and “neoliberalism” as two sides of the same coin — handy, all-purpose insults to fling at anything you don’t like while convincing yourself that you’re smarter than you really are. An “ism” just sounds so much more informed than “you stink!”

    • FlipYrWhig says:

      It’s always about the hardworking who deserve help they earned, as opposed to the lazy who demand help they don’t deserve. And most of the latter have brown skin. Hence if you have white skin and calluses, you always earned what you’ve got and deserve help that hurts your pride.

      IOW fuck everybody and stop wondering why Republicans are Republicans. It’s because they’re hateful and like being that way.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

        Somehow the common picture of what they view as the “good old days” of a bunch of black guys working hard while the white guy stands and watches just confirms that whites are hard-working and blacks are lazy.

    • efgoldman says:

      But crop subsidies and federal irrigation projects are FREEDOM

      I didn’t read the piece, and I’m not going to. Did the reporter even mention that, never mind ask about it?

  10. NewishLawyer says:

    Also even though I am American eating and I am far from being an organic, glutten free, vegan whatever. I see a lot of mini-cooking videos on facebook now because all my friends love some company called Tasty or they love the Food Network. These videos always seem to be about cooking with maximum fat and cheese and sugar and seemingly have a ton of it added at different times in the cooking process.

    I love those things but I feel my arteries getting clogged just watching these videos.

    • MacK says:

      I find with most of those recipes you use them for guidance, but with just 1/3 of the sugar and 1/2 the butter, twice the garlic or lemon zest, herbs etc.

      Actually went by a recipe for cookies recently. I though it had a shocking amount of butter in proportion to the other ingredients, but hey, I ignored my own judgment – sheesh, the baking pan was swimming in butter – I had to drain it.

      Thing is, except for boiling pasta, I rarely add salt when cooking.

  11. WinningerR says:

    The thing I find most infuriating about these endless profiles of the “forgotten white voters?”–how would a presidential platform designed specifically to help people like this Blake Yelverton look any different from Clinton’s?

    • Dr. Waffle says:

      They want another Bill Clinton. For real. Even the alt-lefties, who are almost as afflicted with CDS as their right-wing counterparts, basically want a socialist Bubba who will repudiate “identity politics” and “feel the pain” of all the put-upon white piypo.

      • Q.E.Dumbass says:

        It’s not the Clenis, it’s the Clajayjay.

      • FlipYrWhig says:

        Don’t they just think Bernie Sanders can do it because, like all rumpled Jewish socialists, he’s self-evidently universally beloved?

      • nemdam says:

        The irony of all this “Clinton is a neoliberal sellout!” talk. Bill Clinton won the WWC and in the South even though he tacked to the center economically, socially, and declared the era of big government over. It’s not a mystery why he did so well. Socialists just pretend Bill Clinton never happened when confronted why they think big government will win the WWC.

        • FlipYrWhig says:

          The other thing they forget is that the candidate who cleaned up with the white working class in Democratic primaries in 2008 was… Hillary Clinton. The same people who voted for Hillary over Obama voted for Sanders over Hillary. What’s the proof that Sanders would keep them if he were running against, say, Brian Schweitzer?

          • nemdam says:

            I would be laughing if it weren’t so sad. In ’08, the “problem” with Hillary is she was trying to build a Democratic party by appealing to the WWC while Obama was building an urban, multicultural, youth based coalition. Hillary represented the past, while Obama represented the future. Because Hillary can admit mistakes, she learned her lesson and went with Obama’s coalition instead in 2016. Except this time, now she’s out of touch with the WWC and hasn’t spent enough time listening to rural America. Analysis like this makes me think there might be something else going on with Hillary’s appeal.

            • cpinva says:

              yes, she’s female.

            • stonetools says:

              The logical conclusion of going after the WWC vote is that at Democratic Party adopt a more conservative social and economic agenda, not leap forward into democratic socialism. Leftists seem weirdly oblivious to this logic.

              • FlipYrWhig says:

                Because it’s advocated mostly by college-educated neo-Marxists who don’t have the remotest clue what actual working class people think and who have invented a whole mythology to explain how the only reason their minority viewpoint hasn’t been widely embraced is because of a relentless Establishment conspiracy.

                • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

                  Don’t know how much it actually happened, but there were plenty of stories in the 1960s of “hippies” going out to save the WWC and getting their asses stomped.

                • efgoldman says:

                  it’s advocated mostly by college-educated neo-Marxists who don’t have the remotest clue what actual working class people think

                  And who don’t have a clue how government and politics works(*) and either don’t vote or vote for Jill Stein, and never in local or congressional elections.

                  (*)Although to be sure, apparently the Republiklowns have forgotten, too.

              • Linnaeus says:

                The logical conclusion of going after the WWC vote is that at Democratic Party adopt a more conservative social and economic agenda

                Not necessarily, though it depends on where those voters are located and how the Democratic Party would go after them.

                • nemdam says:

                  I mean, the past isn’t a perfect predictor of the future, but given that tacking to the right or center on social issues is what’s always done it, I see no reason why it’s different today. And if you look at who outperformed Hillary in the election, it was mostly politicians closer to the center (Kandor, Bayh, Jim Gray of KY, Schumer). And if you look at how Dems win in red states, they do it by going to the middle on social issues (Manchin, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Donnelly). Not a single politician or issue that was positioned to the left of Hillary in the election outperformed her, including Bernie.

      • The Lorax says:

        They want Huey Long.

    • Davis X. Machina says:

      how would a presidential platform designed specifically to help people like this Blake Yelverton look any different from Clinton’s?

      More cross-burnings?

      Wait, you said ‘help’, not ‘appeal’….

  12. LeeEsq says:

    I often wonder how other nations develop anti-bodies to national mythology. On another blog we were discussing how car culture developed and became a staple of American conservatism. One poster, probably correctly, linked the car to the myth of the family in the wagon heading out West to homestead and farm without any help, especially from the federal government. The car became a big thing because of this myth. After racism, the cult of rugged individualism is the next worse thing in American society and politics.

    • wjts says:

      I often wonder how other nations develop anti-bodies to national mythology.

      That’s easy: they don’t.

      • LeeEsq says:

        I suspected as much. It might be more like that the national mythologies of other countries work better if the type of policies we like.

      • guthrie says:

        As wjts said. I can’t think of any nation without some form of national mythology. The key point is that if you keep your nations small, i.e. 5 or 10 million people, the damage they can do because of their mythology is quite small. Compare Ireland with Britain, or Finland with Russia.

        Or in the case of Scotland, there is a ready scapegoat next door that we are in a weird sort of relationship with.

        • sibusisodan says:

          The great thing about national myths and scapegoats is that they continue to be useful even when you’ve sent the goat out into the wilderness.

          I am so looking forward to the EU still being blamed for the state of affairs in Brexit Britain.

      • Solar System Wolf says:

        I think Germany has had to do it by legally stomping on anyone who tries to bring it up.

    • imwithher says:

      heading out West to homestead and farm without any help, especially from the federal government.

      Other than, ya’ know, the land itself. Which the Federal government bought from the French and/or stole from Mexico and/or the Native Americans.

      • LeeEsq says:

        And gave you for free if you could stay on it for a certain number of years. Plus they built forts to defend you and courts to enforce the law before statehood.

      • Pat says:

        And weren’t they driving their cars on the highways that DDE built?

      • Woodrowfan says:

        and the Army Corps of engineers cleared some of the paths out west, and the government cleared the rivers of obstacles (like have sunken trees) so riverboats could travel, and kept the riverboat companies afloat with contracts to carry the mail, and gave land and cash to build the railroads, and set up forts with repair stations for wagon trains, and gave mail contracts to stagecoach lines, and set up the land offices so you could stake a legal claim to your land, etc, etc.

    • PhoenixRising says:

      I often wonder how other nations develop anti-bodies to national mythology

      I’ve got some books about the Spanish Civil War, the troubles in Ireland and WWII here if you’d like to explore that closely but to generalize, there is typically ordnance involved.

      Just to put some perspective on our very real problems integrating 3rd and 4th-gen revanchist white nationalists into the successful, outward-facing, future-oriented dominant culture of the US.

    • efgoldman says:

      One poster, probably correctly, linked the car to the myth of the family in the wagon heading out West to homestead and farm without any help

      Who gave them the forty acres and a mule, and killed or removed the original owners?
      When you literally know nothing about nothing, you shouldn’t be allowed into society.

  13. Barry Freed says:

    I keep hearing the post title in Grace Slick’s voice for some reason.

    Also, Jimmy Breslin, RIP.

  14. UnderTheSun says:

    The genre of “let’s talk to idiotic white voters who support Trump even though he will decimate their lives” is already more stale than bread baked on November 8.

    What was the alternative? A Democrat who’d made it pretty clear to her backers on Wall Street that her “most progressive” policies were a sham to be discarded as soon as her coronation was complete. At least with Trump there was a possibility, admittedly a very remote one, that he might honour his election promises whatever they were.
    Meanwhile in other news the bookies are speaking. The odds on Hillary Clinton being the Democratic candidate in 2020 have shortened from 20/1 to 14/1 while the odds of her being the next president in 2020 have lengthened from 20/1 to 25/1. Elizabeth Warren is still the front runner at 7/1 and 8/1 respectively so she needs to acquire some serious security pretty quickly.

    • Q.E.Dumbass says:

      You better act like CeCe, and keep fucking that chicken.

    • FlipYrWhig says:

      I like how even after all we’ve seen there are still people who think the biggest problem facing America is something something Wall Street. Civil rights being rolled back, aid to the desperate being rescinded, poison in the air and water, but, no, the crucial concern is OBVIOUSLY that some rich bankers give some Democrats money. This is beyond asinine and it’s humiliating to see “the left” keep doing this.

      • Davis X. Machina says:

        …the biggest problem facing America is something something Wall Street.

        Once we smash the prevailing late-capitalist mode of production, the clean air and civil rights stuff takes care of itself.

        It’s all in the Grundrisse.

      • Harkov311 says:

        Anyone who thinks the most pressing problem faced by the nation is a lack of socialism in the Democratic party is probably a very privileged person. One who doesn’t have to deal with such things as racism, polluted backyards, and who won’t be affected by any Obamacare fiddling or union busting.

        I hate to use the term “champagne socialism,” since it was invented by a conservative, but if the shoe fits…

        • brad says:

          Note the spelling and the bookie reference, UTS is British and (thinks he is) spared having to care at all about the costs to actual humans of what he says. It’s just about the pose and the self-regard, nothing else at all matters.

          • GeorgeBurnsWasRight says:

            UTS also doesn’t understand bookies. If a bookie thought that the odds were anything near what is being offered he wouldn’t offer them.

            The bookie’s job is to determine what odds he needs to offer to get a lot of suckers to bet on low-probability events.

          • Pat says:

            And UTS, like his fellows, will never, ever ever admit to having been wrong about anything.

        • Lee Rudolph says:

          I hate to use the term “champagne socialism,” since it was invented by a conservative, but if the shoe fits…

          …fill it with champagne!!!

      • efgoldman says:

        it’s humiliating to see “the left” keep doing this.

        It would be if (!) UTS were American and (2) He was really a leftust.

    • nemdam says:

      To think that Trump was more likely to keep his campaign promises than Hillary. I can’t even.

      • LosGatosCA says:

        Trump’s only campaign promise was to spend the next 4 years mouthing off and tweeting anti-PC drivel.

        And that’s what he’s doing.

        The Trump base and Trump are in a perfect rhythm of ridiculous ranting.’they are all having a great time, irrespective of whether anything actually gets done. Fake news, Obama wire tapping, etc it’s just a giant satisfying circle jerk.

    • Ah yes, I heard this so often :

      At least Trump is an authentic bullshitter, unlike Hillary. He’s the kind of guy who keeps his promises, you see, although I’m assuming he doesn’t actually mean any of the terrible things he’s said. But Hillary! The good things she says are obviously fake!

      This kind of foolishness is why we can’t have good things.

    • Sly says:

      What was the alternative?

      1) Follow Connor Kilpatrick’s lead and complain really loudly about politicians in places like NYC and the Bay Area. This is about as helpful at winning rural white America as doing nothing, with the added effect of eroding the left’s political power where it is strongest.

      2) Put established rural white leftists in charge of appealing to these voters, i.e. “Send in Sanders.” The utility of this is, I think, overstated for the simple reason that Burlington is not the same as Cook County, KY. Plus it would kinda help if he fucking stayed a Democrat.

      3) Help cultivate genuinely leftist political institutions in these regions so that a sustained effort can be waged against a right-wing political culture that has been in place for well over a century. As this is really, really difficult and requires us to think about political power in terms other than our own parochial demands, most seem to prefer (1) and (2).

      • FlipYrWhig says:

        And the number of “rural white leftists” is holding steady at one, sort of: Sanders, who comes from the only state where rednecks and hippies somehow cross-pollinated instead of becoming mortal enemies 50 years ago.

        • Davis X. Machina says:

          There was, in 19th C. New England and the old Northwest, always an official Village Atheist. There’s probably a Village Socialist, too.

          Certainly in the village of Spoon River, there was one. Dick Sapper.

          A great American tradition.

    • StellaB says:

      Presumably, EW needs “serious security pretty quickly” so that she doesn’t join Seth Rich, Vince Foster, and Kathleen Willey’s cat? That statement tells you everything you need to know about who UTS Is.

    • What odds were those bookies offering on a Trump presidency on November 7th?

    • Hogan says:

      “I can’t vote for Clinton because I don’t believe she’ll do what she says she’ll do. I’m voting for Trump, because I don’t believe he’ll do what he says he’ll do.”

  15. JDM says:

    My own personal opinion is that “I haven’t been to a doctor in four or five years” is not an effective healthcare plan, and it becomes less so as one ages.

  16. Harkov311 says:

    Why, it’s almost as if Trump voters weren’t secretly socialist, just waiting for someone to say magic words like “free health care” and “hang the bankers” to switch parties.

    • efc says:

      Good point. Because trump voters in rural middle/south Georgia and trump voters in midwestern counties which voted for Obama twice in states which haven’t gone republican at the presidential level in more than a decade are exactly the same.

      Thank you for the great snark based political analysis people know they’ll get at LGM.

  17. NewishLawyer says:

    Semi-OT, how much truth is in this article and how much of it is wishthinking from a far-right quack?

    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/next-generation-americans-gen-z-may-be-most-conservative-wwii

    Some things are odd like using interest in tattoos and body piercings as a sign of political alignment. I am very indifferent to tattoos and am not always fond of body piercings but am hardly a conservative. There are also plenty of people really into inking with right-wing views.

    • heckblazer says:

      My Republican father celebrated his retirement by getting a Gadsen flag tattoo, so yeah, I really wouldn’t read politics into ink.

    • The Great God Pan says:

      It may be true that Gen Z is more conservative, but that particular article is shit. He exaggerrates or flat-out misrepresents the polls he links to. The press release for the Hispanic Heritage poll, for instance, (which itself bears a totally inaccurate headline) does not say anything about kids identifying as “fiscally conservative,” though he claims it says 8 out of 10 identify that way.

      Even the tattoo/piercing claim is misleading: being ten times more likely to dislike them is a significant increase, sure, but that still comes out to a whopping 11% of Gen Z’ers opposing tattoos.

      • drwormphd says:

        ‘that still comes out to a whopping 11% of Gen Z’ers opposing tattoos’

        And that of course can easily be attributed to generational changes in fashion/style. Considering how common tattoos and piercings are among millennials (and Gen X to some degree) I’d be surprised if whatever generation comes next didn’t turn away from them to a substantial degree.

        • Children tend to be more conservative in some ways than adults because they’re generally raised in a context with a lot of strict rules (don’t smoke, don’t drink, don’t stay out too late, etc.). I definitely had much more puritan ideas about personal behavior like sex, drugs, tattoos, etc. at age 16 despite being brought up in a liberal household, and despite being in the throes of juvenile rebellion.

          • Pat says:

            What I see among my children’s friends is that some kids raised with a strong sense of self-hatred are much more likely to experiment with sex and drugs. The girl whose parents are openly misogynistic has an easier time dressing up and going to parties to get drunk and laid.

    • corporatecake says:

      Even if the polling is legit, the analysis is all off. Especially the claim that millenials grew up in a time of prosperity while “Gen Z” grew up in a time of turmoil. This makes sense only if you’re a conservative for whom the Obama administration has been the worst thing to happen to America.

      I was born in 1988, right smack dab in the middle of the millennial generation according to most estimates. Yes, I grew up–in the sense that I was a child–in the prosperous 90s, but my age cohort came of age politically in the 00s, when we had the largest terroristic attack in the US, multiple expensive and disastrous foreign wars, the Katrina bungle, and then a global economic meltdown just as we were entering or preparing to enter the workforce–all under the watch of the Bush administration. Imho, nothing helped shape the dread millennial liberalism than Bush-era fuck ups.

      Even if younger people lean more conservative, nothing will do more to reverse that than four years of Republican disasters. I work with 18 year old college students, and though they lived through the Bush administration, they don’t really remember it politically. Though they don’t love the Obama administration, they were much more blasé about the destructive potential of a Trump administration. In other words, they’re more “moderate” but really clueless about just how terrible things can get. Conservatives shouldn’t pin their hopes on this polling any more than we should pin ours on changing demographics.

      • Abbey Bartlet says:

        As a fellow ’88 baby, I refer to myself as Gen Y, which is what I remember people using for roughly 1980 to 1993 when I was younger. The claim that I have anything in common generationally with people born in the late 90s and even early 2000s is risible. I think the rise of computers/internet, 9/11, and the recession are so seismic that they make the idea of a “generation” being 20 or 25 years nonsensical.

        I have far more in common politically and socially with my cousins born in 1980 than I do my cousins born in 1996. And I saw the same as you during the election. Convincing people who actually remember Bush that “both sides are the same” is much harder.

        Same with social issues, really. I remember the gay marriage referenda in 2004 vividly, and remember thinking maybe in my lifetime it would happen in most states. People who were in elementary school have always assumed marriage equality would be a reality very soon, or even were never really aware it wasn’t.

        • vic rattlehead says:

          Oh cool we’re basically the same age (’89 here). My sister was born in 95 yet I feel like I have a good deal in common with her. Maybe it’s our parents. My parents are Boomers, but a lot of the younger millenials seem to have been raised by the older end of the Xers. I dunno.

          You’re exactly correct. Virtually my entire coming of age was under the cloud of the Bush administration. I remember the 90s as pretty ok, but I wasn’t politically aware and I wasn’t in the work force.

          But I vividly remember 2000 as being the election about nothing (at least that’s how it was billed). I remembered that in 03 and 05 and 07 as Bush shit the bed in so many ways. I remember being flabbergasted even as a young not politically aware kid that the 2000 election didn’t seem to be covered like it was a huge deal even though it had to have been obvious that Bush was a boob right? Fucking 6th grade through my sophomore year of college with that Administration.

          Kids don’t love the obama Administration? Fuck those snot nosed kids who are too young to remember the Bush Administration their older fellow citizens had to live through. Fuck em. Maybe I’m biased because 08 was so exciting for me, and Obama was the first president I ever voted for (twice!). But that man is bookended by Shrub and Cheeto Benito. I love him just for not being those two. I love him just for being competent, which we can’t even take for granted because of dumbfucks like those in the article above. Fuck those punkass kids.

          • Abbey Bartlet says:

            You’re younger than me? I thought you were like a real adult for some reason.

            Maybe it’s our parents. My parents are Boomers, but a lot of the younger millenials seem to have been raised by the older end of the Xers. I dunno.

            That may also play a big part. My parents are Boomer (’49) and just barely Boomer (’58); I think my dad is certainly older than most of my friends’ parents.

            Fuck those snot nosed kids who are too young to remember the Bush Administration their older fellow citizens had to live through.

            YUP. Fucking twits. My baby brother is 21 and I ended up blocking some of his friends on Facebook because they were pushing the “both sides! corporate dems! wah!” bullshit and I was getting too irritated. (He canvassed for Hillary and says very mean things about Jill Stein. I am proud.)

  18. Joe_JP says:

    “I don’t believe it’s the federal government’s job to provide health care,” he said. “It’s communism, socialism anyway.”

    The government “provides” it here largely by requiring regulated non-governmental entities to not deny it and help in various ways with funding and so on. Regulating interstate commerce, tax/spending and reducing bankruptcies (which they do “provide”) is their job.

    The people who had problems with this love the guy who will have his hearings this week. Neal Kaytal introducing him is moronic except perhaps to the degree he’s arguing in front of him in the future.

  19. Origami Isopod says:

    From the comments on that piece:

    Did you talk to a single black person? Ellaville itself is 62% African American and the county as a whole is 23% African American.

    The county appears to be in middle GA, not south GA.

    • Murc says:

      I wouldn’t mind a piece on black, hispanic, and muslim Trump voters… but they comprise very small portions of their respective voting blocs.

      … although maybe one on hispanic Trump voters could be informative? Didn’t he get like a quarter of their vote? One in four seems like a LOT of support among a community you’ve explicitly promised to declare open season on.

      • I’m not a social scientist, but philosophically I’m a pragmatist, and I don’t think “voting blocs” really exist. There are people who vote this way or that way, and sometimes influence other people over time, and sometimes don’t. Looking at a small minority of a group that voted in an unexpected way might tell us something about other members of the group who didn’t get “tipped” to that point.

      • The Great God Pan says:

        Hispanics whose families have been here for a couple of generations or more don’t necessarily identify with or like newer immigrants. They don’t all hear Trump talk about “bad hombres” and think “he means me and my family.”

      • PhoenixRising says:

        Plenty of Hispanic voters don’t ID as Latino/Chicano or as connected to immigrants. Is your gap there. And I’ve just told you everything you need to know to fill it, so I doubt very much that it would be interesting.

        Infuriating, definitely. But Hispanics are just as prone as non-Hispanic whites to mistakenly adduce a connection between their success in this country and their hard work which excludes any form of empathy for those who aren’t just like them.

  20. Sumac says:

    All discussions of right-wingers should include a mention of the propaganda system that’s been in place for thirty years. You think these people are thinking these thoughts on their own? No! They’re quoting them.

  21. King Goat says:

    “truly sums up the stupidity of many white people.”

    One really wonders why the Democrats, unions and other liberal institutions are having so much trouble appealing to whites, and as a result also winning political power….

    • FFFFFFIIII says:

      I tried to talk about good roads and good schools and all these things that have been part of my career, and nobody listened. And then I began talking about ni**ers, and they stomped the floor. – George Wallace

      • These are both fair points unless we’re done with democracy.

        I’ve yet to meet any white person off the Internet who appeared interested in teaching “white people suck” to white people as a widespread thing. Teaching it as a marker of a small group of politically engaged white people, to set them apart from everyone else, has obvious limitations for electoral politics. (Not to mention, using it as a self-protective trolling measure, is something else yet again.)

        • Well, sure. But I don’t suppose anyone here is interested in having the Democratic Party running on the slogan “Many white people suck”, or “Vote for us if you’ve got any brains”. But then again, this here piece doesn’t exist for the sake of fashioning or even facilitating Democratic Party electoral strategy.

        • pseudalicious says:

          I would like elementary schoolers taught about privilege and *isms in an elementary-school appropriate-way, yes. I realize that you only know me “on the internet,” but when you close this window, I will continue to exist. And continue to tell this to other people in real life! I think I just did the other night, actually.

    • Do you seriously think that the folks profiled in this article would convert to center-left politics if only liberals were nicer to them?

      • King Goat says:

        I think the Democrats and unions used to win more white votes/support and that we aren’t going to fare well if we don’t do that. There’s certainly a lot going on with that, but ‘white people are so stupid’ is, as a matter of common sense, not helping.

        I mean, it seems close to the conservative trope about why don’t black people wake up, get off the plantation and stop supporting those liberals! Do you think that helps GOP outreach to blacks? Why would something similar help us?

        • sibusisodan says:

          I think the Democrats and unions used to win more white votes/support and that we aren’t going to fare well if we don’t do that.

          I rather think passage of the VRA needs to butt into this just so story about Democrats and white vote and wave hello.

          Also: these people are adults. In order to have a country which functions at a certain level, we need to be able to say that daft behaviour is daft.

          I can understand that this language can be applied sloppily, and that undue offense can be caused. But I’m reasonably confident that 95% if time the time, when someone says ‘I can’t vote your way because you mocked me’, they aren’t being sincere.

          • King Goat says:

            Are you kidding? You think if Steve King made the comments about Hispanics that he makes but supported comprehensive immigration support Hispanics wouldn’t still abhor him? But somehow talking about whites in insulting terms really doesn’t matter to their votes?

            • sibusisodan says:

              I may be misreading the political zeitgeist, of course, but:

              I think most of these kind of statements are post hoc rationalisations. ‘Dems made me do it because they were insulting’ is more cathartic than ‘I’m on team R’.

              It’s the same kind of performative declaration as the ‘…and now I’m outraged by Chappaquidick’ trope.

              Perhaps there are enough voters for whom being told silly behaviour is silly was the decisive switch. But I rather doubt that they’re the ones bleating so loudly about it.

              • King Goat says:

                Why would you need such a complex psychology? Usually when you insult groups they don’t like it or you.

                • sibusisodan says:

                  You need it to explain the following: if we refrain from calling the silly behaviour of white people silly*, do they switch their vote?

                  I think the answer is no, at least not in large numbers. Therefore an explanation is required.

                  *this is not the same as insulting white people

                • King Goat says:

                  I think the burden is on you to identify any group that would be more likely to vote for someone who thinks and says they’re stupid. That’s common sense. I mean, when conservatives say ‘why are black people so stupid they vote for the Dems as a bloc?’ do you think that’s meaningless to GOP outreach?

                • Abbey Bartlet says:

                  I mean, when conservatives say ‘why are black people so stupid they vote for the Dems as a bloc?’ do you think that’s meaningless to GOP outreach?

                  I’m pretty sure the reason black people don’t vote for conservatives is because their policies are racist as fuck and actively harm the black community, not because they say mean things.

                • King Goat says:

                  So the things they say don’t matter? That’s incredible. Like I said, if King pushed comprehensive immigration reform while speaking about Hispanic immigrants the way he does, you think they’d like him? They wouldn’t and shouldn’t, and you know it. But whites are supposed to miraculously overcome this bit of human nature?

                • sibusisodan says:

                  I think the burden is on you to identify any group that would be more likely to vote for someone who thinks and says they’re stupid.

                  Oh, I quite agree that calling someone stupid makes them less likely to vote for you. I just think that:

                  – the effect is miniscule, and swamped by loads of other things, like tribal identification
                  – most people who use that as a justification for their vote aren’t being sincere

                • King Goat says:

                  I think that’s contrary to common sense and human experience. If Obama had been recorded referring to Hispanics in very derogatory words I bet his % of the Hispanic vote would have seen a death spiral.

                  If you knew a guy who consistently supported liberal policies and Democratic candidates that would be good for African-Americans, but who then also frequently referred to ‘stupid black people’ and invoking awful racial stereotypes re blacks, you’d be like ‘what a fine fellow, this guy really is a good liberal like me?’ Come on.

                • Abbey Bartlet says:

                  if King pushed comprehensive immigration reform while speaking about Hispanic immigrants the way he does

                  Except that’s nonsensical.

                • King Goat says:

                  Isn’t it? Because most people rightly think the way you talk about a group says something about how you’ll treat them.

                  Here we have people saying ‘I’d like policies that would help these people, but they’re such stupid sheep fucking racists they can’t see that!’

                  They don’t buy that anymore than a King that said he was for helping Hispanics.

                • sibusisodan says:

                  I think your hypotheticals are ignoring the reality of political coalitions and how and why they form.

                  Insults, or lack thereof, are not sufficient in themselves to cause political realignment in large numbers.

                  Will they matter at the margins? Sure. Just not a big deal overall

                  I also think you’re doing heroic work conflating ‘calling out behaviour’ with ‘insult’. Most of what you’re keying off here is calling out behaviour.

                • King Goat says:

                  If someone here talked of ‘the stupidity of so many people of color’ I doubt you’d be as nuanced. Also see the ‘he’s so stupid, he probably has sex with farm animals!’

                • djw says:

                  I think that’s contrary to common sense and human experience.

                  Perhaps, but it’s absolutely not contrary to the findings of voting behavior research on the social psychology of partisanship.

                • King Goat says:

                  That research shows that language like, say, King’s, or some found here, doesn’t make the speakers less sympathetic to the groups insulted? I’d honestly like to see that.

                • Around here we generally talk as if we are above-it-all elites who theorize about the kind of government we think would be best, and about how we could help the worst off.

                  But there are people who do politics because they feel like they have a stake in something political action can affect.

                  We therefore don’t care much about what people think of us. People in the other group won’t see themselves as able to afford that, as long as that’s what they think politics should be.

                • Pat says:

                  Okay, King Goat, I agree with you. Your logic is sound. I hate that I agree with you, but I do.

                  So how do we approach Trump voters to help them see that the policies we want to put into place will help them, and that they should support us?

                • sibusisodan says:

                  That research shows that language like, say, King’s, or some found here, doesn’t make the speakers less sympathetic to the groups insulted?

                  djw knows more than me here, but I expect it’s more that we join the tribe first, then make up reasons to justify it later.

                  So any number of things, including insults, can affect tribe joining. But things with very small effects – like insults – don’t move the needle enough to cause many people to change tribes.

                  We rationalise away uncomfortable facts.

                  (Of course, this could just be me rationalizing away things which make me uncomfortable!)

                • djw says:

                  My contention is specifically that this claim from sibusidodan, evaluated in light of political behavior scholarship:

                  I think most of these kind of statements are post hoc rationalisations. ‘Dems made me do it because they were insulting’ is more cathartic than ‘I’m on team R’.

                  It’s the same kind of performative declaration as the ‘…and now I’m outraged by Chappaquidick’ trope.

                  is correct, not just specifically correct for Trump voters at the present time, but generally.

                  Partisan filters guide our processing of normative and factual claims, what kind of perceived insults to dwell on. Democracy for Realists is a good starting point for an overview of this line of scholarship, particularly chapter 10, “It Feels Like We’re Thinking: The Rationalizing Voter.”

                • sibusisodan says:

                  djw – thanks for the link. Will check that out.

                • djw says:

                  I’m in the process of writing a short book chapter/paper that’s largely about that book’s implications for democratic theory; I’ll try and post something at some point in the next couple weeks. I can’t quite get on board with everything in the book but it’s very good and important.

                • efgoldman says:

                  Here we have people saying ‘I’d like policies that would help these people, but they’re such stupid sheep fucking racists they can’t see that!’

                  And of course all of those salt of the earth WWC types read every leftish blog they can find, just so they can be insulted and use the insult as motivation to vote for assholes that want to bury them right along with the ni[clangs].
                  Now of you find me a *candidate* who said that shit, MAYBE you’d have an argument. But the only politicians I see talking/writing that way are RWNJ racist scum.

            • humanoid.panda says:

              Are you kidding? You think if Steve King made the comments about Hispanics that he makes but supported comprehensive immigration support Hispanics wouldn’t still abhor him? But somehow talking about whites in insulting terms really doesn’t matter to their votes?

              Congratulations to Erik Loomis for his election to Congress.

              • King Goat says:

                Oh holy pedant Batman.

                • humanoid.panda says:

                  Pointing out that a random history professor on small readership blog (apologies for all concerned) is not the equivalent of a congressman is not pedantry. It’s the heart of why you are full of shit.

                • King Goat says:

                  It’s pedantic because my point is not ‘if liberal politicians talk bad about whites and rural people it’ll make liberals less popular with them’ it’s ‘if liberals talk bad etc etc.’

                • ColBatGuano says:

                  it’s ‘if liberals talk bad etc etc.’

                  Which is even dumber.

        • so-in-so says:

          Racist “blue dog” Democrats used to be a “thing”. Even if we could or WOULD bring them back, their voters are perfectly happy republicans now and the people they hate are a major part of the Democratic coalition.

          The union voters where mostly industrial and construction unions, both greatly diminished in size and both also tending racist (see Erik’s post about the carpenters in New York).

          Basically, there used to be two racist white parties, now there is only one so all those voters go there. The decline in education, especially civics, is also leaving a mark. We find a way forward with the coalition we have (we some tweaks), or we sink into third world misery (but with nukes!).

          • King Goat says:

            In 1964 several months after shepherding the Civil Rights Act through Congress and signing it to much fanfare LBJ won the white vote and buttstomped the GOP candidate who explicitly made opposition to it a big part of his campaign. It’s hard for me to buy that there’s more racists now than then.

            • FlipYrWhig says:

              The South voted for Democrats who brought home the bacon for 30 more years. Then they stopped because they decided that local conservative Dems were no better than national liberal Dems. All elections became nationalized and tribal, and their tribe switched.

              Your point is closer to validity when applied narrowly to the Great Lakes states. But IMHO what’s happened there is that little by little Muslims and Mexicans moved in and freaked them out.

          • humanoid.panda says:

            Racist “blue dog” Democrats used to be a “thing”. Even if we could or WOULD bring them back, their voters are perfectly happy republicans now and the people they hate are a major part of the Democratic coalition.

            The latest breed of Blue Dogs came to prominence in 2006, and went extint in 2010. A lot of them were far from where I would want Democrats to be at, but calling them racists would be tnen steps too far.

          • FlipYrWhig says:

            I think you may be conflating “blue dog” Democrats (basically moderates concerned about so-called fiscal responsibility) and “yellow dog” Democrats (who’d vote for a yellow dog before any Republican).

            • so-in-so says:

              I suppose I’m conflating the Southern racist Democrats from pre-CRA and the mid-west ethnic working class but still somewhat racist Democrats who stayed in the party until it became clear it would have a large non-white component who needed to receive more than lip service. “Blue-dog” was always associated with Southern Dems to me, but I might be wrong about it’s accepted meaning.

        • pseudalicious says:

          It’s almost as if you insult white people as a group, their lives go on as usual, whereas if you’re a minority insulted by a politician, you fear it may signal a broader attack upon your immediate health and safety. It’s almost as if white people have this… thing insulating them, so the words “honkey” and “cracker” result in hurt feelings and nothing else, and the insults themselves aren’t upheld or reinforced by the society at large. Gosh, whatever could this mysterious force be.

      • If liberals demonstrated that they shared the same communal values: darkies suck, sharia is taking over, Planned Parenthood is worse than Hitler and why did the Dems nominate a woman who eats pizza baked with baby parts?

        • King Goat says:

          But you don’t have to interject that, you can see liberals here insulting white people in ways that would turn off any other demographic for decades. Then when they’re turned off we say ‘why do they hate us and turn to all these crazy beliefs?’ Why indeed!

          • FlipYrWhig says:

            Didn’t Kevin Williamson or someone like that write a whole article about the pathologies of the white underclass? And there’s a whole genre of such things. Did it hurt Republicans to run down their own voters? Not really.

            • King Goat says:

              There’s a lot less of ‘whites and rural people are stupid’ on the right than on the left.

              • humanoid.panda says:

                Name a single Democrat in an elected position who ever used a language akin to Ted Cruz’s “New York Values.” I’ll wait.

                • Q.E.Dumbass says:

                  Incidentally, one of a maximum two times during the campaign where Donald Trump didn’t respond or act 100% like a flaming bag of fermented orangutan shit.

            • so-in-so says:

              Rick Santorum warned against the GOP becoming “the party of stupid”, not that it seemed to hurt them, and Trump was reported early on selecting the GOP to run because the they were too stupid to resist.

              Then too, “Trump is a straight talker, he’ll do all the things he says (except the parts I don’t like, he’s just saying that to get elected).”

            • djw says:

              That column had a much wider reach than anything published here ever has, but I don’t recall ever hearing anyone suggest its publication is likely to turn working class whites away from the Republican party.

          • Tehanu says:

            As a liberal I’m only too happy to insult any Trump voter as a moron, an ignoramus, a racist, a misogynist, a Nazi-enabler, a homophobe, yadda yadda yadda. But I don’t care if the Trump voter is white, black, or covered with purple polka dots. They’re morons no matter what color they are, and they hate us because we keep pointing out what morons they are and telling everybody else not to let morons run things.

            • PhoenixRising says:

              Close, but no. They hate us because by existing in ways and places not endorsed by their community as correct, we invalidate all the little ways they rationalize their losses in the global economy.

              Mohammed in radiation oncology didn’t steal a job from any of my cousins who barely finished high school, but they’re pissed at immigrants. They’re pissed at city slickers who think we’re better than they are, because we have choices they do not have. They’re pissed at uppity women who postpone or decide against childbearing, because the alternative is being pissed at their 3 kids they had in their teens.

              They’re not stupid–they’re angry at the world that ripped them off. Some are ignorant, all are selfish, but ‘stupid’ isn’t their unifying quality. ‘Mean’ is.

              Trump supporters thought ripping the nation apart to get the better half for people like them was a smart choice. Winning them over should not be a goal for any rational progressive.

      • wengler says:

        No, but low-information voters are often attracted to celebrity ‘anti-establishment’ candidates. The fact that Trump is a total fraud won’t dissuade them the next time a charlatan comes round.

    • humanoid.panda says:

      Here is a balanced take: we shouldn’t insult white people as a group, because insulting people as a group is a stupid activity. This doesn’t mean that Erik Loomis being mean on the internet is why Trump won. I mean seriously: no elected Democrat ever talked about white people, or rural people, or the south, in a derogatory way, while the GOP loves nothing more than to talk about New York values, San Francisco liberals, Taxacuttets, and the parts of the country that really love America. The idea that liberals parts of America that are not like them is equalizing grumbles on the internet with talking points coming from above.

      • King Goat says:

        When liberals at all levels insult whites or rural peoe generally that adds up as to what people think of liberals (and what they think liberals think of them).

        I actually like your point about conservatives crapping on entire cities and regions. How do Republicans, even local ones that try to tailor their campaigns to there, tend to do in those areas?

        • humanoid.panda says:

          When liberals at all levels insult whites or rural peoe generally that adds up as to what people think of liberals (and what they think liberals think of them).

          And at all levels you mean mostly on the internet. Which is not a good practice, but hardly the crisis you imagine it to be.

          And given that MA has a a republican governor and had a republcian senator until 4 years ago, and New York a Republican Senate majority, I’d say they are doing well enough, because most adult people vote based on 1. tribalism and 2. ideology, and not whether a 3rd party insulted their cousin.

        • Pat says:

          I think that a large part of the problem, Goat, is that many of us with right-wing relatives have given up on talking to them about politics.

      • so-in-so says:

        I suspect 99.9% of those interviewed would never vote for a Democrat, or maybe never for a woman (the misogynist aspect gets side-stepped a lot). If you got them to agree to all the valid points about why Trump in particular and the GOP in general will never help them, they’d still shuffle their feet and say “but I could never vote for Clinton” for whatever reason, probably a combination of lady parts and thirty years of GOP lies. Most will never reach that stage because they will cling to “facts” from Fox news no matter how much evidence you show them to counter.

        I suspect the real issue is how to get out people who became convinced the parties are the same, or HRC was sure to win so they could safely not vote (or that voting doesn’t matter). Maybe the current occupier of the white house will provide them some expensive instruction.

        • King Goat says:

          There were about 300 counties that Obama won that flipped to Trump. Certainly that’s not the same exact voters, but that makes me think your 99.9% is way high.

          • humanoid.panda says:

            On this I agree with you. But
            1. Rural Georgia is really, really not one of those place.
            2. More to the point, the trope of “elitist liberals insulting hard-working Americans” was very much alive in 2008, and 2012. So, insults were not the decisive factor here.

      • Vance Maverick says:

        no elected Democrat ever talked about white people, or rural people, or the south, in a derogatory way

        To be clear, many people *think* that Obama did (“clinging bitterly”) and Clinton did (“deplorable”). That shows how inhumanly perfect a candidate would have to be to avoid the accusation. Both are defensible in a way, but close enough to real derogation to be vulnerable.

    • AMK says:

      I agree, but largely because I think considering “whites” like a monolithic ethno-cultural block is always going to be a dead end. “White Southerners” as an ethnicity–anglo protestants who have lived in the south for generations–seems much more accurate.

  22. AMK says:

    I haven’t been to the doctor in 4 or 5 years

    So his parents are also dumbfucks who don’t know how to take care of children…surprise! I said on a similar thread yesterday that the people left in these places are there because they’re just congentially incapable of higher-level thought processes, so democracy that doesn’t hinge on religious voodoo or racist mob action will always be a non-starter. Can’t say I’ve changed my mind.

    • King Goat says:

      He’s 23, so he hasn’t been since he was 18, an adult. Is that that risible, especially directed towards his parents?

    • StellaB says:

      Speaking as an actual doctor, he doesn’t really need an annual physical, however, if he’s sexually active, he should drop by his local Planned Parenthood for an STD check.

      • AMK says:

        Maybe check the cows too.

        But if your college-age kid is on your insurance plan, you make them get a physical. ACA also makes annual physicals free as a required benefit.

        • King Goat says:

          Knew that first line was coming.

          Because conservative rural whites fuck farm animals, don’t you know! Why don’t these people like us or our ideas?

        • TopsyJane says:

          Why (and how) would you “make” a perfectly healthy young adult get an annual physical? The point of having adult children on their parents’ insurance is to ensure that they have insurance if they need it.

          • Joe_JP says:

            Why (and how) would you “make” a perfectly healthy young adult get an annual physical? The point of having adult children on their parents’ insurance is to ensure that they have insurance if they need it.

            Healthy young adults should still have annual dental check-ups & it would seem to me good policy to have them once a year get a check-up. How do we know they are perfectly healthy? It also would be a chance for them to ask physicians about various things that might have came up. It’s like getting an annual check-up of a perfectly fine year old car.

            As to “making” the person go, the most productive way probably would be encouragements, like a discount on insurance if the person goes etc. Can, I guess, require an annual check-up as a requirement for the insurance, which is probably a reasonable idea, but might get too much negative pushback of invasion into private lives that make it not worth the candle.

            • ColBatGuano says:

              A standard yearly checkup isn’t going to find the vast majority of life threatening illnesses a 23 year old might have. It sure wouldn’t have caught the bone cancer that my 21 year old brother had.

            • StellaB says:

              As ColBG notes, an annual physical exam isn’t very useful. That’s why the ACP and the AAFP haven’t been recommending an annual physical for decades.

  23. Simple Mind says:

    Here’s a portrait of a relative. His father joined a secret society with fascist leanings while in the Navy in the Vietnam War (cf. SEALs flying Trump flags while convoying). He was thoroughly indoctrinated by Dad. Bro in turn has indoctrinated his son, reading from Bill O’Reilly’s kids books (not a joke) when this poor lad was 2. Progressives are evil incarnate. He’s in sales, lives in a well-to-do development but watches Duck Dynasty with longing. Trump is a divinity to him and can do no wrong, as long as Trump snarls at libruls. There is also a Francoist component to this. Many of his friends are former military (esp. SEALs) who share his views. There is no argument, no appeal and no demonstration that would sway him and family in the slightest. Ever.

  24. stonetools says:

    The whole “get the government out of health care” talking point can quickly be squelched if you ask the Congressman or conservative spouting it , ” If the free market is so great, why don’t we abolish Medicare and the Veteran’s Administration, and let seniors and veterans experience the wonders of free market health care? “. I’ve never heard any conservative advocate that and I’m sure we never will.
    The idiot quoted above is why we needed to have a much stronger defense of the ACA over the past eight years. Since he heard nothing but right wing propaganda concerning the ACA, he never connected the benefit he received with”Obamacare”.Would it have changed his vote. Maybe not, but by leaving the field to Fox , we forfeited any chance we had.

    • King Goat says:

      They think they’ve paid for those benefits, through taxes or service, and that its ok.

      Now, I don’t think that’s right. But politically, if we know that’s a thing, calling them dumbasses isn’t helpful. It’s not totally irrational or evil to think people should be helped if they’ve chipped in in some way. Maybe we can try to speak to that sentiment to get progressive change (like when Bill Clinton pushed minimum wage increases by saying we need to ‘make work pay’ or something).

      • stonetools says:

        But expanded Medicaid is also a benefit, paid for within taxes, and it benefits the working poor, for the most part.I’ve noticed that people seem a lot happier with expanded Medicaid , than with the exchanges. They don’t seem to even call it Obamacare. My guess is expanded Medicaid will most likely survive the repeal effort unscathe

        • Pat says:

          Except that they’re talking about putting a work requirement for able-bodied adults on Medicaid. A lot of non-working Medicaid recipients are taking care of underage or disabled family members. Many of them will lose their insurance if the legislation goes through.

  25. Lord Jesus Perm says:

    Civil Rights SUPERGENIUS King Goat is my favorite King Goat.

    Also, given that a number of posters here fought Erik on his thoughts on white working class voters post election, I think using him as an example here is misguided. He’s defended them a lot harder than most have here.

    • King Goat says:

      Sure, he talked about ‘the stupidity of so many white people’ but he’s opposed even more insulting langauge about white people at times, so how could whites ever be turned off by someone like him?

      And this is not about Loomis, but something too many on the left do generally. His was just the example in front of us today.

      • davidsmcwilliams says:

        How can we possibly describe the actions of these voters without concluding that have done something very stupid by voting for Donald Trump?

        They rely on ACA benefits to survive, and they voted to end those benefits. They voted for a candidate who will send them into medical bankruptcy, early avoidable death from treatable medical conditions, or both. This was a stupid thing to do. I don’t know how you can frame someone voting for their own death as an intelligent act.

        Should we say that this was actually a very smart thing for them to do, so as to spare their feelings? Will that somehow make them vote Democratic next election, if we tell them that voting Republican was a good idea in this one?

        • farin says:

          To give 57% of white America its due, it’s also possible that they did a furiously, suicidally hateful thing.

        • efgoldman says:

          Should we say that this was actually a very smart thing for them to do, so as to spare their feelings?

          And if the RWNJs follow thru (which they won’t. They want to get re-elected) how many of them will take two hours out of the middle of their day to take Granny her meals, even if it’s just to make sure she hasn’t fallen and can’t get up?

  26. anonymous says:

    The only way we are going to make progress on healthcare is if we allow people to opt out and accept the consequences.

    And by opt out, I mean no taxpayer supported healthcare of any kind, ER can refuse treatment and insurance companies can refuse to take in people with pre-existing conditions and drop coverage.

    If people want freedom, maybe they should be given the freedom to gamble and risk death.

  27. Joe_JP says:

    Reference was made to Republican control of the NY Senate.

    Special case in that there are “independent Democrats” that caucus with the Republicans. In a sane world, something like that would happen the other way in the U.S. Senate, it requiring less than the number present in NY. In 2001, much less than the current situation led to one senator to switch. Saner times.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.