Carville Alarmed That The Young Are leaving The Democrat Party

[BabyBoomer50s]

"THE economy" is made up of a whole bunch of "MY economies". To say THE economy is doing great while the MY economies suck is the evidence of doctored numbers.

The numbers at the grocery store, gas tank, fast food restaurant, car and dealership are what they are. The numbers on mortgage statements and utility bills are what they are. The numbers on paychecks are what they are. To someone who’s purchasing power is shrinking, MY economy sucks. Biden’s cheerleaders don’t understand those folks, but there are a lot of them these days. That’s why Democrats like Carville and Zakaria who see the reality of this election cycle are alarmed.

 

[JaySecrets]

The numbers at the grocery store, gas tank, fast food restaurant, car and dealership are what they are. The numbers on mortgage statements and utility bills are what they are. The numbers on paychecks are what they are. To someone who’s purchasing power is shrinking, MY economy sucks. Biden’s cheerleaders don’t understand those folks, but there are a lot of them these days. That’s why Democrats like Carville and Zakaria who see the reality of this election cycle are alarmed.

At this point, kinda waiting for one of the Biden disaster deniers or libs to jump in and tell us all how pointing out the economic facts is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or some combination of all of them. Or maybe the just "refute" facts with name-calling.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

This should cheer them up!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1789994651077710280

 

[Rightguide]

RG and fact in the same sentance!

Are you sure of this?

They seem to bring her in running

Anyone who thinks only Southern whites were responsible for the plight of Black Americans needs to read a book on the great Black migration. The Northern cities did not welcome them with open arms by any means (and to head off the response Rightguide is already undoubtedly writing, those cities were not solidly Democratic in those days. Chicago, for example, had a Republican mayor in the '20s.)

You need to read about how white men, namely Republicans, from the North put an end to slavery in America,

 

[Rightguide]

Are you sure of this?

I only know that if I say the magic words, she will stop by to expose herself.

 

[YDB95]

You need to read about how white men, namely Republicans, from the North put an end to slavery in America,

I learned that in high school, along with the fact that back then, the Republicans were the progressive party. In fact, the pro-civil rights wing of the party was known as the Radical Republicans. And the Rightguides of that era were telling anyone who would listen essentially all the things you say about today's Democrats: they hated America, they were trying to destroy it from within, blah blah blah.

But that's all beside the point of the topic at hand here, which is that in the pre-Civil Rights era, racism prevailed in the North as much as in the South; it just manifested differently. You would know that if you were a fraction as knowledgeable about history as you think you are.

 

[Rightguide]

I learned that in high school, along with the fact that back then, the Republicans were the progressive party. In fact, the pro-civil rights wing of the party was known as the Radical Republicans. And the Rightguides of that era were telling anyone who would listen essentially all the things you say about today's Democrats: they hated America, they were trying to destroy it from within, blah blah blah.

But that's all beside the point of the topic at hand here, which is that in the pre-Civil Rights era, racism prevailed in the North as much as in the South; it just manifested differently. You would know that if you were a fraction as knowledgeable about history as you think you are.

The "Rightguides" of that era were in the Illinois and Pennsylvania regiments that fought in the Civil War.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I learned that in high school, along with the fact that back then, the Republicans were the progressive party. In fact, the pro-civil rights wing of the party was known as the Radical Republicans. And the Rightguides of that era were telling anyone who would listen essentially all the things you say about today's Democrats: they hated America, they were trying to destroy it from within, blah blah blah.

But that's all beside the point of the topic at hand here, which is that in the pre-Civil Rights era, racism prevailed in the North as much as in the South; it just manifested differently. You would know that if you were a fraction as knowledgeable about history as you think you are.

This is an interesting point. Yes, it seems like within the last 150 years, perhaps even more recent (within the last seventy,) the two parties have flip-flopped on issues of civil rights and race.

The Republicans also used to be about less government intrusion into people private lives, and were against depriving people of personal choices. This has changed rather dramatically as well, since Reagan and the rise of the Christian Nationalists. Remember when I was young, I identified as a Republican myself.

 

[YDB95]

The "Rightguides" of that era were in the Illinois and Pennsylvania regiments that fought in the Civil War.

Nope. Back then the Republicans were the progressive party. You would have hated them, and everyone else here knows that.

 

[Chernosoth]

This is an interesting point. Yes, it seems like within the last 150 years, perhaps even more recent (within the last seventy,) the two parties have flip-flopped on issues of civil rights and race.

The Republicans also used to be about less government intrusion into people private lives, and were against depriving people of personal choices. This has changed rather dramatically as well, since Reagan and the rise of the Christian Nationalists. Remember when I was young, I identified as a Republican myself.

Approximately on schedule. Every 70-80 years, we have a national crisis, a populist leader swings a wrecking ball through the status quo as a real president, not just a janitor, and the parties realign. Sometimes old parties die and new parties rise.

 

[JaySecrets]

 

[YDB95]

1. Even she acknowledges that Southern whites flipped from D-R.
2. The Southern strategy, despite its name, was never aimed only at the South. It was intended for white voters everywhere. George Wallace himself acknowledged as much later on while atoning for his racist past. (WHen he stood in the schoolhouse door, it got fan male from white racists all over the place.)
3. This is the first I've ever heard of anyone claiming the Southern strategy originated with Barry Goldwater or that he coined the term. Every reputable history I've ever read of it says he inspired it with his strong showing in the South, but that the term itself was the work of Nixon's campaign in 1968.
4. She mispronounced Lee Atwater's name. Which wouldn't be such a big deal if the topic were just about any topic except this one; but in a discussion of the Southern strategy, that's a huge tell. He also wasn't RNC chairman in the '70s, but rather the late '80s.
5. That Barry Goldwater wasn't racist in his personal life is irrelevant, nor did his supporters care exactly why he opposed the Civil Rights Act. They just liked that he opposed it, because they were racist.
6. The left did not invent Nixon's villainous image in any way. That she can say that with a straight face really tells us all we need to know.
7. "There's this whole idea that conservatives love to dogwhistle"...that reputation is nobody's fault but theirs, and her "defense" on that point only goes to show she can't see the forest for the trees.
8. "There's no recordings" - that means nothing. Not to mention it's probably not true; she simply didn't look very far.
9. "Republicans vastly disproportionately voted for its passage"...although technically accurate, this ignores the fact that there were nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans in both houses of Congress. In absolute numbers, more Dems than Republicans voted for it in both houses. She mentions that the Dems were the majority, but not the proportions.
10. The real divide wasn't political, it was regional: almost all Northern members voted yes, and almost all Southern members voted no. Incidentally, the few Southern members who voted yes? (One in the Senate, about ten in the House) All Democrats.
11. That some older Dixiecrats were not replaced for some time afterward does not "debunk" anything. It just means they remained popular among their racist constituents who were otherwise flipping to the Republicans.
12. "The Republican party had a consistent record of advocating for civil rights"...up until the Compromise of 1877, after which the best you could say about them was that they were the lesser of two evils.
13. "Do you think we have just kept consistent on polygamy but then switched on race matters? It doesn't make any sense!" Of course it does. They're two different issues, and staying the same on one has absolutely nothing to do with changing your perspective on the other one. This one alone would get her laughed out of every university-level history class I've ever been in!

I didn't even bother after that. You can see just how convincing her argument is to anyone who actually does know their history on this topic.

 

[JaySecrets]

1. Even she acknowledges that Southern whites flipped from D-R.
2. The Southern strategy, despite its name, was never aimed only at the South. It was intended for white voters everywhere. George Wallace himself acknowledged as much later on while atoning for his racist past. (WHen he stood in the schoolhouse door, it got fan male from white racists all over the place.)
3. This is the first I've ever heard of anyone claiming the Southern strategy originated with Barry Goldwater or that he coined the term. Every reputable history I've ever read of it says he inspired it with his strong showing in the South, but that the term itself was the work of Nixon's campaign in 1968.
4. She mispronounced Lee Atwater's name. Which wouldn't be such a big deal if the topic were just about any topic except this one; but in a discussion of the Southern strategy, that's a huge tell. He also wasn't RNC chairman in the '70s, but rather the late '80s.
5. That Barry Goldwater wasn't racist in his personal life is irrelevant, nor did his supporters care exactly why he opposed the Civil Rights Act. They just liked that he opposed it, because they were racist.
6. The left did not invent Nixon's villainous image in any way. That she can say that with a straight face really tells us all we need to know.
7. "There's this whole idea that conservatives love to dogwhistle"...that reputation is nobody's fault but theirs, and her "defense" on that point only goes to show she can't see the forest for the trees.
8. "There's no recordings" - that means nothing. Not to mention it's probably not true; she simply didn't look very far.
9. "Republicans vastly disproportionately voted for its passage"...although technically accurate, this ignores the fact that there were nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans in both houses of Congress. In absolute numbers, more Dems than Republicans voted for it in both houses. She mentions that the Dems were the majority, but not the proportions.
10. The real divide wasn't political, it was regional: almost all Northern members voted yes, and almost all Southern members voted no. Incidentally, the few Southern members who voted yes? (One in the Senate, about ten in the House) All Democrats.
11. That some older Dixiecrats were not replaced for some time afterward does not "debunk" anything. It just means they remained popular among their racist constituents who were otherwise flipping to the Republicans.
12. "The Republican party had a consistent record of advocating for civil rights"...up until the Compromise of 1877, after which the best you could say about them was that they were the lesser of two evils.
13. "Do you think we have just kept consistent on polygamy but then switched on race matters? It doesn't make any sense!" Of course it does. They're two different issues, and staying the same on one has absolutely nothing to do with changing your perspective on the other one. This one alone would get her laughed out of every university-level history class I've ever been in!

I didn't even bother after that. You can see just how convincing her argument is to anyone who actually does know their history on this topic.

The only ones convinced by your side's alternate version of History, motivated by your side's very racist roots and current beliefs, the very reason young blacks, particularly young black men are leaving in droves, the only one convinced by your side is... your side.

 

[JaySecrets]

1. Even she acknowledges that Southern whites flipped from D-R.
2. The Southern strategy, despite its name, was never aimed only at the South. It was intended for white voters everywhere. George Wallace himself acknowledged as much later on while atoning for his racist past. (WHen he stood in the schoolhouse door, it got fan male from white racists all over the place.)
3. This is the first I've ever heard of anyone claiming the Southern strategy originated with Barry Goldwater or that he coined the term. Every reputable history I've ever read of it says he inspired it with his strong showing in the South, but that the term itself was the work of Nixon's campaign in 1968.
4. She mispronounced Lee Atwater's name. Which wouldn't be such a big deal if the topic were just about any topic except this one; but in a discussion of the Southern strategy, that's a huge tell. He also wasn't RNC chairman in the '70s, but rather the late '80s.
5. That Barry Goldwater wasn't racist in his personal life is irrelevant, nor did his supporters care exactly why he opposed the Civil Rights Act. They just liked that he opposed it, because they were racist.
6. The left did not invent Nixon's villainous image in any way. That she can say that with a straight face really tells us all we need to know.
7. "There's this whole idea that conservatives love to dogwhistle"...that reputation is nobody's fault but theirs, and her "defense" on that point only goes to show she can't see the forest for the trees.
8. "There's no recordings" - that means nothing. Not to mention it's probably not true; she simply didn't look very far.
9. "Republicans vastly disproportionately voted for its passage"...although technically accurate, this ignores the fact that there were nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans in both houses of Congress. In absolute numbers, more Dems than Republicans voted for it in both houses. She mentions that the Dems were the majority, but not the proportions.
10. The real divide wasn't political, it was regional: almost all Northern members voted yes, and almost all Southern members voted no. Incidentally, the few Southern members who voted yes? (One in the Senate, about ten in the House) All Democrats.
11. That some older Dixiecrats were not replaced for some time afterward does not "debunk" anything. It just means they remained popular among their racist constituents who were otherwise flipping to the Republicans.
12. "The Republican party had a consistent record of advocating for civil rights"...up until the Compromise of 1877, after which the best you could say about them was that they were the lesser of two evils.
13. "Do you think we have just kept consistent on polygamy but then switched on race matters? It doesn't make any sense!" Of course it does. They're two different issues, and staying the same on one has absolutely nothing to do with changing your perspective on the other one. This one alone would get her laughed out of every university-level history class I've ever been in!

I didn't even bother after that. You can see just how convincing her argument is to anyone who actually does know their history on this topic.

Your school really did a good job of creating a good Marxist. Brainwash successful. They should all get red star stickers

 

[YDB95]

The only ones convinced by your side's alternate version of History, motivated by your side's very racist roots and current beliefs, the very reason young blacks, particularly young black men are leaving in droves, the only one convinced by your side is... your side.

That's not only not true, it's not even articulate.

Your school really did a good job of creating a good Marxist. Brainwash successful. They should all get red star stickers

Even if I were a marxist, that would not in any way defeat any of my points here. It would merely be an excuse for you to dismiss them without even trying to argue them, which - oh, look - is exactly what you did!

 

[Chernosoth]

With the various population shifts that will be happening, both parties need to move beyond their current geographic boundaries. Pubs need urban votes as much as Dems need rural votes. Adapt or die.

 

[JaySecrets]

That's not only not true, it's not even articulate.

Even if I were a marxist, that would not in any way defeat any of my points here. It would merely be an excuse for you to dismiss them without even trying to argue them, which - oh, look - is exactly what you did!

Your points are historically inaccurate dishonest. I don't give weight to intellectual dishonesty and outright lies. And that, at this point, is all you have left to hide behind. Good news is that the populations you deceived for so long are starting to wake up, and are leaving you behind. Which was the point of this thread to begin with, I believe.

 

[YDB95]

Your points are historically inaccurate dishonest.

If that were true, you'd be able to prove it. You're not even trying to do that.

 

[JaySecrets]

If that were true, you'd be able to prove it. You're not even trying to do that.

Ample evidence was given in the video. When I post lengthy text, none of you have the intellectual endurance to read that much of something you disagree with. So it leads to endless debate with brainwashed, willfully ignorant fools. Not a priority for me. I actually work for a living.

 

[YDB95]

Ample evidence was given in the video.

No, propaganda and half-truths were given in the video.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

As if Carville didn’t have enough to be alarmed about…Yesterday the New York Times released its devastating battleground state poll, today the Financial Times is out with a new national poll.

FT-Michigan Ross poll: Biden’s election hopes fall as prices rise again​

Persistent inflation means American voters do not see evidence of an improving economy

https://www.ft.com/content/ee56a06d-c734-4fec-96fe-c53db3131255

 

[Chobham]

As if Carville didn’t have enough to be alarmed about…Yesterday the New York Times released its devastating battleground state poll, today the Financial Times is out with a new national poll.

FT-Michigan Ross poll: Biden’s election hopes fall as prices rise again​

Persistent inflation means American voters do not see evidence of an improving economy

https://www.ft.com/content/ee56a06d-c734-4fec-96fe-c53db3131255

Panic should be well and truly setting in now.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Panic should be well and truly setting in now.

Concern is definitely beginning to settle in. The confidence in the Biden camp is fading fast. That said, it’s premature to assume Trump has this in the bag. If consumer purchasing power suddenly increases, peace breaks out in the Middle East, Russia pulls out of Ukraine, illegal border crossings dwindle, and Joe miraculously begins to display signs of vigor and mental alertness, optimism could return in the Biden camp.

 

[ll74]

Concern is definitely beginning to settle in. The confidence in the Biden camp is fading fast. That said, it’s premature to assume Trump has this in the bag. If consumer purchasing power suddenly increases, peace breaks out in the Middle East, Russia pulls out of Ukraine, illegal border crossings dwindle, and Joe miraculously begins to display signs of vigor and mental alertness, optimism could return in the Biden camp.

Border crossings have dropped significantly this year. That would be why the right has gotten so quiet on the topic.

In March 2024, the U.S. Border Patrol recorded 137,480 encounters between ports of entry along the southwest border. In March, encounters between ports of entry along the southwest border were 45% lower than in December 2023 and 16% lower than March 2023.
CBP had a total of 189,372 encounters along the southwest border in March 2024, including U.S. Border Patrol encounters between ports of entry, as well as individuals who presented themselves at ports of entry (including those with CBP One™ appointments, detailed further below). CBP continually analyzes and responds to changes in migration patterns, particularly irregular migration outside of lawful pathways and border crossings. We work with our federal and international partners to combat human smuggling.
The fact remains: the United States continues to enforce immigration law, and those without a legal basis to remain will be removed. Migrants attempting to enter without authorization are subject to removal under Title 8 authorities.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-march-2024-monthly-update

 

[Chobham]

Concern is definitely beginning to settle in. The confidence in the Biden camp is fading fast. That said, it’s premature to assume Trump has this in the bag. If consumer purchasing power suddenly increases, peace breaks out in the Middle East, Russia pulls out of Ukraine, illegal border crossings dwindle, and Joe miraculously begins to display signs of vigor and mental alertness, optimism could return in the Biden camp.

Anyone making book on that?