Will 'Crazy Cat Ladies' be this election's 'deplorables'?

Page 3 of 3 [ 44 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,533
Location: Right over your left shoulder

04 Aug 2024, 6:37 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:

funeralxempire wrote:

MaxE wrote:

The remark about deplorables was way more damaging. The Democratic Party has always identified as a the Party of the Common Man, much like the Labour Party in the UK, but Hillary's comment was inarguably élitist and did lasting damage to the Democrats. Just by itself, it probably cost the Democrats the election in 2016, and may still do so in 2024 unless Democrats can reach out to the voters who took offense at that, especially small business owners, socially conservative Blacks, and a great many Christians belonging to groups that had "traditionally" been Democratic e.g. trade unionists.

The Crazy Cat Lady thing is good for a laugh but not much more

If anything, it really seems like more evidence of how fragile the guys who LARP as cowboys and paramilitaries really are. Hillary called a spade a spade and America's creepy uncles collectively lost their s**t.

Problem was even though she specifically said she was generalizing about half of Trump voters and the other half had legitimate grievances it played into her image as a cold elitist, and the image that liberal coastal elitists looked down on people in flyover country and their lifestyles. While Hillary’s comment about Trump voters had a basis in truth so did the idea about coastal elitists looking down on people like them. Bottom line the comment was a whopper of an unforced error.

Vance’s comment my very well be as damaging if not more then Hillary’s, it is really, really bad. It has not gotten nearly as intense as the Democrat revolt against Biden but the conservative dump Vance movement is a thing. As somebody pointed out it is not like Trump does not enjoy firing people.

I agree that both in practice amount to unforced errors, the extent of the error largely being tied to how many people are genuinely offended. It seems like 'crazy cat ladies' and those adjacent to them might have thicker skins than 'deplorables' and those adjacent to them, otherwise the level of offence would be more comparable.

There's a degree of truth to both statements as well, but that doesn't mean the backlash to them is completely unjustified or couldn't have been foreseen. No one likes being written off as deplorable (even if they genuinely are). Childfree individuals and families are still invested in their nation and their nation's future, even if their priorities aren't identical to the people who are worried about reproductive rates.

_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

04 Aug 2024, 6:38 pm

Yeah...it woulda been nice if Hillary has said "I meant the high profile cheerleaders for Trump in the media...like David Duke are a basket of deplorables...not the grassroots folks...who are driven by a disappearing middle class to do desperate things like...vote for Trump or for Sanders."

Then she coulda gone on to (like her husband) tell said grassroots folks that she "feels their pain" and like that.

But no.... :lol: