(05-02-2019 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And to be blunt, it is entirely clear that Rice93 believes that the 'numbers are equal' or somefink as stupid as that. So the comment about 'y'all seem to not like accepting what is inherently been in the progressive DNA from somewhere around 1967 to the present day' seems pretty much on point with that reluctance to even see what you (and I) seem to agree as to the proclivity of the progs to boycott vs the proclivity of conservatives to boycott.

If you also bother to notice --- the comment about 'not like accepting what is inherently been in the progressive DNA from somewhere around 1967 to the present day' was in response to Rice93 and not you.

I will take your word for it that Democrats have been historically more likely to organize a boycott during our lifetimes. In my world today, if somebody I know gets their panties in a wad over an issue and then decides to boycott a business over it, it is likely to be a right-winger. I have a lot more right-wingers than liberals in my family. Certainly some of you may have the opposite experience.

I felt the urge to respond because (not for the first time) the right wing contingent here have ascribed an attribute solely to "leftists" while ignoring that the pan is calling the kettle black.

(05-02-2019 04:21 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 04:05 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 02:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 10:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I've known many conservatives who boycott particular business for political reasons -- but not a single one who makes a big show of it.

Did you miss all the videos of conservatives burning their Nikes over Colin Kaepernick? Or the Fox News fans destroying their Keurigs?

edit: your post said "I've known" so probably you're just referring to those in your circle. The point still stands, though, that liberals aren't the only ones who make a show of their boycotts.

I missed them. And I still have my Keurig. Why were the Keurigs targeted, anyway?

Only real “boycott” I can remember was for Jane Fonda.

Liberals, OTOH, Boy Scouts, CFA, FCA, Anything Christian, Salvation Army, MrRa , guns, Harvey Weinstein, Joe Biden, Fox News, Hobby Lobby, Masterpiece Bakery, anything to do with the CSA, secret societies, the list goes on forever ,

Because Keurig pulled their advertising from Fox News. I can't remember why.

French Fries --> Freedom Fries, NFL for "disrespecting" the National Anthem, Gillette because of their toxic masculinity ad, ESPN for political commentary, etc. etc. etc.

Did you really not notice the conservative outrage towards Nike re: Kaepernick?

Well, now I know, and I still have my Keurig.

I noticed lots of outrage against Kaepernick. Shared it. Didn't see any against Nike. At my age and physical condition, slip ons are preferred over laces.

I haven't been to an NFL game since Staubach was QB. Another boycott?

I bet Gillette and ESPN were hurt all the way to the bank. Oh, the humanity!!!

flyover Americans

What do you flyover Democrats think? Was it just rubes and fools who voted for Trump?

I think use of the pejorative (flyover, redneck, yahoo, deplorable, bitter clinger, etc) make AB an 'average' liberal. I cannot imagine many of the progressives in congress disagreeing with him.

(05-02-2019 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  flyover Americans

Yeah. Liberals shoot themselves in their collective foot when they use this type of language.

Quote:What do you flyover Democrats think? Was it just rubes and fools who voted for Trump?

No... you left out the racists and homophobes! (I kid, I kid).

Quote:I think use of the pejorative (flyover, redneck, yahoo, deplorable, bitter clinger, etc) make AB an 'average' liberal. I cannot imagine many of the progressives in congress disagreeing with him.

As if only liberals use pejorative terms directed towards the other side but conservatives are above that.

(05-02-2019 09:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 05:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 03:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 02:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Did you miss all the videos of conservatives burning their Nikes over Colin Kaepernick? Or the Fox News fans destroying their Keurigs?

edit: your post said "I've known" so probably you're just referring to those in your circle. The point still stands, though, that liberals aren't the only ones who make a show of their boycotts.

Lol.

I had forgotten about those. Probably because liberals don’t get nearly as worker up over conservatives boycotting companies. See thread.

Probably because conservatives dont run down the path of boycotts -- I mean let's be real for every 1 'conservative' boycott there is probably 15 or 16 liberal-bent ones.

The act of a boycott has been part of the progressive knee-jerk response to any perceived wrong since the Cesar Chavez days. I find it odd that you overlook the sheer numbers in your analysis.

You're reaching a bit on "overlooking the sheer numbers" comment. The original comment this was responding to basically said that conservatives didn't do these loud, boisterous boycotts. Rice93 made it clear that it wasn't true - there have been conservative freak outs and boycotts in the past.

OO said:

Quote: But....but....but, only bad people should have their products boycotted. Only conservatives are bad people.

OO also said he only remembers a Jane Fonda boycott (I happen to remember a Dixie Chicks boycott too).

George's quote about not knowing any conservatives is listed above, and Ham agreed with it.

Ah, the dixie chicks. I have never bought any of their music since, nor have I gone to any of their concerts. Guess that counts as a boycott.

Of course, the fact that I never bought any of their music before and never attended a concert of theirs before might argue that I didn't change my behavior toward them one whit.

But that's just me. I don't know if anybody actually stopped buying/listening to their music. But it sure wasn't an organized effort. Did the Fellowship of Christian Athletes carry signs outside their venues, or what? Did the Salvation Army wear bandannas and attack concert goers?

I also kept watching Fonda's movies, and her workout video was not too bad. I guess it was OK with "progressives" when she went to Hanoi. It was a Democrat's war. Who was more progressive than LBJ?

Woh there, that's some revisionist history if I've ever seen it! The History Channel even has a webpage dedicated to the Dixie Chicks.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist...ash-begins

Quote:In that review, The Guardian‘sBetty Clarke included the following line: “‘Just so you know,’ says singer Natalie Maines, ‘we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.'” (Clarke left out the middle of the full quotation, which was, “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence. And we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.”) That line quickly became fodder for a grassroots anti-Dixie Chicks backlash. It began with thousands of phone calls flooding country-music radio stations from Denver to Nashville—calls demanding that the Dixie Chicks be removed from the stations’ playlists. Soon some of those same stations were calling for a boycott of the recent Dixie Chicks’ album and of their upcoming U.S. tour. Fellow country star Toby Keith famously joined the fray by performing in front of a backdrop that featured a gigantic image of Natalie Maines beside Saddam Hussein.

Wasn't organize my butt.

OO, just because you were not aware of something personally, doesn't mean it wasn't a big deal that made headlines.

(05-02-2019 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  flyover Americans

What do you flyover Democrats think? Was it just rubes and fools who voted for Trump?

I think use of the pejorative (flyover, redneck, yahoo, deplorable, bitter clinger, etc) make AB an 'average' liberal. I cannot imagine many of the progressives in congress disagreeing with him.

So we're playing this game now?

Shall i start to look up derogatory comments from the right and ask that you defend the stance and comments?

(05-02-2019 09:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And to be blunt, it is entirely clear that Rice93 believes that the 'numbers are equal' or somefink as stupid as that. So the comment about 'y'all seem to not like accepting what is inherently been in the progressive DNA from somewhere around 1967 to the present day' seems pretty much on point with that reluctance to even see what you (and I) seem to agree as to the proclivity of the progs to boycott vs the proclivity of conservatives to boycott.

If you also bother to notice --- the comment about 'not like accepting what is inherently been in the progressive DNA from somewhere around 1967 to the present day' was in response to Rice93 and not you.

I will take your word for it that Democrats have been historically more likely to organize a boycott during our lifetimes. In my world today, if somebody I know gets their panties in a wad over an issue and then decides to boycott a business over it, it is likely to be a right-winger. I have a lot more right-wingers than liberals in my family. Certainly some of you may have the opposite experience.

I felt the urge to respond because (not for the first time) the right wing contingent here have ascribed an attribute solely to "leftists" while ignoring that the pan is calling the kettle black.

Please do tell where *anyone* has noted a boycott is *solely* or *only* a leftist action? Good god. No one has suggested, let alone stated, that *only* progs boycott. I suggest you climb off that hobby horse. Or actually read and restate what is actually said.

And as for sheer numbers, hate to tell you but the left has far more *subject matter* boycott kickers than the conservatives. Thus, more boycotts. Do you understand why the LBGTQ, the BDS, and the gd fing Sierra Club are noted in my list? Or why BP is the subject of literally scores of boycotts?

So yeah, keep smoking that crack pipe about 'how many more' conservative-viewpoint boycotts there are presently. I mean, literally every time someone tries to build a pipeline -- boycott. Everytime there is a rig accident -- boycott. Every gun death -- boycott. Someone sells fur -- boycott. Someone makes fun of a douche bag PETA campaign -- boycott.

Since the left is the ultimate panoply of 'identity politics and victimhood', doesnt common sense tell you the population of boycotts that spring up on that side of the fence would tend to be larger? Or, just ignore that societal fact. Your choice.

I mean, in Austin you cant throw a Frisbee without hitting a boycott with a left-leaning goal....

(05-02-2019 10:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  flyover Americans

What do you flyover Democrats think? Was it just rubes and fools who voted for Trump?

I think use of the pejorative (flyover, redneck, yahoo, deplorable, bitter clinger, etc) make AB an 'average' liberal. I cannot imagine many of the progressives in congress disagreeing with him.

Look at his rationale in the article:

Quote: When I say flyover Americans I mean that -- that's a show business term in terms of demographics and I don't mean that with any -- in any pejorative sense.

I guess it is okay to refer to an African American as a n-word as long as you claim it isnt meant in any perjorative sense, or is a 'show business term'.

What fing douche.

I read that and immediately thought of my grand-uncle who threw down the N-word like beads at Mardi Gras, and had zero compunction about it.

(05-02-2019 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please do tell where *anyone* has noted it is *solely* or *only* a leftist action? Good god. No one has suggested, let alone stated, that *only* progs boycott. I suggest you climb off that hobby horse.

Reading through the thread there was a clear inference that it was liberals who make a big show out of boycotting but right-wingers would never stoop to that level.

Quote:So yeah, keep smoking that crack pipe about 'how many more' conservative-viewpoint boycotts there are.

Why did you put that in quotes? Like it was something that I typed?

Also... using phrases like "keep smoking that crack pipe" really doesn't elevate the discussion.

Quote:Since the left is the ultimate panoply of 'identity politics and victimhood', doesnt common sense tell you the population of boycotts that spring up on that side of the fence would tend to be larger? Or, just ignore that societal fact. Your choice.

I mean, in Austin you cant throw a Frisbee without hitting a boycott with a left-leaning goal....

I see a lot of victimhood on both sides. Plenty of Trump voters feel that they are being ignored/ridiculed by the "coastal elites".

(05-02-2019 11:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please do tell where *anyone* has noted it is *solely* or *only* a leftist action? Good god. No one has suggested, let alone stated, that *only* progs boycott. I suggest you climb off that hobby horse.

Reading through the thread there was a clear inference that it was liberals who make a big show out of boycotting but right-wingers would never stoop to that level.

Quote:So yeah, keep smoking that crack pipe about 'how many more' conservative-viewpoint boycotts there are.

Why did you put that in quotes? Like it was something that I typed?

Also... using phrases like "keep smoking that crack pipe" really doesn't elevate the discussion.

Quote:Since the left is the ultimate panoply of 'identity politics and victimhood', doesnt common sense tell you the population of boycotts that spring up on that side of the fence would tend to be larger? Or, just ignore that societal fact. Your choice.

I mean, in Austin you cant throw a Frisbee without hitting a boycott with a left-leaning goal....

I see a lot of victimhood on both sides. Plenty of Trump voters feel that they are being ignored/ridiculed by the "coastal elites".

I've noticed that Tanq oddly uses quotes when the phrase was never actually typed/said by the person he is responding to.

I still can't figure out why he does that, but it certainly does make it seem like he's suggesting the person he is responding to said that very statement. I've stopped worrying about it, and have thought of it as a weird quirk of Tanq's.

(05-02-2019 11:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please do tell where *anyone* has noted it is *solely* or *only* a leftist action? Good god. No one has suggested, let alone stated, that *only* progs boycott. I suggest you climb off that hobby horse.

Reading through the thread there was a clear inference that it was liberals who make a big show out of boycotting but right-wingers would never stoop to that level.

Yes, I am sure that there was a "clear inference" that conservatives would *never* ever ever ever ever ever (catches breath) ever ever ever ever ever ever ever (catches breath again) engage in a boycott. Ever. Crystal clear, I am sure.

Do you understand the term 'never', let alone 'solely'? I dont think there is anyone here that tried to stick there heads in the sand that far, or, even to the level that you really really really really want to use those extreme amount words.

I am quite positive conservatives have engaged in boycotts of some sort. I dont think anyone here has disputed that fact. But somehow that is a seemingly "clear inference"..... lolz.....

Quote:

Quote:Since the left is the ultimate panoply of 'identity politics and victimhood', doesnt common sense tell you the population of boycotts that spring up on that side of the fence would tend to be larger? Or, just ignore that societal fact. Your choice.

I mean, in Austin you cant throw a Frisbee without hitting a boycott with a left-leaning goal....

I see a lot of victimhood on both sides. Plenty of Trump voters feel that they are being ignored/ridiculed by the "coastal elites".

More like being the object of the smug condescension of progressives in general to us deplorables, if you really wish to know.

And would that single idea be fully equivalent to the patchwork of identity politics and victimhood that has been the lifeblood of the progressive movement for going on about a half century at this point.

Quick question 93, when you remove all the 'unfair' and 'victimhood' based ideas from the (now) 22 declared candidates, is there any single solitary issue left in the progressive 'field of 22' arsenal? That is beside the 'Orange Man Bad' statements that wouldnt be removed by that filter.......

So when you comment about the 'deplorable' issue, you would be absolutely correct in identifying that as a 'victimhood' wedge that is used. But seriously, can you identify one single solitary strand in any of the Gang of 22 that doesnt pluck the banjo string of 'unfair' or the guitar string of 'victim' in the left-esque rendition of 'Dueling Banjos' being played daily by the candidates?

When you identify that (very solitary) plucked note, then, perhaps weigh all the other notes removed against the 'deplorable' victimhood that you find oh-so equivalent.

(05-02-2019 11:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 11:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Please do tell where *anyone* has noted it is *solely* or *only* a leftist action? Good god. No one has suggested, let alone stated, that *only* progs boycott. I suggest you climb off that hobby horse.

Reading through the thread there was a clear inference that it was liberals who make a big show out of boycotting but right-wingers would never stoop to that level.

Quote:So yeah, keep smoking that crack pipe about 'how many more' conservative-viewpoint boycotts there are.

Why did you put that in quotes? Like it was something that I typed?

Also... using phrases like "keep smoking that crack pipe" really doesn't elevate the discussion.

Quote:Since the left is the ultimate panoply of 'identity politics and victimhood', doesnt common sense tell you the population of boycotts that spring up on that side of the fence would tend to be larger? Or, just ignore that societal fact. Your choice.

I mean, in Austin you cant throw a Frisbee without hitting a boycott with a left-leaning goal....

I see a lot of victimhood on both sides. Plenty of Trump voters feel that they are being ignored/ridiculed by the "coastal elites".

I've noticed that Tanq oddly uses quotes when the phrase was never actually typed/said by the person he is responding to.

I still can't figure out why he does that, but it certainly does make it seem like he's suggesting the person he is responding to said that very statement. I've stopped worrying about it, and have thought of it as a weird quirk of Tanq's.

The issue (from my perspective) was 'how many more' boycotts seemingly emanate from the leftist side.

Kind of a means to group words together to form a solitary bundle and modify what follows. Perhaps like the function of () in a math equation.

Not trying to suggest actual quotes with the 'stuff grouped all together' mechanism.

(05-02-2019 11:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Reading through the thread there was a clear inference that it was liberals who make a big show out of boycotting but right-wingers would never stoop to that level.

Missed the part about "never". maybe it was like the Dixie Chicks protests - out of my ken.

BTW, can we still label anything "Dixie". Isn't that supporting slavery?

Quote:I see a lot of victimhood on both sides. Plenty of Trump voters feel that they are being ignored/ridiculed by the "coastal elites".

Yeah, words like "flyover", "Deplorable', and "cling bitterly to their guns and religion", uttered by leading liberals, do tend to give that impression. Words like "redneck" and 'yahoo", uttered by rank and file liberals tend to reinforce that impression.

yeah, some righties will call you socialist - but the socialists are a part of your party. Some will even call you commies - but aren't they leftists?

I guess the superiority drips the most, though, when the leftists call us racists. After all, who isn't superior to a racist? So often, we are accused of racism just for opposing some leftist issue, like border control. If I had a dollar for every time some liberal has accused me of being afraid of "brown people". I could treat us both to a very nice steak dinner. The very terms "homophobe" and "xenophobe" imply there is nothing rational in anybody's position regarding homosexuality and immigration if it is different from your party line. Disagree with the left, get a pejorative label thrown at you. Homophobe, deplorable, clinger, racist. , religious nut. Yeah, we do get tired of it. Frankly, 93, you and lad are well above average in your discourse. In fact I would say you are both well above 95% of the Congressional Democrats. Maybe 100%.

No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

(05-02-2019 09:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I felt the urge to respond because (not for the first time) the right wing contingent here have ascribed an attribute solely to "leftists" while ignoring that the pan is calling the kettle black.

I don't think anyone has ascribed anything "solely" to leftists. What I think has been said is that leftists do it more often and are generally better organized about it. But then that fits better conceptually. Leftists are more about the power of the collective and collective actions, whereas the right is more about freedom to act individually, at least in economic matters.

As far as CFA, they pretty much know their base market and play to that base. They may do things that alienate certain market segments, but if their base responds by redoubling their patronage, it's a net winner for them. That is what seems to have happened with the "outrage" over the Truett Cathey comments, and other expressions of political belief by CFA and its management. I doubt the entire Rice student body is a large enough segment to have a measurable impact on their bottom line. And when my lesbian friends bring me CFA--as they have done on occasion--I will scarf it up.

(05-02-2019 11:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Quick question 93, when you remove all the 'unfair' and 'victimhood' based ideas from the (now) 22 declared candidates, is there any single solitary issue left in the progressive 'field of 22' arsenal? That is beside the 'Orange Man Bad' statements that wouldnt be removed by that filter.......

So when you comment about the 'deplorable' issue, you would be absolutely correct in identifying that as a 'victimhood' wedge that is used. But seriously, can you identify one single solitary strand in any of the Gang of 22 that doesnt pluck the banjo string of 'unfair' or the guitar string of 'victim' in the left-esque rendition of 'Dueling Banjos' being played daily by the candidates?

When you identify that (very solitary) plucked note, then, perhaps weigh all the other notes removed against the 'deplorable' victimhood that you find oh-so equivalent.

Let me get this straight... you are claiming that there is not a single issue that is important to Democrats that isn't based on "victimhood" or "unfairness"? That's quite a bold assertion. Climate change? Gun control? Protecting public lands and waterways?

You can go into various contortions to make any policy issue about "unfairness" I guess.

(05-03-2019 07:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I think has been said is that leftists do it more often and are generally better organized about it.

And one poster said he is in awe of that boycott-fu ability.

It has taken the right (well, not really right, but Trump) 50 years to really use Alinsky Rules in a manner that approaches 30% that the left has.

The right is still trying to find the ability to engage in a fraction of that level the power of boycott that the left does quite well with.

But I guess with this version of a rightist movement it wont happen -- I mean, how much can you teach a rabble of ignorant deplorables?

But seriously, the comments about boycotts and the ability of the left to boycott are not meant in a spiteful way. I am more jealous than anything else, to be honest.

(05-03-2019 07:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 09:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I felt the urge to respond because (not for the first time) the right wing contingent here have ascribed an attribute solely to "leftists" while ignoring that the pan is calling the kettle black.

I don't think anyone has ascribed anything "solely" to leftists. What I think has been said is that leftists do it more often and are generally better organized about it. But then that fits better conceptually. Leftists are more about the power of the collective and collective actions, whereas the right is more about freedom to act individually, at least in economic matters.

As far as CFA, they pretty much know their base market and play to that base. They may do things that alienate certain market segments, but if their base responds by redoubling their patronage, it's a net winner for them. That is what seems to have happened with the "outrage" over the Truett Cathey comments, and other expressions of political belief by CFA and its management. I doubt the entire Rice student body is a large enough segment to have a measurable impact on their bottom line. And when my lesbian friends bring me CFA--as they have done on occasion--I will scarf it up.

You’re a bit off about Chick-Fil-A playing to its base. After 2012 they changed who they donated to and specifically removed charities that opposed same-sex marriage because of how many market segments they were losing.

This current iteration is just stupid, and my guess is they are at risk of losing significantly less segments over donations to the fricken Salvation Army.

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

(05-03-2019 07:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-02-2019 11:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Quick question 93, when you remove all the 'unfair' and 'victimhood' based ideas from the (now) 22 declared candidates, is there any single solitary issue left in the progressive 'field of 22' arsenal? That is beside the 'Orange Man Bad' statements that wouldnt be removed by that filter.......

So when you comment about the 'deplorable' issue, you would be absolutely correct in identifying that as a 'victimhood' wedge that is used. But seriously, can you identify one single solitary strand in any of the Gang of 22 that doesnt pluck the banjo string of 'unfair' or the guitar string of 'victim' in the left-esque rendition of 'Dueling Banjos' being played daily by the candidates?

When you identify that (very solitary) plucked note, then, perhaps weigh all the other notes removed against the 'deplorable' victimhood that you find oh-so equivalent.

Let me get this straight... you are claiming that there is not a single issue that is important to Democrats that isn't based on "victimhood" or "unfairness"? That's quite a bold assertion. Climate change? Gun control? Protecting public lands and waterways?

You can go into various contortions to make any policy issue about "unfairness" I guess.

I know - it’s really the right that falls in that category. It is really the right whose stances are based on victimhood.

It’s unfair that I can’t dump coal ash into public waterways! I’m the victim of BLM trying to get cattle grasing fees! The employers forced to pay a higher wage are the real victims of minimum wage laws! Who is thinking about those poor people forced to hand out marriage licenses to same sex couples!

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but sheesh is this a stupid conversation about who plays the victim card more, and the idea that a political party is based solely on victimhood. I bet Tanq finds a way to twist every position advocated by Dems into a victimhood-based position. Dems want to increase infrastructure spending because they feel victimized by those evil toll roads!!!

(05-03-2019 07:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  No need to put "coastal elites" in quotes. The coasts are your strength, just as the
flyover states, so studiously ignored by Clinton in the last election, are the bastion of the right. And your leading coastal liberals do think they are elite - Just read Baldwin's quote again. New Yorkers understand Trump - just those flyover people who cannot discern the truth, right?

Alec Baldwin is not a "leading coastal liberal". He's got a platform based on being an actor but nobody's looking to place him in a Democratic think tank.

Also, the coasts aren’t our strengths - urban areas are. I see no coasts near SA, Austin, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, etc

And if you actually look at election maps, significant swaths of the actual coast votes Republican year after year.