|
Sharkopath posted:You can't actually cure racism. Full stop. It's always going to be a problem barring some sci fi future post scarcity bullshit. Just to be clear there are a lot of (not all by a long shot) racists who would have a change of heart if they had a good education and economic security. BY POSTING THIS I AM NOT ADVOCATING ANY SORT OF POLICY POSITION
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Katreus posted:So, if we accept the premise that people just don't trust HRC on helping the working class, I'm not sure why all the white progressives in this thread are so confused and indignant why minority posters keep expressing skepticism at all the 'class war is the most important' or even, the more mild 'we need to focus on both' statements. Minorities don't trust white progressives -- because they historically sell minority voters up the river, we've just had an election where it just happened again in pretty stark terms, and there are at least several posts in this thread and media reactions advocating dropping focus on minority issues - hiding it like minorities should wait their turn again, quietly, at the back - because either economy is more important or because it discomforts white rural voters. I think I've been misunderstood. Race is an issue that needs to be addressed. There are serious racial issues in America today. The future Democratic candidate needs to speak to minorities and have clear plans to address their problems. But specifically in the conversation about why Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential Election, race was not the primary factor, and pretending that it was only excuses Clinton and the Democratic party's other failures
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except the Democratic policy does focus on income inequality by seeking to improve welfare of all sorts, raise minimum wages, support labor and all that. What a load of horseshit. The very culprit that is responsible for income inequality (Wall Street) has been steering Democratic policy for 30+ years. Minimum wage increases is incrementalism bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
This election has made me very skeptical about everything and unwilling to speak in absolutes but that one fact has been strengthened tremendously in my mind because of what I have seen and experienced this year. If anything I'm getting more concerned because of this constant downplaying of the importance of racism, could you not envision a possibility wherein you laser focus economic inequality but are rebuffed by a slim majority of voters who in the election of trump have only become more sure of their prejudices, especially since the GOP are already shown to be very good at manipulating the opinion of their voting base to that end?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:That seems pretty clearly to be saying "Trump won because of racism" Sexism too. Maybe appeals to racism and sexism are effective and the lesson of this election will be figuring out how to counter them effectively. Then again, Hillary lost by 100,000 votes in 3 swing states so maybe demographics will be enough in 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
speng31b posted:Enough of one. I'll just leave this here for context: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/ Hey, it makes my point for me right at the very start. quote:About 57 percent of eligible voters cast ballots this year, down from 58.6 percent in 2012 and 61.6 percent in 2008, which was the highest mark in 40 years. Turnout still remained well above levels for most presidential election years from 1972 to 2000. The Republicans haven't been able to rely on "hey, let's run a Reagan in every election" so far, I don't know why people now think that's a viable strategy for Dems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
If you think about it, Obama is really the Democratic outlier - he was a political whirlwind that you only see once in a generation. Everything else has been trending GOP for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
disjoe posted:Just to be clear there are a lot of (not all by a long shot) racists who would have a change of heart if they had a good education and economic security. THIS IS A SLIGHTLY SARDONIC REBUTTAL THAT REITERATES IM NOT AGAINST RURAL WHITES AT ALL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sexism too. Maybe appeals to racism and sexism are effective and the lesson of this election will be figuring out how to counter them effectively. Then again, Hillary lost by 100,000 votes in 3 swing states so maybe demographics will be enough in 4 years. Clinton got a smaller percentage of the Latino vote than Obama. You can't wait for demographics to win elections for you. Not only is it a lovely plan in the short term, but in the long term those "demographics" might not vote the way you want. And then you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Trump's effectiveness was decisive but narrow, I think. Can anyone pull his numbers in WI, PA, and MI? Was his winning there down to outperforming Romney or Clinton's underperformance?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Sexism too. Maybe appeals to racism and sexism are effective and the lesson of this election will be figuring out how to counter them effectively. Then again, Hillary lost by 100,000 votes in 3 swing states so maybe demographics will be enough in 4 years. "Demographics" assumes that the Dems have a complete lock on minorities and that they would never ever vote for a Republican. Taking them for granted and assuming they will always turn out en masse for Dems is precisely the problem. If African-Americans don't feel like the Dems have an answer for "hey, the police can literally be murder black people in public and face no repercussions", they're not going to be very motivated to fight through all the GOP's voter suppression bullshit to go vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:This election has made me very skeptical about everything and unwilling to speak in absolutes but that one fact has been strengthened tremendously in my mind because of what I have seen and experienced this year. Who is downplaying the importance of racism constantly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
The moment you stop hearing voices saying you shouldn't leave lgbt and poc behind is the moment you lose because they'll have given up
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Sharkopath posted:This election has made me very skeptical about everything and unwilling to speak in absolutes but that one fact has been strengthened tremendously in my mind because of what I have seen and experienced this year. You hardly need to "laser-focus" economic inequality, but you do need to make it a major and convincing part of your platform. If Hillary's campaign had managed to do that the rust belt firewall almost certainly would have held. Here we must also conclude that in four years the economy is unfortunately going to be even more hosed given the clowns that will be in charge until then, so I doubt that the economic issue will be less important. Like, you have to be hella racist to prioritize loving over minorities over putting food on your family's table, and I don't think that the people who voted Obama four years ago but stayed home this time are that far gone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Clinton got a smaller percentage of the Latino vote than Obama. You can't wait for demographics to win elections for you. Not only is it a lovely plan in the short term, but in the long term those "demographics" might not vote the way you want. And then you're hosed. They'll vote with us if we keep representing their interests. But that means actively and vocally fighting against racism. A surefire way to lose these votes would be to constantly assert with no evidence that racism was not a big factor in this election. Main Paineframe posted:"Demographics" assumes that the Dems have a complete lock on minorities and that they would never ever vote for a Republican. Taking them for granted and assuming they will always turn out en masse for Dems is precisely the problem. If African-Americans don't feel like the Dems have an answer for "hey, the police can literally be murder black people in public and face no repercussions", they're not going to be very motivated to fight through all the GOP's voter suppression bullshit to go vote. That's certainly not what happened this year. Democrats went all in on pluralism in a way they never did even during Obama's years. Maybe that's what caused the non-college educated white backlash.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Clinton got a smaller percentage of the Latino vote than Obama. You can't wait for demographics to win elections for you. Not only is it a lovely plan in the short term, but in the long term those "demographics" might not vote the way you want. And then you're hosed. Essentially this, we took for granted that every single woman and PoC in the country was going to come out for Hillary, and then acted shocked when some of them chose to vote in line with their established political ideologies, as though these groups are controlled by a hivemind that gets its orders directly from Salon.com
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:What a load of horseshit. The very culprit that is responsible for income inequality (Wall Street) has been steering Democratic policy for 30+ years. Minimum wage increases is incrementalism bullshit. Oh you're one of those lunatics who thinks Literal Communism was going to poll well with Americans, glad to see you aren't actually making serious suggestions. Incrementalism is how things actually work when you don't have majority military/civil support for revolution, dude.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Oh you're one of those lunatics who thinks Literal Communism was going to poll well with Americans, glad to see you aren't actually making serious suggestions. Congrats on electing Donald trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
The (likely, I guess) narrative I've heard is that Trump won the election on the votes of poor rural whites who feel left behind. What exactly does that demographic want? Is it something that liberals can't provide, or is it just because people are so hard-coded to go into a panic over anything that sounds remotely like socialism and "big government"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They'll vote with us if we keep representing their interests. But that means actively and vocally fighting against racism. Thank god you've switched over to racism was just a big factor, and not the only or biggest factor. But loving lol at taking minority votes granted. Minorities are not massive identical blocks of people. For example, Clinton got only 65% of the Latino vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You hardly need to "laser-focus" economic inequality, but you do need to make it a major and convincing part of your platform. If Hillary's campaign had managed to do that the rust belt firewall almost certainly would have held. Here we must also conclude that in four years the economy is unfortunately going to be even more hosed given the clowns that will be in charge until then, so I doubt that the economic issue will be less important. Like, you have to be hella racist to prioritize loving over minorities over putting food on your family's table, and I don't think that the people who voted Obama four years ago but stayed home this time are that far gone. Yeah, I agree entirely and have been posting to this effect but this is where our personal opinions begin to differ because I am no longer allowing myself to underestimate the effect racism can have on the total electorate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Oh you're one of those lunatics who thinks Literal Communism was going to poll well with Americans, glad to see you aren't actually making serious suggestions. bahaha, you're still clinging to incrementalism sorry, but small little changes inspire no-one and get trumps elected
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
kaleedity posted:Congrats on electing Donald trump He didn't, people who refused to turn out to stop Trump did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Thank god you've switched over to racism was just a big factor, and not the only or biggest factor. I'm sorry you made some hysterical assumptions about my post earlier I guess? Racism might be the biggest factor. Sexism might be the biggest factor. loving emails might be the biggest factor. We don't know, and we probably never will with any degree of certainty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The (likely, I guess) narrative I've heard is that Trump won the election on the votes of poor rural whites who feel left behind. What exactly does that demographic want? Is it something that liberals can't provide, or is it just because people are so hard-coded to go into a panic over anything that sounds remotely like socialism and "big government"? Poor white people voted for Hilary Clinton so no. Mid class and up broke for trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They'll vote with us if we keep representing their interests. But that means actively and vocally fighting against racism. Why do you think this? Here is the top concerns of hispanic voters in 2016: 1. The economy 2. Healthcare 3. Terrorism 4. Education 5. Immigration 6. Social Security 7. Environment
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You hardly need to "laser-focus" economic inequality, but you do need to make it a major and convincing part of your platform. If Hillary's campaign had managed to do that the rust belt firewall almost certainly would have held. Here we must also conclude that in four years the economy is unfortunately going to be even more hosed given the clowns that will be in charge until then, so I doubt that the economic issue will be less important. Like, you have to be hella racist to prioritize loving over minorities over putting food on your family's table, and I don't think that the people who voted Obama four years ago but stayed home this time are that far gone. One correction I want to make in this discussion. It's very possible that the economy will be booming in four years. The real metrics that we need to keep an eye on is income inequality, the size of the middle class and student debt burden. The rich people could be swimming in Scrooge McDuck money towers in four years and they will claim that Trump's candidacy was a rousing success by GDP standards. Maybe consumer spending will plummet but I'm sure business capital expenditures could make up for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:He didn't, people who refused to turn out to stop Trump did. Clinton being a lovely candidate kept them home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Trump won because he promised to make the lives of working class whites better, and the rich tax breaks. Hillary promised neither and lost both. All she did was A.) dunk on Trump which, while a great deal of fun- didn't serve to address the economic, medical, and education issues faced by people tired of the establishment, and B.) believe that people actually care about others before themselves, and expected fear of minority persecution to do her campaign work for her. And any populist crumbs she deigned to toss to the proletariat sounded weak, inauthentic as ketchup on oven pulled pork, and voters called her on it by staying home in droves. Bernie at least, acknowledged that the economic, medical, education, and even environmental issues that have topped concerns nationally for forty years needed to be fixed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:bahaha, you're still clinging to incrementalism You're clinging to "accomplish literally nothing", how's that working out for you exactly?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:The (likely, I guess) narrative I've heard is that Trump won the election on the votes of poor rural whites who feel left behind. What exactly does that demographic want? Is it something that liberals can't provide, or is it just because people are so hard-coded to go into a panic over anything that sounds remotely like socialism and "big government"? It's very loving obvious that no one in this thread is concerned with reading or learning - they just want to be right. Go back 2-3 pages and read that WaPo interview I posted that addressed these very same questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Oh you're one of those lunatics who thinks Literal Communism was going to poll well with Americans, glad to see you aren't actually making serious suggestions. But sometimes you can get so incremental you're into Zeno's Arrow level of political change. Magic Hate Ball posted:The (likely, I guess) narrative I've heard is that Trump won the election on the votes of poor rural whites who feel left behind. What exactly does that demographic want? Is it something that liberals can't provide, or is it just because people are so hard-coded to go into a panic over anything that sounds remotely like socialism and "big government"? Jobs. They want jobs. Promise them jobs. Good jobs. Promise that if they elect you president you'll get them good jobs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Oh you're one of those lunatics who thinks Literal Communism was going to poll well with Americans, glad to see you aren't actually making serious suggestions. Man, more than anyone else Fishmech I hope that your voice as the phony "common sense liberal" gets squashed in light of our current existential crisis.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Mister Macys posted:Except that his cabinet was Bill Clinton's people and every one an Ivy League graduate with zero union members, or people that were employees of a company, rather than CEOs and chairpeople. 1. He is popular still. 2. He actually passed some poo poo that mattered. 3. We may need him for national security.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
kaleedity posted:Clinton being a lovely candidate kept them home. And the fact they didn't care about the lives of non-white people and LGBT people being destroyed. You keep forgetting that part. Purposefully, I'd imagine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're clinging to "accomplish literally nothing", how's that working out for you exactly? Good thing we elected trump instead
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You're clinging to "accomplish literally nothing", how's that working out for you exactly? hmm, bernie seems to be accomplishing things as we speak. last I heard hillary was off hiking in the woods after her defeat to a clown man. too bad incrementalism wasn't electable, huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And the fact they didn't care about the lives of non-white people and LGBT people being destroyed. You keep forgetting that part. Purposefully, I'd imagine. Clinton got a smaller percentage of the black and Latino vote than Obama did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And the fact they didn't care about the lives of non-white people and LGBT people being destroyed. You keep forgetting that part. Purposefully, I'd imagine. Okay - let's accept that this is 100% true. What does that mean, practically, moving forward?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Boon posted:Who is downplaying the importance of racism constantly? Bait and Swatch posted:This analysis seems it would be humorous if it wasn't so accurate in diagnosing why Trump won. The reality is that electing Hillary and reiterating smug identity politics at every opportunity is a piss-poor strategy. Or you know, blame Bernie and double-down on calling every Trump voter a racist. https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs Just the most recent post about it, it's been a constant stream of progressives posting like this since the end of the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:02
|
|