|
Neurolimal posted:No matter how hard you peer, supporters of a fiscal and social leftist did not then break for the libertain fiscal-conservative social centrist over the fiscal-centrist social-leftist. Anything else is a desperate attempt to scapegoat someone else for Clinton's failure. Agreed that it would be scapegoating because it's hardly significant, but there were a few polls before the convention that showed a decent percentage of Sanders supporters claiming to switch to Johnson (I recall one showing 15%). I bet most of that dwindled over time, but they existed. And yes, it's incoherent.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
What I think is being glossed over is that people aren't worried that economic populists will (necessarily) intentionally leave out minorities, it's more that the special circumstance that surround economic equality for said minorities (housing discrimination, workplace discrimination, etc) will be unintentionally neglected in a "rising tide raises all boats" appeal. These worries need to be assuaged, not just dismissed with the aforementioned sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Sethex posted:As a dude idc personally but I think dismissively calling people bros in as a gendered insult (as the hillary campaign did) rings of that similar tone that you usually see right wing people trot out as examples of tumblr style PC culture attacking whites or whatev. I predict that'll you'll get a response to this post to the tune of 'nice apologia for sexism/racism, bigot'
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Getting labelled sexist racist whatever in an official sort of way by the Clinton campaign then expecting a subset not to have personal conviction preventing them from forgiving those slights is unrealistic. By the same token, you're not a neoliberal shill just because you put primacy on fighting against police violence, expanding repro rights, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Sethex posted:As a dude idc personally but I think dismissively calling people bros in as a gendered insult (as the hillary campaign did) rings of that similar tone that you usually see right wing people trot out as examples of tumblr style PC culture attacking whites or whatev. Tldr it was cute and appropriate the first few times you stumbled on a tumblr page with comics of a dweeb going "i cant live without u pls date" and a lady in a frilly dress then says "lol gently caress off", but random unprovoked hatred at people who want to help your cause is getting old LunarShadow posted:What I think is being glossed over is that people aren't worried that economic populists will (necessarily) intentionally leave out minorities, it's more that the special circumstance that surround economic equality for said minorities (housing discrimination, workplace discrimination, etc) will be unintentionally neglected in a "rising tide raises all boats" appeal. These worries need to be assuaged, not just dismissed with the aforementioned sentiment. I dont -think- theres anyone in here who disagrees that minorities face unique economic disadvantages that must be addressed. I think the big source of strife comes from: 1. An insistence that fiscal issues do not intersect with social issues (not even neccessary equal progress, just that they're effectively chained together). 2. Immediate distrust of fiscal leftists because they had a petty slapfight in some dumb internet spat that either had some familiar faces or just look similar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:2. Immediate distrust of fiscal leftists because they had a petty slapfight in some dumb internet spat that either had some familiar faces or just look similar. Just for one example, last night a bunch of Intercept acolytes went off on Marissa Johnson and Leslie Mac because they were offended by the existence of this thing. All I can think when I'm watching that poo poo unfold is "what is the goddamn point?" Besides harassing black women who didn't show proper deference to Our Lord and Savior, Bernie Sanders, that is. This toxic internet culture exists and it affects people; it's impossible to operate as an activist and not face its wrath, so yeah, distrust is kind of an obvious consequence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The free college (for most families) and minimum wage increase (I forget if she was aiming for 12 or 15, but either would have been major) alone are waaay more leftist than anything we've seen out of the Democratic party in decades. While it's highly questionable if either could/would have been passed, merely making them an explicit part of the platform is still significant. Granted, that's not saying much, but it's still an improvement. When I say "leftist" here I just mean "relative to other recent Democratic Party platforms." That's great that she had those views Would have been nice if she would have spent any appreciable portion of her time with the eyes of the nation on her at the debates talking about the plight of the economically disenfranchised and how she plans to fix it instead of telling everyone Trump sucks I live in Wisconsin and I couldn't tell you what Hillary stands for based on her ads, I can tell you that Trump upsets children with body shaming though. Turns out that body shamed children don't vote I guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:By the same token, you're not a neoliberal shill just because you put primacy on fighting against police violence, expanding repro rights, etc. I don't think one whose mind works like an idpol label maker works to consciously support neoliberalism. But if you earnestly supported hillary because of some glass ceiling fairy tale that will empower women (like it did for britain an canada?) over someone offering a health care system that would take a significant burden off of all oppressed groups, that's a strange rationale for an advocate of the oppressed..
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Thank you for the Reason.com link, tagline 'Free minds and Free marke... *shoots self*'. Strong advocacy for a safety net, minimum wage, and labor disproportionately benefits minorities but I guess those are white issues The arguments that we should ignore these issues because we have to be intersectional and treat the causes of racism instead of the symptoms is maddening to me, by that logic we should abolish programs like medicaid and food stamps as they do gently caress all to the root causes of economic disenfranchisement (racism, in particular). The fact of the matter is that a president is poo poo at treating the causes of racism even compared to their already poo poo ability to treat the symptoms of racism in a divided government override367 fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
One of the issues people have with identity politics is that 'cultural appropriation' is being wielded like a bludgeon when 'white people' enjoy aspects of another culture. http://heatst.com/culture-wars/hijabi-for-a-day-event-accused-of-cultural-appropriation/ The “Hijabi for a Day” event, organized by the Muslim Student Association and Wisconsin Union Directorate Global Connections Committee, invited women to wear headscarves and also to talk with a Muslim woman about the head covering’s meanings, which can vary widely. But Farhat Bhuiyan, one of the event’s organizers, said that two or three students claimed it was cultural appropriation, while four more expressed worries that participating could be offensive or “problematic.” This is an event organized by muslims to get people to try on headscarves, and it is somehow cultural appropriation. http://www.treehugger.com/culture/please-dont-call-my-beloved-canoe-symbol-cultural-appropriation.html A guy who grew up in rural canada responded to the idea that non-natives should use hiking or motorboats to get around, and not use canoes because they are somehow a symbol of theft and genocide. Then there is the hairstyle debate about dreadlocks. http://www.independent.co.uk/studen...l-a6959181.html People see these sorts of things, and think the entire left has gone stark raving mad, as the arguments seem to fall apart in the minds of non-academia when applied in the other direction, such as 'non-germans should never wear lenderhosen', or 'non-greeks should not wear togas'. The right wing media gleefully reports on this stuff and broadcasts it everywhere for people to laugh at and get mad about. It also hurts cultural ownership arguments of first nation peoples, as the 'cultural appropriation' hysteria makes their positions look worse and harder to defend due to misue of the term by radicals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Sethex posted:As a dude idc personally but I think dismissively calling people bros as a gendered insult (as the hillary campaign did) rings of that similar tone that you usually see right wing people trot out as examples of tumblr style PC culture attacking whites or whatev. The "bro" pejorative wasn't directed at Sanders supporters in general, just the particularly vocal ones that did things like call a sitting female senator a oval office nonstop until she left, because they weren't allowed to steal a caucus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I predict that'll you'll get a response to this post to the tune of 'nice apologia for sexism/racism, bigot' The bizarre thing is that the legions of Hillary supporters that didn't vote in 2008 for Obama (by comparison to the number of "berniebros") didn't get nearly the amount of vitriol from Obama supporters then again I guess social media was more nascent and online tribalism wasn't nearly as much of a thing
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
override367 posted:The bizarre thing is that the legions of Hillary supporters that didn't vote in 2008 for Obama (by comparison to the number of "berniebros") didn't get nearly the amount of vitriol from Obama supporters HI44/PUMA was a thing, but I got the impression it was a much smaller group of people. Could be vocality thing, since we did have our own prime examples floating around during the election, whereas I don't think we had any Hillary lost causers in '08.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
zegermans posted:The "bro" pejorative wasn't directed at Sanders supporters in general, just the particularly vocal ones that did things like call a sitting female senator a oval office nonstop until she left, because they weren't allowed to steal a caucus. maybe not directed at them by you, but at this point it's extremely commonplace to accuse Sanders supporters, or anyone left of HRC, of being "bros"
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:HI44/PUMA was a thing, but I got the impression it was a much smaller group of people. Could be vocality thing, since we did have our own prime examples floating around during the election, whereas I don't think we had any Hillary lost causers in '08. A big difference is Clinton 2008 core demographics are people who have to be convinced not to vote while Sanders 2016 core demographics are people who have to be convinced to vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
zegermans posted:The "bro" pejorative wasn't directed at Sanders supporters in general, just the particularly vocal ones that did things like call a sitting female senator a oval office nonstop until she left, because they weren't allowed to steal a caucus. I didn't see anything about that event in the wiki, but idk I didn't read it with a lot of effort. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Bro "In February 2016, political scientists attempted to assess the reality of the Bernie Bro phenomenon by analyzing Twitter data, and concluded that the existence of male Sanders supporters attacking Clinton with sexist language is real, but the numbers are small and dwarfed by the number of conservatives and Trump supporters attacking Clinton with such language.[42]" The Hillary campaign did the same thing in 2008 to 'Obama boys'. I don't agree with the apologia. It was used pretty much throughout the media and surrogates with no specifity, even throughout this thread. Its just a dumb tactic that seeks to make villains of supporters and potential allies...
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Just for one example, last night a bunch of Intercept acolytes went off on Marissa Johnson and Leslie Mac because they were offended by the existence of this thing. All I can think when I'm watching that poo poo unfold is "what is the goddamn point?" Besides harassing black women who didn't show proper deference to Our Lord and Savior, Bernie Sanders, that is. This toxic internet culture exists and it affects people; it's impossible to operate as an activist and not face its wrath, so yeah, distrust is kind of an obvious consequence. If people are being harassed over an innocent project (after reading the site I still don't know whats in the box though, besides probably safety pins) then thats worth complaining about, I'm talking more like a few pages back where I used "Virtue-Signaling" and immediately lost what little trust debaters on the opposite side had because Bad Men used that word. Those kind of purity tests and word landmines kind of repel people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I don't think one whose mind works like an idpol label maker works to consciously support neoliberalism. Anything inflammatory aside, this is a great point; Margaret Thatcher was a notoriously horrible leader that is still hated to this day. It was an accomplishment for a woman to become leader of a first world country, but this achievement has long since been overshadowed by her legacy. It doesn't appear uncommon for female british politicians to end up facing comparisons to her. Thats not to say "don't risk having women as leaders!", rather some credence to the argument that reaching the milestone is not enough to progress the cause or even crush the glass ceiling, they also must do a stellar job. I don't believe its unfair for fiscally left allies to show concern that Hillary wouldn't do enough financially to avoid the incoming disaster having more and more unemployed college graduates who somehow dont qualify for entry positions will cause in the future. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If people are being harassed over an innocent project (after reading the site I still don't know whats in the box though, besides probably safety pins) then thats worth complaining about, I'm talking more like a few pages back where I used "Virtue-Signaling" and immediately lost what little trust debaters on the opposite side had because Bad Men used that word. Those kind of purity tests and word landmines kind of repel people. People are complaining about the box because a $100 per month subscription to do some vague 'ally tasks', 'personal development', and 'radical compassion' doesn't sound innocent, it sounds like a scam to prey on well-meaning people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
The very fact that you felt necessary to state such an obvious thing is really a sign of the insane constellation current left discourse resides in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:
That's not quite the issue. The problem is that you should, as a leftist, always harbor a degree of suspicion when people bellow It's the Economy Stupid because it can and does enable a narrative that all social ills will go away if we just focus on economy/class issues. It's not even a conscious thing necessarily but rhetoric like this has been used in a number of developing nations over the course of the last hundred years to marginalize, sideline, or otherwide defang women's liberation movements and the like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:That's not quite the issue. The problem is that you should, as a leftist, always harbor a degree of suspicion when people bellow It's the Economy Stupid because it can and does enable a narrative that all social ills will go away if we just focus on economy/class issues. It's not even a conscious thing necessarily but rhetoric like this has been used in a number of developing nations over the course of the last hundred years to marginalize, sideline, or otherwide defang women's liberation movements and the like. In most western nations what you get most times tho is precisely the opposite: mainstream liberals and even some conservatives will gadly pay lip service to the full buffet of social struggle's while telling you structural (most times even superficial) economic changes are pipe dreams and that you should accept capitalism is here to stay or whatever and that we need just to tame it to be more 'inclusive'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
I imagine any Republican who read this thread would cackle mightily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I imagine any Republican who read this thread would cackle mightily. This thread started to become hilarious when communism/capitalism/marxism started entering the discussion and started pushing out people who were trying to talk about the popular perception of identity politics and the horrid voices/events making the various identities so toxic to people that Trump was acceptable since he was not supported by those groups. Progressive identity politics and the most rabid hypocritical supporters of it in the twittersphere/tumblrsphere have poisoned the idea for so many in recent years. I mean, it feels like I just stepped into the secret headquarters of the Something Awful Communist Party, and it is hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I mean, it feels like I just stepped into the secret headquarters of the Something Awful Communist Party, and it is hilarious. That's UKMT and it's not secret.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:[...] the horrid voices/events making the various identities so toxic to people that Trump was acceptable since he was not supported by those groups. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make - the people who supported Trump because of that were republicans. Unless again, you're saying that Hillary was such a lieberal, she turned out extra republicans to vote against her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If people are being harassed over an innocent project (after reading the site I still don't know whats in the box though, besides probably safety pins) then thats worth complaining about, I'm talking more like a few pages back where I used "Virtue-Signaling" and immediately lost what little trust debaters on the opposite side had because Bad Men used that word. Those kind of purity tests and word landmines kind of repel people. The box is a lame guilt trip and cash grab. I'm not sure anyone should be harassed over it, but telling someone their charity or product or whatever is a guilt trip and/or cash grab is also not harassment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:The problem is that you should, as a leftist, always harbor a degree of suspicion when people bellow It's the Economy Stupid because it can and does enable a narrative that all social ills will go away if we just focus on economy/class issues. This stupid poo poo again. Well if someone says that then we will tell them that just fixing the economy won't erase racism. Right? No I guess that won't work. We have to avoid addressing real problems because someone might pretend they are the only problems. What other area of life do you apply this to? Like you can't admit your house smells like poo poo because the trash can is full because that would justify the "narrative" that you don't actually need a shower? Mr. Belding fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:This thread started to become hilarious when communism/capitalism/marxism started entering the discussion and started pushing out people who were trying to talk about the popular perception of identity politics and the horrid voices/events making the various identities so toxic to people that Trump was acceptable since he was not supported by those groups. Progressive identity politics and the most rabid hypocritical supporters of it in the twittersphere/tumblrsphere have poisoned the idea for so many in recent years. How would you apply this same idea to say....gamergate? I'm super interested in your thoughts on that Pharohman777.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:I'm not saying it means nothing. But just as pointing out the popular vote is important, it's also important to point out that she lost a lot of states that Democrats had done well in recently. It's also important to point out that her popular vote advantage is, afaik, lower than Obama's in the two elections he did win. It is also worth pointing out that Trump was a candidate with a lot of weaknesses. Here's my problem with your entire post. You seem to have taken my whole post as a spirited defense of Clinton, for like the fourth time I am have no intention of defending her as a person or her lovely campaign. But I will mention that she won the popular vote, and I will mention that she won the nomination on the votes of minorities, because these are facts that need to be recognized by people scoffing at the concept of identity politics going forward. The basic problem is that when the choice was offered, Clinton or Sanders, Sanders proved to be a much more unpopular choice among most racial minorities in the country, especially African-Americans. It sucks sure, but I was hoping that would enough of a lesson towards people that you can't batter away at Economics to the exclusion of all else. Instead you don't seem to see the problem that somehow Clinton became the candidate for minorities, even though that makes no sense at all, and when Sanders was her opponent minorities mostly seemed to agree with that. You bemoan the Democratic Primary selection process, but as far as I'm concerned if a candidate who trying to run on a populist platform can't be, well, populist enough to outplay the stale career politician in a popularity contest then they've some serious problems that need to be addressed. The fact that he did worse than Clinton with minorities, significantly, is honestly pretty bad. Its silly to put down Clinton's problems to some overplaying of Identity Politics, she was a weak candidate regardless who is widely regarded as fake, bought out by corporate interests, entitled, corrupt, underhanded and even incompetent. She's been the target of absurd amounts of right-wing hatred for decades and that stuck harder than her supporters wanted to admit. It was ridiculous that she was the Democratic candidate at all considering her previous loss in 2008 and the weaknesses she had that everybody's known about for years and years. She didn't have anything approaching the charisma of either Bill or Obama, she was always going to find it very hard to win the election and the complacency that infected her campaign by the end only sealed the deal. Also, I'm not calling you a racist, but over the last year I can't help but perceive a certain amount of frustration directed at the various racial groups who mostly passed over Sanders as being rubes led astray by idpol, and that they are voting against their own interests. I don't think that will do anybody any favors and it needs to stop. The election almost made the division worse, since discussion about class in America still seems to be centered on the White working class specifically and their concerns, with little mention of, say the Black or Hispanic working class. Now again I'm not saying that White workers should be demonized and their concerns are real, but I feel that we really need to make absolutely clear that Economic justice really is for everybody and Social Justice won't be ignored or else the left is going to have difficulty gaining traction against the likes of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Oh what the gently caress is that poo poo. Of course black baby boomers didn't vote for Sanders. Boomers don't do anything right, ever, regardless of race (some of the older and fatter ones are starting to, though). Sanders lost because he started from way behind, and even if he'd found enough popular support he would have been crushed by superdelegates. He won because Hillary got her rear end beat by a loving cheetoh. The world will lose because for some reason an alarming number of democrats think that this is a good enough reason to continue business as usual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Oh what the gently caress is that poo poo. Of course black baby boomers didn't vote for Sanders. Boomers don't do anything right, ever, regardless of race (some of the older and fatter ones are starting to, though). Bizarre rant about Black Boomers aside, Sanders may have started on the back foot but opened with quite a splash in Iowa and New Hampshire. He just could not get through in the south. He also wasn't really able to make up for his shortcomings by the time of states like California when his name and positions were much better known.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
People keep pussyfooting around this. Let me be clear. Samantha Bee is the archetypal "All Bernie Bros are sexist racists" caricature (except that she actually exists and has a national platform, unlike the racist-sexist Bernie Bros she railed against) but while she was working to put the "bully" in Bully pulpit, she was also actively opposing school integration in her children's district. "Identity politics" are fine and good. All politics is local, so it makes sense to appeal to local constituencies. "The solution to all of our economics woes are more sexual, gender and ethnic minority CEOs" is not. The latter is what Neoliberals were (and are) pushing. Bill Clinton ran on "It's the economy, stupid." Reducing economic concerns to a matter of facile talking points doesn't appeal to anyone. Social justice is a necessary part of economic justice (and it has been historically undervalued). But you can't have social justice without economic justice. "Black Marxism" is an important canonical text because we need to incorporate racial justice into Marxism. On the other hand, Pentagonized racial justice is utterly hollow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Bizarre rant about Black Boomers aside, Sanders may have started on the back foot but opened with quite a splash in Iowa and New Hampshire. He just could not get through in the south. He also wasn't really able to make up for his shortcomings by the time of states like California when his name and positions were much better known. It was about all Boomers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Restrictive primary rules are bad, be like Nevada and just let any motherfucker change party and early vote in the primaries (only one vote for the primary, mind you).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:Hillary got her rear end beat by a loving cheetoh. The cheeto also received the most votes of any Republican ever. The only relevant state where he lost votes was Virginia. I don't see how "Hillary lost to a lovely candidate" means anything, unless you think Hillary lost by being so liberal she turned out republicans to vote against her. Trump should have been a lovely candidate, but he obviously wasn't since republicans still voted for him, and I blame republicans for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Pro tip, labeling anyone who isn't quite as left economically as you a neoliberal or at least a stooge of one is identity politics. Some people will advocate for specifically disadvantaged groups over class struggles. That's OK. Some people will advocate for class struggles over specifically disadvantaged groups. That's also OK. Anyone who thinks that their cause is so important that others have to be shamed for caring about something else more is silly. Not evil, not dumb, but silly. That goes both ways. Both sides of the primary had severe framing issues. I got called some really nasty things for pointing out how much of what was said about Hillary wasn't supported by facts. I got called some really nasty things for having a privileged identity and saying what I believed to be true when people were seeking validation not truth. I'm not a the-truth-is-in-the-middle rear end in a top hat but judging either group by the most extreme members is absurd. Part of this is structural. People tend to talk most about things that are divisive, since there is more to say in a back and forth than a number of people going "I agree." The internet allows for a greater pool of people to be in communication, so there is more ways to divide a group that's likely to be talking to each other. The news also focused far more on statements Hillary made about identity than anything she said about policy. Partly that's because it's divisive, partly it's because what people paid attention to, and partly it's because she didn't do a good job of communicating policy in a way that was important to people. Republicans also had a major emphasis on identity politics this go around, but had a lot more homogeneity in identity. It's also worth remembering that the election was so super close that probably just about everything that worked in Trumps favor was simultaneously responsible for being the decisive factor. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The basic problem is that when the choice was offered, Clinton or Sanders, Sanders proved to be a much more unpopular choice among most racial minorities in the country, especially African-Americans. It sucks sure, but I was hoping that would enough of a lesson towards people that you can't batter away at Economics to the exclusion of all else. Sanders talking about economics is probably not the reason Clinton got more minority votes. A larger reason is probably the fact that Bill Clinton is generally perceived as having a good relationship with black Americans. That and, of course, the fact that older voters tended to vote more for Clinton (since younger black Americans, IIRC, either voted more for Sanders or only slightly more for Clinton). More generally speaking, Clinton also enjoyed some pretty massive advantages over Sanders. The biggest one is simply the fact that she is more recognizable. So most low-info Democrat voters would have voted for her by default. And that's not even getting into the broader DNC/media support Clinton had. While it's impossible to know for sure what would have happened under different circumstances, it's definitely quite possible that the primary result would have been different if Clinton hadn't enjoyed these advantages. Shbobdb posted:"The solution to all of our economics woes are more sexual, gender and ethnic minority CEOs" is not. The latter is what Neoliberals were (and are) pushing. Eh, to be fair more diverse corporate executives is still an improvement over the status quo. I mean, obviously there are many other things that would be much better, but it's still a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Sanders talking about economics is probably not the reason Clinton got more minority votes. A larger reason is probably the fact that Bill Clinton is generally perceived as having a good relationship with black Americans. That and, of course, the fact that older voters tended to vote more for Clinton (since younger black Americans, IIRC, either voted more for Sanders or only slightly more for Clinton). Sanders talking about economics probably isn't, but Clinton having an established history of advocating for minority groups was a major contributing factor. From her working with black community leaders in NY, to consistently advocating for women and children, to her state department being the first way trans people were officially recognized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, to be fair more diverse corporate executives is still an improvement over the status quo. I mean, obviously there are many other things that would be much better, but it's still a good thing. It's a great thing! But it's not "top ten" list material, much less "the defining element of my plan for economic justice".
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 08:53
|
|