|
I think the biggest things I see are that the left is trying to discredit Hillary Clinton in any way they can and the way that Bernie Sanders treated the South after he was defeated there which definitely plays into his "white working class" narrative that he is trying to set up, which gives a clear picture as to what his priorities are.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think the biggest things I see are that the left is trying to discredit Hillary Clinton in any way they can and the way that Bernie Sanders treated the South after he was defeated there which definitely plays into his "white working class" narrative that he is trying to set up, which gives a clear picture as to what his priorities are. With all due respect, in complete earnest, and with genuine curiosity: Why do you think the "white working class" narrative is resonating with young minorities of all colors and creeds? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:With all due respect, in complete earnest, and with genuine curiosity: Why do you think the "white working class" narrative is resonating with young minorities of all colors and creeds? Resonating in what sense? Young minorities aren't really included in that "white working class" narrative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:With all due respect, in complete earnest, and with genuine curiosity: Why do you think the "white working class" narrative is resonating with young minorities of all colors and creeds? Somehow I get the feeling that you are only using that one poll that showed Sanders beating Clinton by like 6 points, while ignoring that 1) only 3 percent of them voted 2) that when you take into account all of the other age groups and the ones that voted by quite a bit more, Sanders got trounced by 40-50 points. This needs another talking point. Morby posted:Resonating in what sense? Young minorities aren't really included in that "white working class" narrative. He's talking about the young minorities that voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
What states could Bernie have won in the South, realistically? I could maybe see Oklahoma or New Mexico going for it
weak wrists big dick fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
The common non-insane answer to that is usually something like "He would have won PA, WI, and MI and everything else would have stayed the same, which would be a narrow win for him" which is probably at least plausible. Maine's fourth vote might have gone to him as well. Of course, VA, NV, and NM might have been much more vulnerable to flipping red, so  I liked a lot of what Bernie had to say, and tend to think a lot of criticism toward him should be more directed at his batshit insane supporters, but him talking mostly about the white working class and the "Oh yeah, this will totally help minorities too!" attitude was a massive warning flag that should not in any way be discounted, and I feel like a lot of his supporters do just that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:What states could Bernie have won in the South, realistically? I could maybe see Oklahoma or New Mexico going for it Bernie won Oklahoma, but im not sure if you would count that as the South or as the Midwest. I guess West Virginia would count as the South. Edit: I thought you meant the primary, but you really mean the general. My thought? I think he would have lost many of the same states, especially as soon as any kind of oppositional research was done on him. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
weak wrists big dick posted:What states could Bernie have won in the South, realistically? I could maybe see Oklahoma or New Mexico going for it Neither of those are culturally part of the Deep/Solid South, which is basically the states that formed the Confederacy in the Civil War. I don't realistically think Bernie could've won any of those states out from under Trump in the general, the palpable racism in Trump's campaign was far too strong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:The common non-insane answer to that is usually something like "He would have won PA, WI, and MI and everything else would have stayed the same, which would be a narrow win for him" which is probably at least plausible. Maine's fourth vote might have gone to him as well. Not to mention that some of the supporters mobilized and working in his name do stupid bullshit like accuse John Lewis of being a useless, corporate shill Democrat because he won't join their stupid "revolution".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Somehow I get the feeling that you are only using that one poll that showed Sanders beating Clinton by like 6 points, while ignoring that 1) only 3 percent of them voted 2) that when you take into account all of the other age groups and the ones that voted by quite a bit more, Sanders got trounced by 40-50 points. This needs another talking point. Actually, I'm talking about support among minorities for single-payer, leftist policies, and Bernie Sanders (who sits at double the democratic parties' overall approval rating right now). It wasn't really a question aimed at relitigating the primaries. Hillary's a Dukakis now, what's important is moving on. I would appreciate a real answer, I'm not here to be adversarial. E: doing some household chores at-the-moment, but this poll from January/February was the first result on google: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/189263/clinton-sanders-images-across-racial-ethnic-groups.aspx It supports the notion that Sanders didn't fail to entice older black democrats, they simply had a first choice that wasn't him. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Actually, I'm talking about support among minorities for single-payer, leftist policies, and Bernie Sanders (who sits at double the democratic parties' overall approval rating right now). Minority voters, in general, like most Americans, will support left-wing progressive policy when it is presented to them as an idea. What they tend not to support is white politicians presenting progressive policy for white people only, which has been a severe historical problem for the United States. Please repeat after me: the New Deal and the GI Bill were the bedrock of the '50s-'70s halcyon days of the manufacturing middle class of white suburbanites, and it only passed legislative muster because it was both legally and in practice denied to black Americans and mostly only for men. Leftist public policy with broad white support collapsed after the Civil Rights Movement and it isn't a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Actually, I'm talking about support among minorities for single-payer, leftist policies, and Bernie Sanders (who sits at double the democratic parties' overall approval rating right now). Bernie Sanders is not running for office, Single Payer is not coming up for a vote, nor are leftist policies. All that poo poo polled great and when push came to shove, nobody voted for it. That's before even getting into how support for those policies begin to crater once details are worked out more and begin to crater even more when people discover that minorities will also benefit from them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Bernie Sanders is not running for office, Single Payer is not coming up for a vote, nor are leftist policies. All that poo poo polled great and when push came to shove, nobody voted for it. That's before even getting into how support for those policies begin to crater once details are worked out more and begin to crater even more when people discover that minorities will also benefit from them. Why aren't you willing to answer me? I'm not attacking you, I just want to know why Sanders has appeal to young minorities if he's pedaling a White Working Class narrative. That was the scope of my question. E: I won't even post a response to your answer, I just want to hear an explanation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Why aren't you willing to answer me? I'm not attacking you, I just want to know why Sanders has appeal to young minorities if he's pedaling a White Working Class narrative. That was the scope of my question. Because minorities aren't a monolith or a hive mind and strategic voting exists? There's a shitload of answers to this question and a lot of them don't support your implied thesis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Because minorities aren't a monolith or a hive mind and strategic voting exists? There's a shitload of answers to this question and a lot of them don't support your implied thesis. When did I say they were a monolith? I only said that Bernie Sanders and his policies appeal to young minority groups, as shown in polls both during the elections and now. If there's a shitload of answers then it seems like that would just make answering the question easier: pick one. I'l repeat that once an answer is given I'l quietly step out, I'm not looking for an argument, just a perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Why aren't you willing to answer me? I'm not attacking you, I just want to know why Sanders has appeal to young minorities if he's pedaling a White Working Class narrative. That was the scope of my question. Because they are allowed to like different things. Maybe because they are in college and don't have careers yet. Maybe they are naive. There are many things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Because they are allowed to like different things. Maybe because they are in college and don't have careers yet. Maybe they are naive. There are many things. That's not exactly an answer, but I see that it's a sensitive topic, so I'l set it aside. Support for him cratered past the age of 29 for the same as every other race (including white); 30 year olds right now aren't feeling as pressured financially as younger generations, and have been more susceptible to anti-socialist rhetoric. I'm sure there are other reasons unique to each demographic (for example, Clintons had a federal position that allowed them the ability to appeal to certain groups across the country, and [this isn't a critique, it's 100% A Good Thing] used it to appeal to disenfranchised black communities and their leaders, which younger black americans may be less attached to nowadays thanks to the Internet), but those are the ones I notice most frequently in general and on anti-sanders forums. Speaking of age demographics, Sanders' approval is actually raising among older voters, so that's pretty hopeful for some strong change if we get a leftist candidate in 2020  Alright, I'l see myself out now. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:That's not exactly an answer, but I see that it's a sensitive topic, so I'l set it aside. It's like you didn't learn anything from that interview at all. Bernie had a federal position too and he chose to just ignore black people and then criticize them when they didn't vote the way he wanted them to. Even after the election he kept putting his foot in his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:With all due respect, in complete earnest, and with genuine curiosity: Why do you think the "white working class" narrative is resonating with young minorities of all colors and creeds? I think, and this has been expressed better elsewhere, that these minorities feel marginalized (and they are.) While I am white it was Bernie's message of going after the 1% and giving us our fair share that resonated most with me. Young minorities may have voted for Bernie because his socialist message of equality appealed to them. Minority youth are some of the biggest victims of capitalism. But to be honest the outrage from the Berners when BLM seized his mic that one time and talked to him about issues should have been the red flag that told me what this political analyst is saying now. Bernie seeming to LISTEN to BLM and occasionally mention minority issues after BLM did that comforted me. But it might have been more white people pandering to sympathetic whites. All talk and no plans for action. I'm not immune to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Jenner posted:I think, and this has been expressed better elsewhere, that these minorities feel marginalized (and they are.) While I am white it was Bernie's message of going after the 1% and giving us our fair share that resonated most with me. Young minorities may have voted for Bernie because his socialist message of equality appealed to them. Minority youth are some of the biggest victims of capitalism. If Bernie runs again in 2020 (or anoints someone) this issue will bury him again. He doesn't have a solid track record of reaching out to minorities. When he does address us, it's fine, but then he turns around and decries "identity politics". The fact of the matter is that you cannot win the DNC without winning POC. He has not done anything to convince me that he won't give me more of the same "but more water in, and all the boats will rise" garbage, especially not when compared to what HRC has done for decades. She hasn't been perfect, but she got it right more often than not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/marcushjohnson/status/846871496496742400
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
There is an interesting pathology on who "really" counts as working class, not just on racial grounds but also in terms of sex, age, and (to a more limited extent) sexual orientation. "Black" jobs like the Post Office or other low-level government jobs, farm workers, housekeepers, pink-collar retail jobs, food service jobs- none of these "count" as being working class in mainstream politics, it seems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Working class means a middle-aged white man in a t-shirt and baseball cap with a beard or mustache looking sad and standing next to a shed with a dirt driveway leading to it. One of his items of clothing is American-flag-based. His blue jeans are faded to like powder-blue levels. Nothing else counts as working class. Newsweek has been very clear on this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
e: purged by reasonable request
Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
e: purged by reasonable request
Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Can y'all not drag primary chat into here please?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
That interview has a lot of good points, but it also rubs me the wrong way: while he doesn't have the stones to say it outright, he implies that the base of PoC will be alienated by leftism, and I think that's total bullshit. The Bernie Brand, or any other form of white-centered "socialism" might not be a winning strategy, but Cory Booker isn't either. [edit: oh my god, please tell me that author ironically labeled himself an Uber driver] BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:That interview has a lot of good points, but it also rubs me the wrong way: while he doesn't have the stones to say it outright, he implies that the base of PoC will be alienated by leftism, and I think that's total bullshit. The Bernie Brand, or any other form of white-centered "socialism" might not be a winning strategy, but Cory Booker isn't either. That's not how I interpreted his point. What I got from it is not that POC will be alienated by leftism, but more so that POC have a history of being left behind by things that were meant to address universal issues. Think about stuff like the GI Bill. It helped a ton of white folks, but POC were deliberately excluded. There are countless examples of this happening over the history of this country. POC are wary of that happening again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
It's not only that, but he also notes how quickly the left was willing to turn on the very people that were trying hard to help minorities. Some of them are still attacking Hillary Clinton as if the election is still occurring, others started eviscerating identity politics the next day after the election. He is clearly laying out that when it comes to their own economic interests, the general interests of people of color can go by the wayside. Reading his twitter posts is gold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
The idea that the left can achieve ~true socialism~ in the US if only we'd drop that pesky identity politics junk really needs to die in a fire, imo. If it isn't actually helping people other than the "white working class" then it isn't really progressive, at all. Fajita Queen fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
The Shortest Path posted:The idea that the left can achieve ~true socialism~ in the US if only we'd drop that pesky identity politics junk really needs to die in a fire, imo. This. Identity politics are a key part of this country's founding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Morby posted:If Bernie runs again in 2020 (or anoints someone) this issue will bury him again. He doesn't have a solid track record of reaching out to minorities. When he does address us, it's fine, but then he turns around and decries "identity politics". So long as racist liberals continue to dismiss anything that has anything remotely to do with people who aren't white or abled it's gonna be decried as divisive identity politics. Racism is loving strong. It's not identity politics if it pursues white interests. "...Pernicious is the idea that "identity politics" was a problem that cost us the election. Those "identity politics" are what some of us refer to as our civil rights. Saying we need to scrap that has two problems: (1) it trades away our safety and security for the sake of being on a "winning team" again, and (2) it treats this like a zero-sum game, as if progress on civil rights and acceptance of minorities means that we can't do anything about economic inequality or problems the working class face. Both problems have the same origin: this idea that some of us have to sacrifice our concerns so that our 'team' is back in the game -- it also ignores the fact that Trump extensively used identity politics, just the sort that capitalizes on fear of Hispanics, immigrants, Muslims, etc... Saying that we're the ones who need to drop identity politics is telling Muslims and Jews who fear for our safety whenever we go to services, transgendered people who fear for their safety every time they just want to take a piss, Black people who fear for their life every time they encounter the police... it's telling us that we should just set aside our concerns for our own well-being for... what? Getting more people in office who ignore us? To keep quiet in hopes that they'll come back around for us? So reject the idea that we have to sacrifice one right for another. I do believe there was a significant problem that Democrats didn't develop a clear and coherent economic message -- and that's the fault of not having a clear and coherent economic message, not because there was too much concern about the rights and protections of vulnerable minorities. Sanders supporters should definitely understand this -- his economic message was never dampened by his repeated and vocal criticisms of Trump's racism and bigotry, nor by Sanders' own support of civil rights." Sorry for the long post. Jenner fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Reminder: https://twitter.com/marcushjohnson/status/842850243892850690
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
I think this is the important thing to take away from that interview. https://twitter.com/marcushjohnson/status/847073051699220481 To me, this poo poo feels like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Many of us don't give a poo poo about "establishment" politics. We don't care about destroying the Democrats. We most likely won't care about any of that until our basic physiological needs are met. I posted the interview on my facebook and had an old friend from college get mad at me for the interview calling white people racist, yet he had some mixed up priorities because he was all about getting rid of "establishment" Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/eclecticbrotha/status/847110016989630464
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think this is the important thing to take away from that interview. Same in, at least my LGBTQ, community. Don't get me wrong we don't want people taking money from bankers either but first we have to establish our right to exist!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Jenner posted:It's not identity politics if it pursues white interests. This was pointed out in the quote in your post, but pursuit of white interests is identity politics. It's white identity politics. blackguy32 posted:To me, this poo poo feels like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Many of us don't give a poo poo about "establishment" politics. We don't care about destroying the Democrats. We most likely won't care about any of that until our basic physiological needs are met. Yeah, I get extremely angry at the far-left people going on about tearing the Democratic Party down and bringing the "Revolution". That is the sort of thinking you have when you're young and naive, or you're privileged enough that you count on surviving the process of "revolution" and rebuilding. Trump's election is having and will have massive negative repercussions on minority communities, up to and including more people literally dying. In the face of that, arguments about which imperceptibly more liberal person is DNC chair or whether the specific wording of Democratic Politician [X]'s latest speech is aggressive enough towards big bankers are all pretty drat irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
ATP5G1 posted:This was pointed out in the quote in your post, but pursuit of white interests is identity politics. It's white identity politics. That's what he was saying, using sarcasm, so we all agree. Socially dominant viewpoints have a nasty habit of considering themselves universal, which is the problem. I got into a brief fight about this back after the election, and as I argued that catering to white/male identity harmed working class solidarity as a whole, the "get identity politics out of the activism" positioned shifted to "why can't we have both identity politics and class politics" by the end of it, and I kind of balked. I think it's clear where the priorities lie for a lot of these folks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Octatonic posted:That's what he was saying, using sarcasm, so we all agree. Socially dominant viewpoints have a nasty habit of considering themselves universal, which is the problem. It's such obvious bullshit and I have no idea how to make headway against that attitude, or even how to outflank it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Neither of those are culturally part of the Deep/Solid South, which is basically the states that formed the Confederacy in the Civil War. To add to this... Historically one of the main ways that 'socialism' was crippled in the past in the US was by attaching to it the image of non-whites benefiting from it. One of the most effective weapons against social safety nets was that of the 'Welfare Queen'. An phrase that almost automatically generates one image above all else: An African-American single mother with multiple kids, of which at least one is a 'crack baby', of course. Things like this are why progress is going to be slow, because the knee-jerk reaction types are easily primed to go out and vote regressive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 02:01
|
|
