|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
Fulchrum posted:Are you seriously gonna try to claim that between the two, it was Hillary who spoke in broad, unrefined platitudes and an undifferentiated message? See Majorian's response above. In addition, Trump appealed to economic (as well as social) anxieties, even if it was a confused mess. The point is these voters could and did say "he feels my pain" even if it was bullshit.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Are you seriously gonna try to claim that between the two, it was Hillary who spoke in broad, unrefined platitudes and an undifferentiated message? Very few of the thousands of policy prescriptions that came out of her campaign were memorable. "Build the wall" may be the dumbest campaign promise any of us has ever heard (and God-willing, ever will), but it was memorable. I'm a massive policy nerd, and yet I can't remember more than a handful of some of the specific things she promised. Everything on her platform seemed like a watered-down version of what Sanders was offering, after being put through hundreds of focus groups. And she capped it all off with some of the most uninspiring campaign slogans I've ever seen. "Stronger together"? "America is already great"? I can't think of a clearer misreading of the political landscape. Clinton needed to be clear, consistent, and straightforward, and offer simple policy prescriptions. You can communicate nuance and not treat your voters like complete idiots, but your bottom line has to be as unmistakable as possible from the get-go, and it has to be as in-line with your stated principles as you can manage. She did not succeed at this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:She did, to a certain extent, but her message came out kind of confused and garbled. She said she was "going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," which reinforced the (unfair but strong) narrative that she was cold and uncaring towards people who had until not too long ago been strong union supporters and enthusiastic Democratic voters. quote:And we’re going to make it clear that we don’t want to forget those people. Those people labored in those mines for generations, losing their health, often losing their lives to turn on our lights and power our factories. If those people refused to listen to that part and only heard closing mines, why the hell do you think they'd suddenly start listening if she said GMI or mandatory union enrolment? MooselanderII posted:See Majorian's response above. In addition, Trump appealed to economic (as well as social) anxieties, even if it was a confused mess. The point is these voters could and did say "he feels my pain" even if it was bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:I'm not saying she didn't have economic plans, she did, but they are broad platitudes that didn't connect in the two states described. as I also stated, this was compounded further as she didn't put the work in to get these messages out. She put in tons of work to get these messages out. She has transcripts to many of her speeches on her website and they spell out things that she would like to do. Also no, the primaries are not completely distinct as many of the same people that vote in the primaries vote in the general election and they make a good show of what the Democratic base looks like. Hint: It's not white working class voters. Majorian posted:She did, to a certain extent, but her message came out kind of confused and garbled. She said she was "going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business," which reinforced the (unfair but strong) narrative that she was cold and uncaring towards people who had until not too long ago been strong union supporters and enthusiastic Democratic voters. She supported TPP, then was mealy-mouthed about it until way too late in the campaign for her to make a proper 180. And, of course, she had been sold, very explicitly, as a real, genuine "partner" in her husband's administration. So, fairly or unfairly, she is always going to be associated with some of the bad things that happened in the 90's. The name "Clinton' is always going to be associated, to some degree, with NAFTA. And in the Rust Belt, a lot of voters are always going to associate NAFTA with the end of their livelihoods and the downfall of their communities. So what happened that made them not strong union supporters and enthusiastic Democratic voters? What is the matter with Kansas anyways? I mean I see this kind of one-sided discussion coming from you that is all focusing on Rust Belt stuff focused on white working class voters. And the only defense I see about that is the "Obama Coalition" despite Obama doing his best when the economy tanked a little bit before the election and his support eroding throughout his tenure as the economy improved. Also no, many of these people had no idea what the ACA actually was and how it affected them. Many of them had no idea that the ACA and Obamacare were the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:See Majorian's response above. In addition, Trump appealed to economic (as well as social) anxieties, even if it was a confused mess. The point is these voters could and did say "he feels my pain" even if it was bullshit. Trump appealed to racial anxieties. You will notice how most people of color who were working class did not eat that poo poo up in the way that White people did. Majorian posted:Very few of the thousands of policy prescriptions that came out of her campaign were memorable. "Build the wall" may be the dumbest campaign promise any of us has ever heard (and God-willing, ever will), but it was memorable. I'm a massive policy nerd, and yet I can't remember more than a handful of some of the specific things she promised. Everything on her platform seemed like a watered-down version of what Sanders was offering, after being put through hundreds of focus groups. And she capped it all off with some of the most uninspiring campaign slogans I've ever seen. "Stronger together"? "America is already great"? I can't think of a clearer misreading of the political landscape. Ok, so just because you can't remember it, then it didn't happen? I think you are wrong. I think Clinton had a strong message that empowered many people of color, I just think you are blind to seeing it, either because you can't see it or you don't want to see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
What nuance is there in Medicare for all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Hillary Clinton, literally in her next two sentences after the killing mines thing. Do you really think anybody was going to remember what she said, right after saying the the mine-killing thing? Of course they weren't. Yes, the media should have played the whole clip and given more context when they reported on it endlessly, but the media are a bunch of amoral shitlords who want to sell the best story. Clinton made a big mistake saying what she said, and her next couple lines didn't do much to convincingly repair the damage. This was a self-inflicted wound, and it was symptomatic of the broader problems in her campaign. quote:If those people refused to listen to that part and only heard closing mines, why the hell do you think they'd suddenly start listening if she said GMI or mandatory union enrolment? They probably would have listened to those parts if she hadn't said that incredibly stupid thing about putting miners out of business first. You don't hand your opponents ammo. That is like political rule #1. quote:That Trumps nonsensical babbling Maybe the problem is that you're assuming everything Trump said was nonsensical babbling, as opposed to actually thinking about how what he said gave people hope. (hint: it wasn't ENTIRELY racist dogwhistles, although that was some of it)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Ok, so just because you can't remember it, then it didn't happen? I think you are wrong. I think Clinton had a strong message that empowered many people of color, I just think you are blind to seeing it, either because you can't see it or you don't want to see it. What was that message? And of course I want to see it. I want the Democrats to win in 2020; I'm completely willing to accept that Clinton did some things right, and I want to learn the right lessons from 2016. Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:
The majority of nonwhite (young) people I know did not trust Clinton at all to work to help them in any helpful way. She did a terrible job of convincing anyone she would fight for them, and that's why she had such a poo poo electoral result. Oh and Bernie lost to her in one of the least democratic parts of an already undemocratic system. Anyone who thinks he would have done worse than or the same as Hillary is deluding themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Do you really think anybody was going to remember what she said, right after saying the the mine-killing thing? Of course they weren't. Yes, the media should have played the whole clip and given more context when they reported on it endlessly, but the media are a bunch of amoral shitlords who want to sell the best story. Clinton made a big mistake saying what she said, and her next couple lines didn't do much to convincingly repair the damage. This was a self-inflicted wound, and it was symptomatic of the broader problems in her campaign. quote:They probably would have listened to those parts if she hadn't said that incredibly stupid thing about putting miners out of business first. You don't hand your opponents ammo. That is like political rule #1. quote:Maybe the problem is that you're assuming everything Trump said was nonsensical babbling, as opposed to actually thinking about how what he said gave people hope. (hint: it wasn't ENTIRELY racist dogwhistles, although that was some of it) Insightful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What was that message? The message that we all belong here in America no matter what color you are or what your gender is. I think the big thing that people miss is that tying yourself that close with a message about diversity will drag any campaign down considering the context of American racism and even then she still ended up with 2 million more votes. Even if you want to bring up Obama, look at how he tiptoed around race the whole time until near the end. Look at his speech on race and then compare it to Hillary's speech on race in Harlem. Keep in mind that he can't talk about as much as she can do to his race, but look at how he tries to tip toe around the topic, because he knows what's up. Where he tip toed around it, she embraced it, for better and worse. But look at the conversation now. It's not about chasing after more minorities and getting them to the polls in whatever way they can. It is all hand wringing about attracting white working class voters over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:She put in tons of work to get these messages out. She has transcripts to many of her speeches on her website and they spell out things that she would like to do. Also no, the primaries are not completely distinct as many of the same people that vote in the primaries vote in the general election and they make a good show of what the Democratic base looks like. Hint: It's not white working class voters. So basically you're saying "she told them to go to her web site! What more could they want???!" You're seriously claiming with a straight face that the primary and the general aren't distinct in a meaningful way? Primaries, depending on the state, can be closed elections for god's sake! It is at best a cross section of what a portion of the people you need to vote for you in the general looks like. Waaaaay more voters are up for grabs in the general that are not represented in the primary. So does Hillary or Trump winning their respective primaries mean that they are were both better general election candidates than their primary opponents? No, it means that they succeeded in the party controlled and arcane primary system is not representative of their chances in the general. I don't understand why you guys keep coming back to this, other than that it seems like a simple way to bless the primary system as bringing out the strongest candidates, which is incredibly naive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Fiction posted:The majority of nonwhite (young) people I know did not trust Clinton at all to work to help them in any helpful way. She did a terrible job of convincing anyone she would fight for them, and that's why she had such a poo poo electoral result. Ok, so you had to qualify your statement with young people while still ignoring that most people of color voted for Clinton. The only group Trump won consistently was white people. Also this is much bigger than "people I know". Also get out of here with that #Berniewouldhavewon garbage. Bernie Sanders lost one of the most core Democratic constituencies by a long shot. And he lost by 3 million votes. Not every primary was closed primaries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Except the polls suggested he had greater favor-ability with the american public?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Also the places Bernie did best were at the caucuses, the demonstrably least democratic form of primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:The message that we all belong here in America no matter what color you are or what your gender is. I think the big thing that people miss is that tying yourself that close with a message about diversity will drag any campaign down considering the context of American racism and even then she still ended up with 2 million more votes. Economic and social justice aren't mutually exclusive and ignoring one let's your opponent divide and conquer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:So basically you're saying "she told them to go to her web site! What more could they want???!" El Pollo Blanco posted:Truly the vast swathes of independent voters who self describe as 'moderate' or 'conservative' would have swung the primary for Bernie Sanders, if they could have voted in the closed primaries, yes. Is anyone going to address this, if Dem primaries were open, you'd probably end up with the moderate candidates just by average voter ideology. Democrat part members are the most liberal they've ever been, also: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:So basically you're saying "she told them to go to her web site! What more could they want???!" Actually, I am saying that the transcripts are on her website and the transcripts are of speeches that she actually made. It's nothing about her preaching about her website, and everything about her speeches giving people good ideas on what directions she wanted to go on different subjects. The only reason I mentioned transcripts is to show that she didn't talk about things the way that you are saying she did. No, they are not representative of their chances in the general. If they were, then we wouldn't hold caucuses. The point of the matter is that it is a way of getting the Democratic base to choose who they want to represent them. The Democratic base still votes in the general election. Now, take a wild guess who that Democratic base is evolving to be? Take a wild guess at the kind of people that helped shut Bernie away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:The message that we all belong here in America no matter what color you are or what your gender is. I think the big thing that people miss is that tying yourself that close with a message about diversity will drag any campaign down considering the context of American racism and even then she still ended up with 2 million more votes. It's an admirable message, and it's morally right. It definitely appeals to me. It certainly appealed to people where I live (California), and places like it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of places in the U.S. where that's not enough - places where that message felt like it ignored genuine misery and poverty.. As much as it sucks, those are places that decide presidential elections more than California or New York. e: And, more importantly, it's a message that only works particularly well if the candidate extends that message to as many people in the country as possible. (or at least all of the voting groups he or she is trying to court) The message that a lot of workers in the Rust Belt feel like they've been getting from centrist Dems for decades is, "You don't have a place in our 21st century vision of America. Die off already." quote:Where he tip toed around it, she embraced it, for better and worse. But look at the conversation now. It's not about chasing after more minorities and getting them to the polls in whatever way they can. It is all hand wringing about attracting white working class voters over and over again. Well, the reason why is because the Democrats likely aren't going to win in 2020 without getting at least a few of those white working class voters back. Which should be do-able. They voted for Obama, and while a lot of them may have unenlightened views about BLM, I don't buy the argument that this will forever prevent them from voting for an anti-racist candidate. Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Ok, so you had to qualify your statement with young people while still ignoring that most people of color voted for Clinton. The only group Trump won consistently was white people. Also this is much bigger than "people I know". Two years ago Bernie was literally the butt of political jokes as a disheveled Vermont socialist. He looked like he was primed to be another Kusinich protest run and I didn't think he would last past Iowa? The fact that he did as well as he did is pretty amazing, all things considered. I do not think there is any question that he lost and he lost hard. However, what is irritating is that despite his insurgent primary campaign, which should have been a sign of how the electorate felt, Hillary did not meaningfully incorporate any of the lessons she should have learned from that campaign. Lots of people were fed up and wanted something different, and so it is so frustrating to look at how Hillary squandered the opportunity to meaningfully incorporate some sort of lesson from the primary campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Is anyone going to address this, if Dem primaries were open, you'd probably end up with the moderate candidates just by average voter ideology. "Independent" is an amorphous term that has come to mean less and less as people increasingly don't register as either Democrats or Republicans. That said, I would agree that having an open primary would not necessarily pick the most left candidate. However, the point I was making is that the primary outcomes are not necessarily representative of general election electability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Except the polls suggested he had greater favor-ability with the american public? Ok, and? This says nothing. The more you tend to get attacked and the more people know about you, then the lower your favorability tends to get. MooselanderII posted:Economic and social justice aren't mutually exclusive and ignoring one let's your opponent divide and conquer. No they don't have to be. But this ignores how people have prioritized racism above economics and that any economic message that uplifts will become racialized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:
Okay, now we're back where we started. Read Majorian's post about Hillary's economic message again, he hits the nail on the head. Even you circled back to social justice when pressed on what her meaningful economic policies were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:
Man that Ronald Reagan is a dead end he couldn't even beat FORD for Gods sake!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:"Independent" is an amorphous term that has come to mean less and less as people increasingly don't register as either Democrats or Republicans. 63% of independents identify as either conservative or moderates, 22% identify as liberal. Independent voter ideology is pretty clear cut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's an admirable message, and it's morally right. It definitely appeals to me. It certainly appealed to people where I live (California), and places like it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of places in the U.S. where that's not enough - places where that message felt like it ignored genuine misery and poverty.. As much as it sucks, those are places that decide presidential elections more than California or New York. So you are perfectly fine with the message, but.... we need to cater the message to fit the racism of other folk. Meanwhile, people that are in much worse shape are ignored and not pandered to at all, yet they continue to vote for the Democrats economic and racial message. This is also ignoring all of the voter suppression that occurred in these regions. Also, another article about White working class voters? Nothing about voter suppression? Also, they voted for Obama, they can't possibly be racist is turning into "I have black friends!" or "My girlfriend is black!" MooselanderII posted:Two years ago Bernie was literally the butt of political jokes as a disheveled Vermont socialist. He looked like he was primed to be another Kusinich protest run and I didn't think he would last past Iowa? The fact that he did as well as he did is pretty amazing, all things considered. I do not think there is any question that he lost and he lost hard. However, what is irritating is that despite his insurgent primary campaign, which should have been a sign of how the electorate felt, Hillary did not meaningfully incorporate any of the lessons she should have learned from that campaign. Lots of people were fed up and wanted something different, and so it is so frustrating to look at how Hillary squandered the opportunity to meaningfully incorporate some sort of lesson from the primary campaign. He lost by 3 million votes. He didn't do okay. He got stomped. The race was over by Super Tuesday. Also, who are these people that wanted something different? What did they want different? Also, there it goes again. It isn't the electorate, it is a very specific part of the electorate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Man that Ronald Reagan is a dead end he couldn't even beat FORD for Gods sake! That's a loving dumb comparison, he was primarying the incumbent president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:So you are perfectly fine with the message, but.... we need to cater the message to fit the racism of other folk. In what way would we need to cater the message to fit the racism of other folk? I think clearly stating a progressive economic message, with conviction, would be enough to peel off a good chunk of those voters. It would have to be geared with their particular areas in mind, but I don't see being pro-union, pro-Medicare for all, pro-raising the minimum wage, pro-government investment in new industries for the Rust Belt, has to be something that "fits the racism of other folk."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Okay, now we're back where we started. Read Majorian's post about Hillary's economic message again, he hits the nail on the head. Even you circled back to social justice when pressed on what her meaningful economic policies were. Do you want me to do your homework for you? I even told you where you could look to find the actual transcripts of what she said in her speeches. Also, you didn't press me on anything. KomradeX posted:Man that Ronald Reagan is a dead end he couldn't even beat FORD for Gods sake! Ahh, a perfect example of racism in American politics! Thank you for making my point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In what way would we need to cater the message to fit the racism of other folk? I think clearly stating a progressive economic message, with conviction, would be enough to peel off a good chunk of those voters. It would have to be geared with their particular areas in mind, but I don't see being pro-union, pro-Medicare for all, pro-raising the minimum wage, pro-government investment in new industries for the Rust Belt, has to be something that "fits the racism of other folk." Actual, no I was using your argument against you. Now, while I think you do honestly mean well. I think you overlook at how much racism can sink perfectly good progressive policy. I think you believe that you can fit all of these people under one coalition, while I am making the argument that many of these people don't even think I am human and while they may ally briefly, they would not hesitate to throw me under a bus. Adding onto that, why should we be listening to these White Working Class voters? Why shouldn't we be listening to the people of color that are voting? Why shouldn't we be listening more to the black women that voted? Remember, they tried to save us from Trump. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Trump got a lower percentage of total votes than did Romney, so it's not really that important to convert his voters (though there's some sliver of them that you can, I'm sure) so much as it is to actually energize the people who abstained from the presidential election all together. Like with those ~90,000 ballots that left the president boxes blank in a state in which Trump won by ~12,000.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Actual, no I was using your argument against you. Now, while I think you do honestly mean well. I think you overlook at how much racism can sink perfectly good progressive policy. I think you believe that you can fit all of these people under one coalition, while I am making the argument that many of these people don't even think I am human and while they may ally briefly, they would not hesitate to throw me under a bus. Yet the Dems managed to perform this balancing act just fine in '08 and '12. The Rust Belt could possibly have gotten considerably more racist over the past four years, but I have to question the explanatory power of that hypothesis. Rust Belt communities have been unhappy about Democratic neoliberal policies for decades now, so it's not like it's the first time we've heard of it. Observers like Thomas Frank have been sounding the alarm for years: the Dems were losing important parts of their coalition, and were fiddling while Rome burned. I appreciate that you're taking me at my word and giving my motives the benefit of the doubt. I can understand at least some of why the idea of catering to racists is completely a non-starter for you. I'll never be able to fully understand it, because I am a white cishet Christian-left male who lives in California and has a job. I am basically privilege personified. Point is, I get that if I were in your shoes, I would feel as you do, in all likelihood. Particularly since the only reason why people in Ohio get to decide elections is because of a two-century old idiotic institution called the Electoral College. But I also know that things will not get better for PoCs while Trump and Sessions are in office. And I do not think we will get them out of office unless we show voters whose choices are likely to decide the next election that we give a poo poo about the parts of their grievances that ARE valid. (i.e.: health care premiums, cost of living, jobs) I could be totally wrong - God knows I was wrong about 2016's outcome. But that's a big part of why I'm convinced that a hard leftward push against the neoliberal inertia that has kept the Dem leadership from evolving is necessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
It's true that if progressives win elections in such a way where they end up owing that win in large part to people who are racist, even if nothing about their platform or rhetoric or anything else is itself racist, that's still going to pull the movement in a direction no one wants it to go. At the same time I'm interested in trying to get some people who are currently kinda racist, to kinda not be so racist, and you can't do that without engaging people. I'm all for targeting your messaging such you're saying the things that people care about to the people that care about it, but if it gets to the point where you're kinda sweeping poo poo under the rug then it's a problem and you've gone too far. I guess what I'm getting at is that if racists vote for progressives out of self interest, then they have to know when they're doing it that they're voting for a person and a movement that is absolutely not going to budge on whatever their pet racist cause is, whether it be shitcanning affirmative action or looking the other way with police brutality or whatever else. Not even an inch. Progressives need to make that clear and not allow for any ambiguity in the name of winning elections. If racists go to the polls and vote for progressives because they've fooled themselves in thinking (which is to say, because we've allowed them to) that the progressive movement is all about them getting a good deal on poo poo and to hell with the immigrants and black folks, then the progressive movement will fail even if the actual politicians aren't promoting any of that poo poo directly. It'll fail because it will be allowing the wrong expectations to take hold, and the backlash from that is inevitable. It will also fail because progressives of all ethnicities will find that they're in the company of a lot more racist shitheads than they signed on for, and moreover their leadership seems fine with that, and they'll lose enthusiasm and interest and stop going to the polls. And it's important to keep in mind that a lot of these people are really good at ignoring cognitive dissonance and only hearing the things they want to hear, so progressives really do need to go out of their way to make it clear that if you're a bit of a white-people-first sort of person, that progressives and leftists aren't your allies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
The Democrats will not lose votes by championing serious progressive policies. There's no need to do the Bernie bullshit and center whiteness, and there's no need to listen to the nimrods blaming "identity politics". Just go out there and say, yeah, one of the biggest problems facing this country right now is massive income inequality and god drat it, we are going to fix it. You do not need to abandon the base, you do not need to abandon a hard fight for minorities and social justice, but you pick up some white people who are in bad shape and aren't motivated one way or the other by humans outside their little bubbles. So why is there an argument in circles about this poo poo? Why do we need to endlessly defend the honor of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders? Literally the only thing stopping the Democrats from this is that the donors have them by the balls, but somehow people have their minds poisoned with this idea that giving a poo poo about Wall Street means we're giving a thumbs-up to racism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's true that if progressives win elections in such a way where they end up owing that win in large part to people who are racist, even if nothing about their platform or rhetoric or anything else is itself racist, that's still going to pull the movement in a direction no one wants it to go. At the same time I'm interested in trying to get some people who are currently kinda racist, to kinda not be so racist, and you can't do that without engaging people. I'm all for targeting your messaging such you're saying the things that people care about to the people that care about it, but if it gets to the point where you're kinda sweeping poo poo under the rug then it's a problem and you've gone too far. I guess what I'm getting at is that if racists vote for progressives out of self interest, then they have to know when they're doing it that they're voting for a person and a movement that is absolutely not going to budge on whatever their pet racist cause is, whether it be shitcanning affirmative action or looking the other way with police brutality or whatever else. Not even an inch. Progressives need to make that clear and not allow for any ambiguity in the name of winning elections. If racists go to the polls and vote for progressives because they've fooled themselves in thinking (which is to say, because we've allowed them to) that the progressive movement is all about them getting a good deal on poo poo and to hell with the immigrants and black folks, then the progressive movement will fail even if the actual politicians aren't promoting any of that poo poo directly. It'll fail because it will be allowing the wrong expectations to take hold, and the backlash from that is inevitable. It will also fail because progressives of all ethnicities will find that they're in the company of a lot more racist shitheads than they signed on for, and moreover their leadership seems fine with that, and they'll lose enthusiasm and interest and stop going to the polls.  on all counts. If the Dems can't simultaneously be the party of economic and racial/gender/sexual/religious justice, then it is time to abandon the Democratic Party. Our message must be one of justice for all, full stop - with those living under the most injustice taking first priority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yet the Dems managed to perform this balancing act just fine in '08 and '12. The Rust Belt could possibly have gotten considerably more racist over the past four years, but I have to question the explanatory power of that hypothesis. Rust Belt communities have been unhappy about Democratic neoliberal policies for decades now, so it's not like it's the first time we've heard of it. Observers like Thomas Frank have been sounding the alarm for years: the Dems were losing important parts of their coalition, and were fiddling while Rome burned. This isn't 08 and 12. Time is moving on, and it is leaving some of these people behind who will begin to promote more and more racial anxiety as they realize that they aren't going to the "face of America" anymore. I can also use your argument against you. If they were so against "neoliberal" policies, then why did they support Obama? Also, the Dems have been losing vital parts of their "coalition" since the Civil Rights Act was passed. But I say again, do people of color not make up the working class? Why do we not see this push against the "establishment" from them? Kilroy posted:It's true that if progressives win elections in such a way where they end up owing that win in large part to people who are racist, even if nothing about their platform or rhetoric or anything else is itself racist, that's still going to pull the movement in a direction no one wants it to go. At the same time I'm interested in trying to get some people who are currently kinda racist, to kinda not be so racist, and you can't do that without engaging people. I'm all for targeting your messaging such you're saying the things that people care about to the people that care about it, but if it gets to the point where you're kinda sweeping poo poo under the rug then it's a problem and you've gone too far. I guess what I'm getting at is that if racists vote for progressives out of self interest, then they have to know when they're doing it that they're voting for a person and a movement that is absolutely not going to budge on whatever their pet racist cause is, whether it be shitcanning affirmative action or looking the other way with police brutality or whatever else. Not even an inch. Progressives need to make that clear and not allow for any ambiguity in the name of winning elections. If racists go to the polls and vote for progressives because they've fooled themselves in thinking (which is to say, because we've allowed them to) that the progressive movement is all about them getting a good deal on poo poo and to hell with the immigrants and black folks, then the progressive movement will fail even if the actual politicians aren't promoting any of that poo poo directly. It'll fail because it will be allowing the wrong expectations to take hold, and the backlash from that is inevitable. It will also fail because progressives of all ethnicities will find that they're in the company of a lot more racist shitheads than they signed on for, and moreover their leadership seems fine with that, and they'll lose enthusiasm and interest and stop going to the polls. Yo..... I really like this message, but you need to let Bernie Sanders know this. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/326820-sanders-defends-trump-voters-i-dont-think-theyre-racists Just no.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The Democrats will not lose votes by championing serious progressive policies. There's no need to do the Bernie bullshit and center whiteness, and there's no need to listen to the nimrods blaming "identity politics". Just go out there and say, yeah, one of the biggest problems facing this country right now is massive income inequality and god drat it, we are going to fix it. You do not need to abandon the base, you do not need to abandon a hard fight for minorities and social justice, but you pick up some white people who are in bad shape and aren't motivated one way or the other by humans outside their little bubbles. You just said not to do bernie bullshit though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:You just said not to do bernie bullshit though? I mean like the thing blackguy32 just linked above, or more generally, running campaigns that downplay race, gender, sexuality, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:You just said not to do bernie bullshit though? Except Bernie is centering Whiteness. Notice how he keeps saying the Democrats hosed up by not going after White Working class voters, while pretty much making the people that did support Hillary Clinton invisible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Except Bernie is centering Whiteness. Notice how he keeps saying the Democrats hosed up by not going after White Working class voters, while pretty much making the people that did support Hillary Clinton invisible? The word "white" doesn't appear in your own article, though. He says democrats hosed up by not going after working class voters period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:18
|
|