|
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 | ||
|
Ferrinus posted:The word "white" doesn't appear in your own article, though. He says democrats hosed up by not going after working class voters period. I mean dogwhistles don't usually espouse racism directly, but we all know what they are talking about. There is a reason he said that and there is a reason he referred to Trump Voters.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I mean dogwhistles don't usually espouse racism directly, but we all know what they are talking about. There is a reason he said that and there is a reason he referred to Trump Voters. Racism obviously made up a lot of Trump's appeal and the statement "Trump voters aren't racists" is, strictly speaking, a lie. It seems, however, that there are reasons other than faith in white supremacy that a politician might decide not to call everyone who voted for their opponent a racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Racism obviously made up a lot of Trump's appeal and the statement "Trump voters aren't racists" is, strictly speaking, a lie. It seems, however, that there are reasons other than faith in white supremacy that a politician might decide not to call everyone who voted for their opponent a racist. This is very true. But where is that love for people of color? Why are we never centered in these discussions? Not only that, but look how the criticism isn't of Trump and his horrendous agenda, but rather the people that actually incorporated minorities into their platform and ran on it. So I get where he is coming from, but at the same time, I don't buy it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
The Sanders narrative suggests that the people have entirely lost control of the Democratic Party, that it serves only the "liberal elite," and that it requires a fundamental restructuring. That's not a view that's really going to be shared among most PoC over 35. Sanders is very, very good at pointing out the failures of the Democrats, but at the same time is very, very bad at recognizing their successes, particularly their successes on local levels. I like Bernie quite a bit for his leftism, but he just does not understand a huge portion of the base, and he's also making little effort to communicate with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted: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. That's hardly a message that Democrats can win with, though. Realistically, we still need their votes, whether you or I like it or not. Plus, there are a lot of minorities who live in Flint and Canton and Geary. Are we supposed to tell them to just hurry up and die, too? IMO, these are all people who have been hosed over by capitalism. That's something we need to fight against, and we need to be prepared to show solidarity with people who we might otherwise find pretty execrable. quote: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. Obama didn't run as a neoliberal, though. He ran on things like strengthening Medicare and Medicaid, opposed any time of social security privatization, and promised a strong public option for health care reform. Stuff like TPP and the sequester didn't really show up until his second term. Plus look at how he ran against Romney in 2012. He portrayed Romney as the rich white guy who fired your dad. That played well in the Rust Belt. It shouldn't have been too hard to have done the same thing to Trump. You're right that the Dems have been losing parts of their coalition since the Civil Rights Act passed, but if the American political system has changed since 2008, it's certainly changed since 1964. The country's a lot more politically polarized and tribal than it's ever been. Johnson had northeastern liberal Republicans willing to jump ship, to make up for the southern Democrats he lost. The Democrats today don't have anyone to reliably fill the gap. No one's going to cross over from the Republican side of the aisle. quote: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? That's a very good question, and it's one that I don't entirely know the answer to. I think the Clintons did some good things for minorities in the 90's, and they deserve credit for it. They also made a lot of inveterate old white racists very, very angry, and it's pretty hard for me to blame black people for loving them for that. But I also think name recognition played a huge role. Most people, regardless of their race or ethnicity, don't delve too deeply into politics. Name recognition counts for a lot. I also think that minorities, particularly really underprivileged ones like black people, tend to vote for the primary candidate that they think is the safest bet for winning. That makes perfect sense to me; why the hell would you risk throwing away your vote on a candidate who's probably not going to win, when a Republican winning could put your livelihood and your life in very real danger? The problem is, backing the establishment only works from that perspective when they're any good at winning. Unfortunately, the establishment Democrats are pretty bad at it right now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
You can say that Sanders was tone deaf about race as much as you want but lol at the meme that a campaign that wanted to remove most of the limits on abortion, among other things, was somehow worse about gender and sexuality than a campaign that was willing to renegotiate on abortion to get republicans on board and that consistently failed to resonate with women under 60.quote:Plus look at how he ran against Romney in 2012. He portrayed Romney as the rich white guy who fired your dad. There were already signs the GOP was planning to jam into Clinton hard with the same line of attack before Trump even started his primary run. That they not only failed to avoid it but doubled down makes it hard to think her run was powered by much more than the hubris of someone who saw it as a career achievement above all and was too insulated from any negative consequences to give a poo poo when things started falling apart. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The word "white" doesn't appear in your own article, though. He says democrats hosed up by not going after working class voters period. Pretty sure 'blackguy32' only has one identity and will interpret everything through that lens. Any conversation that doesn't address race first and foremost is going to fall on deaf ears. The Democratic Party is going to rip apart at the seams between the people who want to put economic justice first and blackguy32s race first faction. The elites that actually hold all the power will attach themselves to whichever side looks like its going to come out on top and/or is dumb enough not to notice the same old leeches are still in charge and still not doing anything. Its a massive political realignment, and I dont think theres enough good will to keep everyone on the same side. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I really like this message, but you need to let Bernie Sanders know this. I get what he's trying to do - he's trying to engage them, not cater to their racism. But he's going about it the wrong way. We can't allow Trump voters to absolve themselves of what they've done, and if they want us as allies I think there needs to be some contrition on their part. Not for not voting for Hillary of course, but for voting for Trump which is morally wrong even if the alternative is her. Letting them get away with "oh well I was just frustrated with all my economic anxiety  " sends exactly the message I was warning against. If I run into Bernie Sanders or whatever I'll be sure to let him know  If it makes you feel any better he's too drat old to be the center of gravity for the progressive movement for much longer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:This is very true. But where is that love for people of color? Why are we never centered in these discussions? Not only that, but look how the criticism isn't of Trump and his horrendous agenda, but rather the people that actually incorporated minorities into their platform and ran on it. Both Sanders and Clinton incorporated minorities and minority rights into their platforms. Sanders was the guy who actually invited BLM protesters up onto the stage and gave them the mic when they challenged one of his rallies, as I recall. Criticism of the DNC establishment and its campaign isn't a criticism of antiracist politics unless you've already bought the line that the center has a monopoly on social justice. As far as I recall neither candidate actually called for reparations or was even particularly noisy about affirmative action, so it's not like either was entirely satisfactory, but I don't think one was substantially worse than the other on the issue (actually I would put it to you that Clinton was worse in absolute terms because of her unwillingness (relative to Sanders, at least) to expand the welfare state, but that's a separate discussion). Like, whoever won the democratic primary would have been the general election candidate who actually incorporated minorities into their platform and therefore spawned arguments about the effectiveness/liability of running a racial justice platform in the event of their win or loss. On the second point, Trump wasn't some kind of silver-tongued devil or political genius whose spell over the populace needs to be broken, and simply talking about how bad Trump is and how little like him you are has proven repeatedly to be a losing strategy. Clinton lost because of Democrat/independent disengagement, not Republican engagement, and if we don't want to just keep handing Republicans more and more power we have to figure out what the left is failing to do. So, I think "the Republicans didn't win, the Democrats lost" is both cogent analysis and a good message going forward; it has the chance to get leftists and independents disgusted with the democrats back on the democrats' sides, and it even gives any right wingers who experience moments of clarity or moral crises an easier-to-stomach path to voting for progressive politicians.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Both Sanders and Clinton incorporated minorities and minority rights into their platforms. Sanders was the guy who actually invited BLM protesters up onto the stage and gave them the mic when they challenged one of his rallies, as I recall. Contrast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLPOotPu_RE
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I mean dogwhistles don't usually espouse racism directly, but we all know what they are talking about. There is a reason he said that and there is a reason he referred to Trump Voters. bernie's dogwhistling? you might wanna take a few breaths
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
What makes an "independent," at this point, is that you either simply do not give a gently caress about the lives of minorities, or that you're too stupid to recognize what your vote means to them. It's absurd that it's come to that, but you have to have a race-independent message for them if you want to win. As I've said, though, that absolutely 100% does not mean abandoning the core messages, because I don't think people are pushed away by it, but that it simply does not register as politically important. This sort of view explains the flipped Obama voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's hardly a message that Democrats can win with, though. Realistically, we still need their votes, whether you or I like it or not. Plus, there are a lot of minorities who live in Flint and Canton and Geary. Are we supposed to tell them to just hurry up and die, too? IMO, these are all people who have been hosed over by capitalism. That's something we need to fight against, and we need to be prepared to show solidarity with people who we might otherwise find pretty execrable. So we should pander to racists with the hopes of winning their votes, even though it has clearly been shown that they won't vote for us. No. I will not be held hostage by some racists. We as a people have suffered long, we can suffer for longer for true equality. And yes, there are plenty of minorities that live in those cities, it's a shame that many of their colleagues think they can get hosed when it comes to their economic well-being. And no, gently caress showing solidarity with people who don't think I am human. I think that is your privilege talking making a statement like that. quote:Obama didn't run as a neoliberal, though. He ran on things like strengthening Medicare and Medicaid, opposed any time of social security privatization, and promised a strong public option for health care reform. Stuff like TPP and the sequester didn't really show up until his second term. Plus look at how he ran against Romney in 2012. He portrayed Romney as the rich white guy who fired your dad. That played well in the Rust Belt. It shouldn't have been too hard to have done the same thing to Trump. I wonder who else promised all that and promised a continuation of Obama's term. Also, I wonder why Obama kept losing support over the years from some of these groups. quote:You're right that the Dems have been losing parts of their coalition since the Civil Rights Act passed, but if the American political system has changed since 2008, it's certainly changed since 1964. The country's a lot more politically polarized and tribal than it's ever been. Johnson had northeastern liberal Republicans willing to jump ship, to make up for the southern Democrats he lost. The Democrats today don't have anyone to reliably fill the gap. No one's going to cross over from the Republican side of the aisle. This is what I am talking about. This is the attitude that leads to people throwing minorities under the bus. There are plenty of minorities out there that can't vote for various reasons. Perhaps we should try reaching out to them a bit more instead of doubling down on fickle WWC voters who will jump ship the instant things start working out for them. quote:That's a very good question, and it's one that I don't entirely know the answer to. I think the Clintons did some good things for minorities in the 90's, and they deserve credit for it. They also made a lot of inveterate old white racists very, very angry, and it's pretty hard for me to blame black people for loving them for that. But I also think name recognition played a huge role. Most people, regardless of their race or ethnicity, don't delve too deeply into politics. Name recognition counts for a lot. I also think that minorities, particularly really underprivileged ones like black people, tend to vote for the primary candidate that they think is the safest bet for winning. That makes perfect sense to me; why the hell would you risk throwing away your vote on a candidate who's probably not going to win, when a Republican winning could put your livelihood and your life in very real danger? The problem is, backing the establishment only works from that perspective when they're any good at winning. Unfortunately, the establishment Democrats are pretty bad at it right now. Just stop. Name recognition doesn't mean poo poo if you don't recognize why they deserve recognition in the first place. Seriously, I want you to sit down and watch Hillary's speech on Harlem. Then realize that even if people didn't watch that speech, that the fact she is the type of person to make that speech despite her position in life speaks volumes for why Black people trust and support her. Why do you think the Clintons have such a good record among black people? Also, I know you were around for 2008, when the safe bet was on Hillary Clinton winning the primary, so why did they switch over to Barack Obama? You know the answer. But I said it in TGRS, and I will say it here. This poo poo is like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Many of us don't give a poo poo about "establishment" politics. We care about our physiological needs, and until those needs are met, we will continue not to care about establishment politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:So we should pander to racists with the hopes of winning their votes, even though it has clearly been shown that they won't vote for us. No. I will not be held hostage by some racists. We as a people have suffered long, we can suffer for longer for true equality. And yes, there are plenty of minorities that live in those cities, it's a shame that many of their colleagues think they can get hosed when it comes to their economic well-being. And no, gently caress showing solidarity with people who don't think I am human. I think that is your privilege talking making a statement like that. why not if pandering to them falls within our ideology? if improved healthcare pulls in these former obama voters what's the harm? likewise we need to be doing a hell of a lot more for the black community than the dems have. poo poo like rahm emmanuel getting in the way of justice should not be happening, and I really wish he would be expelled from the party for that poo poo (if it were possible) p.s. if we're not pandering to these people, someone else will be. and that someone else is the KKK, who knows pandering will grow their ranks rapidly. let's not cede ideological ground to the extreme right even more than we have Condiv fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
You fuckers are going to lose in 2018 and 2020 and be proud of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:What makes an "independent," at this point, is that you either simply do not give a gently caress about the lives of minorities, or that you're too stupid to recognize what your vote means to them. It's absurd that it's come to that, but you have to have a race-independent message for them if you want to win. As I've said, though, that absolutely 100% does not mean abandoning the core messages, because I don't think people are pushed away by it, but that it simply does not register as politically important. This sort of view explains the flipped Obama voters. Hey, uh, not to shatter your world view or anything, but most people absolutely do not give a gently caress about the lives of minorities. Not in the slightest. And most minorities absolutely do not give a gently caress about the lives of *other* minorities. In fact, the vast majority of people do not give a gently caress about anything outside of their own front door. People don't give a poo poo about some brown person five states over. They want to know what is going to happen to *them*. Republicans have spent decades spreading the message that the brown person five states over stealing all the government aid is the reason *they* have to live in a dying hell hole. Obama put in a gently caress ton of effort convincing people he would do something for *them*. Thats why he got votes. If the Democratic Party can't convince people that they will do something for them, personally, then they will continue to lose. 'Stronger Together' is the worst campaign slogan ever because no one gives a poo poo about their neighbor. There is no unity or group identity outside of a few woke morons. Promise to put a chicken in every pot and you get votes. Promise to make sure chickens are ethically raised and chicken farming will be equal opportunity but that you, personally, won't be getting a chicken and nobody loving cares.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Pretty sure 'blackguy32' only has one identity and will interpret everything through that lens. Any conversation that doesn't address race first and foremost is going to fall on deaf ears. Haha, get out of here with that one identity bullshit. Maybe once you get a clue that people have multiple identities and that I am an actual person and not a robot. You haven't provided anything for an argument other than saying I am "race first" as if this country hasn't been steeped in white supremacy bullshit from the beginning. Kilroy posted:Yeah he is way too friendly with and forgiving of Trump voters. Even the most charitable view, of the Trump voter who has not a racist bone in their body or thought in their mind, who voted for Trump purely out of self interest somehow, the fact remains they voted for and empowered a man who is himself a racist, who surrounds himself with racists, who won't even disavow the support of a former leader of the loving KKK for gently caress's sake. I'm not so quick to overlook or forgive that and I'm disappointed that he is. In fact I think my hypothetical is basically impossible and the non-racist Trump voter is a contradiction in terms: voting for Trump makes you a racist - full stop. You know, I think you are a cool dude for realizing that Sanders overextended his hand here. The one thing I want people to take from this, is that a lot of minorities really don't give a poo poo about being anti-establishment. But I also want people to see that many minorities were actually excited about her candidacy. Ferrinus posted:Both Sanders and Clinton incorporated minorities and minority rights into their platforms. Sanders was the guy who actually invited BLM protesters up onto the stage and gave them the mic when they challenged one of his rallies, as I recall. Criticism of the DNC establishment and its campaign isn't a criticism of antiracist politics unless you've already bought the line that the center has a monopoly on social justice. As far as I recall neither candidate actually called for reparations or was even particularly noisy about affirmative action, so it's not like either was entirely satisfactory, but I don't think one was substantially worse than the other on the issue (actually I would put it to you that Clinton was worse in absolute terms because of her unwillingness (relative to Sanders, at least) to expand the welfare state, but that's a separate discussion). Like, whoever won the democratic primary would have been the general election candidate who actually incorporated minorities into their platform and therefore spawned arguments about the effectiveness/liability of running a racial justice platform in the event of their win or loss. I challenge you to watch Clinton's Harlem speech and compare that to anything Bernie Sanders has put out. I question the narrative that they were essentially the same on racial issues when Clinton started off with good racial knowledge, while Bernie Sanders had to be pressed not once but twice to incorporate race into his message, and even then it was only an extra paragraph at best. Also I disagree. As I stated before, I don't buy the narrative that Hillary Clinton only talked about how bad Trump was especially in lieu of reading the transcripts of her actual speeches. I think that is revisionism after the election to explain why she didn't connect with white voters. Not a Step posted:
I see. That is some stunning political analysis that actually ignores how the people that should be affected by that video actually voted. Try again. Condiv posted:bernie's dogwhistling? you might wanna take a few breaths No, I am fine. Thank you. Maybe it is you that needs to stop and take a step back and see why Bernie Sanders feels the need to defend Trump voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:10
|
|
about a video
|
Condiv posted:why not if pandering to them falls within our ideology? I think we can court their votes, but in doing so we can't allow them to think we're sorta implicitly on board with or tolerant of e.g. de facto segregation, ending affirmative action, suppressing BLM, targeting immigrants, etc. If Trump voters vote for progressives in future elections, there needs to be no doubt in their minds that what they are voting for is a direct and unambiguous refutation of a lot of what Trump stands for. A lot of what they stood for when they voted for him. Otherwise the rot will infect us, as well. Again, these people are really prone to just hearing what they want to hear and ignoring the parts that contradict it. Our message of anti-racism needs to be loud and clear enough to get through that filter. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I mean dogwhistles don't usually espouse racism directly, but we all know what they are talking about. Yeah, I know what you're talkin about  Do I really need to go pull out the chart that shows Hillary primary supporters being much more likely to hold racially resentful anti-black opinions? Kasich supporters were less racially resentful than Hillary supporters. And this is looking exclusively at '16, much less Hillary's '08 primary where she ran as a good ol' girl and Daughter of the South against that shiftless urbanite and cocaine dealer Barack Hussein Obama. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:No, I am fine. Thank you. Maybe it is you that needs to stop and take a step back and see why Bernie Sanders feels the need to defend Trump voters. cause he sees a lot of those voters are feeling betrayed over trump's healthcare BS and he sees an easy way for dems to win their votes back without breaching our own ideology or embracing racism seems p simple to me, but i'm not trying to claim bernie's secretly racist
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Because we are the company we keep. that's why we need to be trumpeting a strong anti-racist message. embracing blm a bit more and having dem politicians actually start working to get murderous police behind bars and making them more accountable would be a start that way, those who want to vote for us for the healthcare know we're not here to help them suppress PoC
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why not if pandering to them falls within our ideology? if improved healthcare pulls in these former obama voters what's the harm? likewise we need to be doing a hell of a lot more for the black community than the dems have. poo poo like rahm emmanuel getting in the way of justice should not be happening, and I really wish he would be expelled from the party for that poo poo (if it were possible) What makes you think pandering to them will pull them in? What makes you think that Republicans won't use racism to pander to them like they did this past election? Not a Step posted:Hey, uh, not to shatter your world view or anything, but most people absolutely do not give a gently caress about the lives of minorities. Not in the slightest. And most minorities absolutely do not give a gently caress about the lives of *other* minorities. In fact, the vast majority of people do not give a gently caress about anything outside of their own front door. People don't give a poo poo about some brown person five states over. They want to know what is going to happen to *them*. Republicans have spent decades spreading the message that the brown person five states over stealing all the government aid is the reason *they* have to live in a dying hell hole. Haha, go gently caress yourself dude. The Insect Court posted:Yeah, I know what you're talkin about I see more bullshit without context. Do I need to pull out the chart that shows that African Americans primarily supported Hillary Clinton in this last election? It's like you're trying to tell black people what we should think about her, while we meaningfully ignore you. Condiv posted:cause he sees a lot of those voters are feeling betrayed over trump's healthcare BS and he sees an easy way for dems to win their votes back without breaching our own ideology or embracing racism I never said he was secretly racist, but he sure as hell is defending racists. Keep in mind that there is no "some" or "Many" in there. He simply says Trump voters. Also, what makes you think it will be easy? Racial anxiety is going to be difficult to overcome. Condiv posted:that's why we need to be trumpeting a strong anti-racist message. embracing blm a bit more and having dem politicians actually start working to get murderous police behind bars and making them more accountable would be a start This is a very quick way to lose those White Working Class Trump voters that we are talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:So we should pander to racists with the hopes of winning their votes, even though it has clearly been shown that they won't vote for us. You know that's not what I'm saying. There is nothing about saying "Medicare for all, raise the minimum wage, support the unions, and invest in new industries to revitalize the Rust Belt" that "panders to racists with hopes of winning their votes."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's why we need to be trumpeting a strong anti-racist message. embracing blm a bit more and having dem politicians actually start working to get murderous police behind bars and making them more accountable would be a start Kilroy fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You know that's not what I'm saying. There is nothing about saying "Medicare for all, raise the minimum wage, support the unions, and invest in new industries to revitalize the Rust Belt" that "panders to racists with hopes of winning their votes." This ignores that those things become highly racialized once they are actively being fought for. So what makes you think those things will bring in those people? What makes you think those things won't become racialized once people realize that minorities will be able to take advantage of them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I see more bullshit without context. Do I need to pull out the chart that shows that African Americans primarily supported Hillary Clinton in this last election? Wow. Wow. Looks like somebody is willing to defend Hillary' voters. smdh Also I'm gonna post it anyway:  Good point on Hillary winning the PoC vote, too bad she didn't do as well with younger PoC voters who are basically the new Klan unlike their woke septuagenarian pro-Hillary counterparts. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:This ignores that those things become highly racialized once they are actively being fought for. So what makes you think those things will bring in those people? What makes you think those things won't become racialized once people realize that minorities will be able to take advantage of them? Because I honestly don't believe that communities that voted for Democrats every election between 1984 and 2016, had strong union participation, consistently ask for a stronger social safety net, and are already becoming disillusioned with Trump, suddenly became "irredeemable" over the four-year span of time between 2012 and 2016. The reality is, these voters were likely as racist in 2008 as they were in 2016. And I'll bet you were perfectly happy to have their votes, to put a Democratic candidate over the top in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. e: My point being, I don't buy that BLM somehow pushed white working class Dems in the Rust Belt over the cliff into the abyss of irredeemableness. If a black dude promising stronger welfare programs didn't scare them away in 2008 and 2012, I don't buy that someone making the same promises in 2020 is going to do that, either. Majorian fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I challenge you to watch Clinton's Harlem speech and compare that to anything Bernie Sanders has put out. I question the narrative that they were essentially the same on racial issues when Clinton started off with good racial knowledge, while Bernie Sanders had to be pressed not once but twice to incorporate race into his message, and even then it was only an extra paragraph at best. Sanders definitely came off as clumsier and less educated on race issues than Clinton was, especially early in the primary - I remember cringing when I saw him getting asked in one debate about racial issues and immediately answering as though "black" and "poor" were basically the same thing. He did have a long personal record of commitment to civil rights, though, and as you say made racial justice a more explicit part of his platform rather than doubling down in response to pressure. So I don't actually think either candidate was less committed or inclined towards antiracism - Clinton had established more cred ahead of the game, but at the same time as she was beholden to various minority organizations she was also beholden to a bunch of super-rich donors whose interests ran counter to actual justice, racial or otherwise. Sanders pretty much had his grassroots support to thank for his rise, and that did include a lot of (young) members of minority groups. Basically I saw little reason to expect that general election candidate Sanders or president Sanders would do worse by non-whites than Clinton would, especially given the fact that he was more friendly, in general, to the redistribution of wealth. quote:Also I disagree. As I stated before, I don't buy the narrative that Hillary Clinton only talked about how bad Trump was especially in lieu of reading the transcripts of her actual speeches. I think that is revisionism after the election to explain why she didn't connect with white voters. She didn't ONLY talk about how bad Trump was. ...but she did talk about how bad he was a lot, proportionately, and the actual positive policy proposals were extremely meager dial-twiddling optimizations founded on the idea that the country needed to be optimized rather than radically corrected. Pushing back hard against increases to the minimum wage or the creation of a universal healthcare system doesn't make you fail to connect with white voters but with left-wing voters, such that your only remaining recourse is preexisting credentials with certain segments of the populace and a truly monstrous opponent to point attention at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Wow. Wow. Looks like somebody is willing to defend Hillary' voters. smdh It's a great thing that we aren't voting for her supporters then! Missing the forest for the trees. Also, a chart showing how she still did better among young people of color while showing how she demolished among older people of color probably isn't the best thing to post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
My understanding is that Clinton had three things going for her vis-a-vis older people of color: 1) Genuinely built up a lot of cred and good will over the years by organizing with the right communities, 2) It really did seem, at first, like she was the safer candidate to bet on against Trump, 3) Plenty of people of color are themselves conservative or conservative-leaning on many issues, but since the Republicans are the de facto party of white supremacy they've got to cast their lots with the Democrats instead
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because I honestly don't believe that communities that voted for Democrats every election between 1984 and 2016, had strong union participation, consistently ask for a stronger social safety net, and are already becoming disillusioned with Trump, suddenly became "irredeemable" over the four-year span of time between 2012 and 2016. The reality is, these voters were likely as racist in 2008 as they were in 2016. And I'll bet you were perfectly happy to have their votes, to put a Democratic candidate over the top in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Actually no, if they believe in racism, then they can get hosed. Amazing at how much opinions can swing as soon as people start prioritizing minorities and Whiteness is uncentered. Let me rephrase that for you. These people voted that minorities can get hosed in 2016, and you expect me to show solidarity with them? Ferrinus posted:
This heavily depends on the assumption that non-whites would turn out for Sanders at the same rate that they did Clinton. There is little evidence supporting that. On the second point, Trump is pretty terrible. Also, Hillary Clinton supported increases to the minimum wage and she supported changes to health care, meanwhile Trump supported repealing Obamacare, so I don't buy this argument. Ferrinus posted:My understanding is that Clinton had three things going for her vis-a-vis older people of color: Ugh, stop it with this nonsense. It's like yall can never just give her credit. There is always some nefarious reasons as to why Clinton got support, and its never that they genuinely may LIKE her as a candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I keep seeing this and it is always taken as a given. But when I actually sit and read through her transcripts, she does quite a bit of attacking Trump and playing up her own policies. Great, but according to Vox her ads didn't sell policy.They told people TRUMPBAD. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
LOL, blackguy32 would rather ride the party down into hell rather than admit any fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind. Not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:What makes you think pandering to them will pull them in? What makes you think that Republicans won't use racism to pander to them like they did this past election? they pandered to them harder during 08, and obama still pulled them in with promises of public options. hillary did not offer them much beyond the status quo of despair they're in, so it's not very surprising they were taken in by a conman like trump. recent events have shown them growing more and more dissatisfied with trump too. quote:I never said he was secretly racist, but he sure as hell is defending racists. Keep in mind that there is no "some" or "Many" in there. He simply says Trump voters. Also, what makes you think it will be easy? Racial anxiety is going to be difficult to overcome. excuse me, i was under the impression that those who utilize dog whistles are racist. as for the some or many thing, being specific doesn't really help him here (see: hillary when she dumped on deplorables). I think it will be easy because i think healthcare and jobs are more important to these people than their racism. quote:This is a very quick way to lose those White Working Class Trump voters that we are talking about. if it causes them to be completely lost then so be it. hiding from pressing civil rights hasn't prevented a resurgence of the KKK, and the only way I see it getting better is if the dems start actively advocating for civil rights again and making it clear racism isn't actually dead (and never was).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Actually no, if they believe in racism, then they can get hosed. Amazing at how much opinions can swing as soon as people start prioritizing minorities and Whiteness is uncentered. Let me rephrase that for you. These people voted that minorities can get hosed in 2016, and you expect me to show solidarity with them? I understand, and I admire you for being consistent and honest. You're right, I can't expect you to want to show solidarity with them. But what's your path to getting Trump out of office? It doesn't look like getting more minorities to vote is going to be enough; voter suppression is only going to get worse under Trump and Sessions, and according to the Cohn piece, black turnout was only 1% under what was expected, anyway. Are the Democrats supposed to pin their hopes of winning on the chance that they'll be able to beat those odds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:So we should pander to racists with the hopes of winning their votes, even though it has clearly been shown that they won't vote for us. Rustbelt voters didn't vote for Trump due to racism. They voted for him because he was the only candidate who correctly pointed out (even though he didn't mean it) that endless outsourcing—NAFTA, WTO, TPP—and unchecked corporate greed destroyed their communities. And guess what, Hillary has stated numerous times that NAFTA was a success, and that TPP was a "gold standard" trade deal. Put two and two together and this isn't complicated. I'm not even getting into how Hillary virtually ignored all those states until the last week of the campaign, which by then reeked of desperation. And this fiction of yours that Bernie is "pandering" to racism or whatever the gently caress you've been on about the last few pages is completely disingenuous and has been factually disproven. Alienwarehouse fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Also, a chart showing how she still did better among young people of color while showing how she demolished among older people of color probably isn't the best thing to post. You're right, here's one focusing solely on under-30 PoC. If only young black people could abandon their racial self-hatred and join the "my nursing home will be intersectional or it will be bullshit" 65+ crowd who went so overwhelmingly for Hillary. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:This heavily depends on the assumption that non-whites would turn out for Sanders at the same rate that they did Clinton. There is little evidence supporting that. I mean, is there any that they wouldn't have? Did non-whites dislike Sanders on the whole? I thought he enjoyed generally high approval ratings with the voting population that'd typically turn out for democrats, but just not AS high as Clinton with certain segments who had greater experience working with her and reason to trust her. quote:On the second point, Trump is pretty terrible. Also, Hillary Clinton supported increases to the minimum wage and she supported changes to health care, meanwhile Trump supported repealing Obamacare, so I don't buy this argument. To be clear, I'm not saying that being in favor of a robust welfare state would've made Clinton (or Sanders, even) popular with everyone. I'm saying that right wingers would've come out against Clinton/Sanders regardless*, but a lot more independents and left wingers would've come out in favor of a Clinton that enthusiastically rather than tentatively supported a higher minimum wage, free higher education, and free health care. Again, the democrats lost more so than the republicans won - there wasn't a huge upsurge in republican votes, but rather a depression in democrat votes. * Actually I am enough of an optimist to claim that a genuine medicare-for-all push WOULD have brought some right wingers around, but it doesn't actually have to in order to be good strategy as well as, like, a moral imperative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
The reality is the scorched earth strategies of pitching race against race as a voting motivator is extremely dangerous and we are suffering the consequences of that strategy. If the US is to survive the next president has to be someone who can unite people. Otherwise we will slowly spiral towards disintegration, violence, civil war, and continued discrimination. I feel a lot of Democrats are far too idealistic and don't realize the precarious reality of their situations. There is no guarantee that if they keep running on minority rights that a apartheid state will not be set up in america. And there is no guarantee that that apartheid state will ever be stopped. History is written by the winners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 08:38
|
|