ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

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.

Majorian posted:

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?

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? It's like you're trying to tell black people what we should think about her, while we meaningfully ignore you.

Kilroy posted:

If we're at the point where we have to show solidarity with unrepentant racists then democracy is no longer a viable means to realize social justice and we should pursue other options.

We're not at that point, though! Unlikely voters can be turned into likely voters, and repentant racists can be worked with IMO. Hopefully Donald Trump will finally shock some of these dickheads into realizing that the way they've been approaching politics, and indeed life, is just totally wrong and stupid and self-destructive. People can change - it usually takes them way too long to do it, but it happens from time to time. The ones that don't, however, I don't want to share a party with.

Pedro De Heredia posted:

"Black people supported Hillary Clinton" is a not a very good argument.

There's many, many reasons why black people as a whole might vote for a specific candidate, many of which have nothing to do with the substance of that candidate's politics.

Because of those reasons, we don't actually know what the baseline of support for a 'generic Democratic candidate' might be among the black community. So merely saying "African Americans primarily supported Clinton in the last election" is meaningless, as there is no reason to believe that the natural state of things is for African Americans to be split 50-50 between the two candidates, or something of the sort.

What we do know is that Clinton underperformed with black voters in the general election relative to Obama, and that's part of why she lost the election.

The Puppy Bowl posted:

Under performing compared to the first ever African American presidential nominee/president isn't really under performing. If we're counting on winning 92% of the black vote in order to win elections we're loving up.

Fulchrum posted:

You mean like the most progressive platform in history was a winner, right up til it wasn't and you needed to find any excuse possible?

Kilroy posted:

If we're at the point where we have to show solidarity with unrepentant racists then democracy is no longer a viable means to realize social justice and we should pursue other options.

Majorian posted:

100%. I have no interest in being part of a party that caters to unrepentant racists. I hope a lot of people who voted for Trump look back at 2016 with shame, as something for which they have to atone.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Lol I bet you chastised people for voting for Stein though.

Responsiblity in a Democracy requires you vote for the lesser of two evils. Even if it "caters to unrepentant racists."

This is the #1 issue for you? Changing it would drive you away from the party?

Well there were people whose #1 issues were other things, that's what caused them to not vote for Hillary, despite supporting many of her policies.

This kind of 1 issue blindness is what's loving up American politics. Christians only vote based on abortion. Liberals based on racism or lgbt rights.

I would vote for FDR enthusiastically even though he didn't care much for black people. Didn't offer most of his social reforms to minorities. Didn't integrate schools or the military. And was about as racist as your average American at the time. Which is pretty drat racist by today's standards.

I would vote without thinking twice for a candidate who was a racist, but whose primary focus was expanding the social safety net, investing in improving our infrastructure, investing in Education like we should be doing, and holding corporations responsible for their actions.

You can't loving let yourself be blinded by one single issue. The stakes are too high. And I say this as a minority.

It's a disservice to lose elections, only for the sake of catering heavily to minorities, and ignoring the concerns of the majority of the electorate, no matter how paranoid or racist they may be. Why?

Because it leads to people like Trump getting elected.

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

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.

Proud Christian Mom posted:

Its the economy, stupid.

Pedro De Heredia posted:

Clinton underperformed with African American voters. She performed better with Latino voters, but a fair amount of that can probably be chalked up to the fact that Trump was insanely racist against Latinos. It is entirely possible, even likely, that if she'd ran against a more typical Republican, she would have posted middling numbers among the Latino voter.

Any notion that Clinton ran some kind of 'minority-focused' campaign has to deal with the fact that it doesn't appear to have resulted in particularly good numbers among minorities in the general.

And frankly, there is nothing wrong with assessing people's judgment. If African Americans backed Clinton over Sanders in the general because of a belief that she was the safe bet and a good candidate for the general, that's all well and good, but there's a big chance they were very, very wrong in that assessment. It's ok, it happens.

The Puppy Bowl posted:

Under performing compared to the first ever African American presidential nominee/president isn't really under performing. If we're counting on winning 92% of the black vote in order to win elections we're loving up.

Also, can we please retire the idea of a generic Democratic/Republican candidate? Generics are always going to test better because they aren't weighed down with the baggage that comes with being a person. I realize it's 4 years away but who the actual candidate is matters in winning Presidential elections. It maters way more than policy. Does anyone here think that Kristen Gillibrand, running the exact same campaign as Hillary, doesn't beat Trump in 2016?

Andrast posted:

Hillary was running against one of the most openly racist candidates in recent history though

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

What the gently caress has the Democratic party ever done for Latinos?

Obama won over the latino vote because of the coolness factor; but he never promoted any policy that directly helped latinos.

loving Bush deported less of them. Reagan was the last one to do a bunch of amnesty for them.

Latino's do not feel any specific loyalty to the party because of that

Condiv posted:

in case you were thinking maybe someday the dems would change: http://shareblue.com/watching-the-hearings-i-learned-my-bernie-bro-harassers-may-have-been-russian-bots/

dems are now paying for propaganda against their own base. good job loving idiot losers

Condiv posted:

in case you were thinking maybe someday the dems would change: http://shareblue.com/watching-the-hearings-i-learned-my-bernie-bro-harassers-may-have-been-russian-bots/

dems are now paying for propaganda against their own base. good job loving idiot losers

quote:

But here is the good news: those “Bernie Bros”? A significant number of them — perhaps even the vast majority of them — were bots. They were not our progressive allies, weirdly hurling racist and misogynist language in overwhelming waves. Does that mean racism and sexism are no longer a problem on the left? Of course not. And we need to address it with our social and professional networks whenever we can — including discussion of the fault lines that were clumsily highlighted by Russian operatives.

Condiv posted:

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 already covered this. 08 was also when the economy started tanking and over time as the economy started correcting, he began to lose that support that was built up.


[quote]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.

I guess we are going to play semantics while you ignore that Bernie Sanders is going up to bat for many of these racist voters. Excuse me while I stop giving a poo poo about what the man has to say going forward. Also, bold words considering the history of racism in our country. Many of these people could be doing much better off if they allied with minorities, but that tends not to happen because reasons.

[quote]
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).

Majorian posted:

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?

Alienwarehouse posted:

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.

The Insect Court posted:

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.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

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.

Condiv posted:

the problem isn't running on minority rights. it's pretending to run on minority rights so that they don't have to run on anything else that's a problem

Pedro De Heredia posted:

"Black people supported Hillary Clinton" is a not a very good argument.

There's many, many reasons why black people as a whole might vote for a specific candidate, many of which have nothing to do with the substance of that candidate's politics.

Because of those reasons, we don't actually know what the baseline of support for a 'generic Democratic candidate' might be among the black community. So merely saying "African Americans primarily supported Clinton in the last election" is meaningless, as there is no reason to believe that the natural state of things is for African Americans to be split 50-50 between the two candidates, or something of the sort.

What we do know is that Clinton underperformed with black voters in the general election relative to Obama, and that's part of why she lost the election.

Pedro De Heredia posted:

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Lol I bet you chastised people for voting for Stein though.

quote:

Responsiblity in a Democracy requires you vote for the lesser of two evils. Even if it "caters to unrepentant racists."

This is the #1 issue for you? Changing it would drive you away from the party?

Well there were people whose #1 issues were other things, that's what caused them to not vote for Hillary, despite supporting many of her policies.

This kind of 1 issue blindness is what's loving up American politics. Christians only vote based on abortion. Liberals based on racism or lgbt rights.

I would vote for FDR enthusiastically even though he didn't care much for black people. Didn't offer most of his social reforms to minorities. Didn't integrate schools or the military. And was about as racist as your average American at the time. Which is pretty drat racist by today's standards.

I would vote without thinking twice for a candidate who was a racist, but whose primary focus was expanding the social safety net, investing in improving our infrastructure, investing in Education like we should be doing, and holding corporations responsible for their actions.

You can't loving let yourself be blinded by one single issue. The stakes are too high. And I say this as a minority.

It's a disservice to lose elections, only for the sake of catering heavily to minorities, and ignoring the concerns of the majority of the electorate, no matter how paranoid or racist they may be. Why?

Because it leads to people like Trump getting elected.

blackguy32 posted:

You can't unite people while ignoring the big elephant in the room and avoiding talking about racism. America needs to have that conversation.

ISeeCuckedPeople posted:

Guess what. We just did. Progressives lost.

We've been having it for the past 50 loving years.

blackguy32 posted:

I guess we are going to play semantics while you ignore that Bernie Sanders is going up to bat for many of these racist voters. Excuse me while I stop giving a poo poo about what the man has to say going forward. Also, bold words considering the history of racism in our country. Many of these people could be doing much better off if they allied with minorities, but that tends not to happen because reasons.

quote:

I already covered this. 08 was also when the economy started tanking and over time as the economy started correcting, he began to lose that support that was built up.

quote:

It is like you have been ignoring what has been going on and how the Democrats have been advocating and attempting to defend the Voting Rights Act.

quote:

So you think they are pretending. Well, I guess there really isn't anything else to debate with you about if you can't that minorities didn't feel that she was pretending.

Majorian posted:

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?

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.

steinrokkan posted:

Are you saying that racism has won, and that's that?

Not a Step posted:

blackguy32 would rather see it all burn and continue to suffer than work with anyone else. Ironically, he's all for the privilege of purity tests and watching people like Trump take office rather than sully himself with a lesser.

blackguy32 posted:

My path? Not coddling to racists. If they want to vote with us, then that is fine, but I will not excuse or forgive their racism. I would not change my message in any way, and I would work and strive to get rid of some of the barriers that are preventing people from voting.

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.

fsif posted:

This viewpoint isn't representative of most Bernie supporters, but it should be acknowledged that it exists among a not insignificant portion of self-identified leftists. This is gross.

Condiv posted:

bs

like you guys were using the fb posts and tweets before to back this up, but it turns out those were russian bots. so where do you get this idea that a decent portion of leftists are racist?

Condiv posted:

bs

like you guys were using the fb posts and tweets before to back this up, but it turns out those were russian bots. so where do you get this idea that a decent portion of leftists are racist?