|
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 | ||
|
Frijolero posted:As a Mexican, hearing Tim Kaine speak Spanish on the campaign trail was actually nice. But that's all it was, a nice engagement tool. Hillary may have had solid support in high Latino areas, but she still only got 65% of the Latino vote, compared to Obama's 71%. That polling is very likely wrong, it significantly undersampled poor and non-English-proficient latinos. And the company that did the exit polling explicitly warns against generalizing their samples to populations that are clustered geographically, like latinos. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/15/why-the-exit-polls-are-wrong-on-latino-votes/ Clinton almost certainly did better than Obama with these voters. Which is not surprising because DACA and DAPA moved Obama's approval rating with latinos from the mid fifties to the high sixties.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Somebody fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 3, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
See my edit, and to be crystal clear, I think the Democrats are hosed if they don't make a serious effort at rebranding their economic platform, and I think many of the "establishment" candidates would be disastrous in 2020. [ed: ugh new page, I am bad at forums]
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The point is you're unlikely to ever actually get a lot of these voters by expanding the welfare state; you'll only get these voters by supporting the racist bullshit. The Democrats got them in 2008 and 2012, though - by promising expansions to the welfare state, without doing racist bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Ya'll are making excuses for people who are willing to cut off their own noses in order to preserve white supremacy. Do the racists who vote Democrat count as being a welcomed part of the democratic party? I understand the sentiment, but does convincing people who are or might be racist to vote for you through campaigning that doesn't appeal to their racism count as welcoming? I'm not being snarky, I'm curious as to what you think about this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Are we just forgetting that the so called tolerant centrists are just the exact same people who didn't want Keith Ellison inn charge because he's too Muslim and had a bunch of slander about him being an anti- Semite used to get people to vote against him so that we can even approach the idea of rethinking or support of a racist apartheid state? These things just happened and were supppsed to believe the left wing of the party is the real racist one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Do the racists who vote Democrat count as being a welcomed part of the democratic party? I understand the sentiment, but does convincing people who are or might be racist to vote for you through campaigning that doesn't appeal to their racism count as welcoming? If they're willing to vote Dem in spite of their racism, then that's a plus yes. The main argument just remains that they aren't to be given influence in how the party rolls forward unless all their racist bullshit is off the table from minute one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Democrats got them in 2008 and 2012, though - by promising expansions to the welfare state, without doing racist bullshit. I'm not convinced that policy had a lot to do with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
It's worth trying for better social programs, but coddling these people in hopes of them coming to your side isn't going to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:THAT'S NOT THE GODDAMN POINT. The point is you're unlikely to ever actually get a lot of these voters by expanding the welfare state; you'll only get these voters by supporting the racist bullshit. Nobody is arguing against expanding the welfare state. I'm certainly not, at least. Either supporting or ignoring racist bullshit can not happen and is non-negotiable. Hopefully, some people will be won over by promoting true progressive economic reform, but I am not optimistic about that, and I worry that the left will take an easier solution and just stop talking about minorities. This is a bunch of entirely empirically unsupported assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Ya'll are making excuses for people who are willing to cut off their own noses in order to preserve white supremacy. Then why attempt to lure them in in the first place? What happened to "for every blue collar dem we lose we'll pick up two suburban republicans"? You think suburban republicans are less racist than their rural peers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:They were proud of their vote for Bush in 2000 and '04 too, but they turned against him in 2006 when he tried to privatize social security. The privatization push was early 2005 (2005 SOTU announcement in January, it was "dead" a few months later). Bush's popularity was stable high 40s low 50s during this period and didn't drop to low 40s high 30s until around August, which was right around the same time that the first polling showing that the Iraq war was popularly underwater came out, and was after US announced troop drawdown and new Iraqi parliament looked like it was collapsing in discussions about new constitution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:It's worth trying for better social programs, but coddling these people in hopes of them coming to your side isn't going to work. This, let's not repeat the grabbing of suburban Republicans thinking that substituting minorities for rust belters results in anything better, even if it might electorally for a whole host of bad reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The Democrats got them in 2008 and 2012, though - by promising expansions to the welfare state, without doing racist bullshit. They got them because the economy tanked under Bush. Then started losing support the longer we got into the presidency. White support also dropped the more he started talking about minority issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:This is a bunch of entirely empirically unsupported assumptions. It's a bunch of assumptions, yeah. My empirical support is that people obviously exist who vote against their economic interests for [reasons], whether it's racism, misogyny, draw to personality or relatability of the candidate, ignorance, or otherwise. I don't think you have empirical support that's any better to demonstrate that a strong economically progressive platform is the mechanism that will convert people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:It's worth trying for better social programs, but coddling these people in hopes of them coming to your side isn't going to work. I agree in principle, but it would probably be helpful to define what you mean by "coddling." To me, "coddling" implies bashing welfare queens, including means-testing in programs, promising white racists that only "deserving" people will get welfare, etc. If that's what you're thinking with coddling, where are you seeing such a drive among American leftists today? If not, what would you define as "coddling"? blackguy32 posted:They got them because the economy tanked under Bush. Then started losing support the longer we got into the presidency. White support also dropped the more he started talking about minority issues. Losing support among voters over time is a pretty common thing to happen for Presidents, though - and Obama left office with over-50% approval ratings. This would seem to imply that at least some Trump voters still approved of Obama by the time he left office, insane though that may seem. Plus, if they only got them because the economy tanked under Bush, why did so many of them vote for Obama's reelection? The economy was recovering by then. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:It's a bunch of assumptions, yeah. My empirical support is that people obviously exist who vote against their economic interests for [reasons], whether it's racism, misogyny, draw to personality or relatability of the candidate, ignorance, or otherwise. I'm merely making assumption that not a hard 100% of American white electorate is entirely economically irrational, which frankly seems to be a weaker assumption than the opposite. Which I know you are not making, but you are proceeding to the same conclusions as if it were true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree in principle, but it would probably be helpful to define what you mean by "coddling." To me, "coddling" implies bashing welfare queens, including means-testing in programs, promising white racists that only "deserving" people will get welfare, etc. If that's what you're thinking with coddling, where are you seeing such a drive among American leftists today? If not, what would you define as "coddling"? Saying these people aren't racists in hopes of getting their vote is coddling them. Also, note how little Obama talked about race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
How wide is the set of "these people". Anybody who has ever cast a vote for the GOP? Anybody who has ever NOT cast a vote for a running Democrat? Suburban racist Dems?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Did the thread find the answer to the thread title yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Phone posting but here is some more data. http://electionado.com/canvas/1491097261943
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Saying these people aren't racists in hopes of getting their vote is coddling them. Well, I think Sanders was wrong to say that too, personally. But he's an 80-year old senator from the whitest state in the union, and he's not going to run for president again. I don't see Warren or Sherrod Brown or whoever the left-Dems run in 2020 making that mistake. quote:Also, note how little Obama talked about race. But he also talked to these communities directly, about the economic issues that were important to them. He won in those states, because he was able to portray himself as supportive of the welfare state, and portray Romney as the rich SOB who fired your dad. blackguy32 posted:Phone posting but here is some more data. I agree with a lot of the criticism, but I think this... https://twitter.com/yottapoint/status/848360659922198528?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw ...is probably not the tac that a Clinton supporter wants to take. Lack of respect for facts on the ground was a big part of why she lost. There's a bit of a difference between Sanders saying something tone-deaf like he did here...and losing an election to Donald Trump. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
e: double post
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Did the thread find the answer to the thread title yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think she laughing that you don't get it. That yall are saying just provide them with better social programs and they will support you, when while they do care, they care more about hurting minorities and protecting whiteness. Remember one dumb racist means all poor whites are racist. Also I worked on a republican campaign quite some time ago. Suburban GOP is amongst the most racist people out there. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, I think Sanders was wrong to say that too, personally. But he's an 80-year old senator from the whitest state in the union, and he's not going to run for president again. I don't see Warren or Sherrod Brown or whoever the left-Dems run in 2020 making that mistake. You know, I posted something with facts and data and put in effort, you respond with no effort and nothing to back your assertion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember one dumb racist means all poor whites are racist. Nice straw man. Try harder. Read the links I posted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I think she laughing that you don't get it. That yall are saying just provide them with better social programs and they will support you, when while they do care, they care more about hurting minorities and protecting whiteness. Then, uh, ya'll absolutely hosed, because there are more of them by far then there are black people. The electorate is significantly majority white and will be for the foreseeable future, and Republican voter suppression is going to tilt that balance even further towards white. If an idiot racist baby man can defeat the most qualified candidate ever, chosen champion of black people, then the future looks pretty loving grim for the purity tests you and those like you want to institute. The Democratic Party is dying. Even in the face of discount Mussolini all of the minority votes combined didn't pull out the win. You don't have the power. Turning people away isn't helping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Then, uh, ya'll absolutely hosed, because there are more of them by far then there are black people. The electorate is significantly majority white and will be for the foreseeable future, and Republican voter suppression is going to tilt that balance even further towards white. If an idiot racist baby man can defeat the most qualified candidate ever, chosen champion of black people, then the future looks pretty loving grim for the purity tests you and those like you want to institute. Don't worry Tom Perez will fix it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Uh, probably one of the most unfavourable Democrat nominees you could think of still managed to win 3 million more votes than Trump, while only getting 37% of the white vote so... It's not exactly a massive outreach you need to do with white voters to, ya know, win elections.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Yeah, the question is whether you just straight up pander to their identity politics, or convince them that the immigrants and minorities are everyday Americans just like them. No? IS that the question? The way you phrase it here, with two things that don't even relate to each other and that barely touch on what I brought up? "Pander to their identity politics", I mean, fuckin' hell. Get that right wing rhetoric of "listening to people is bad because identity politics is bad" and "giving them anything means catering to the worst things I can imagine about them!" out of here. If "recognizing people for who they are and who they associate with, recognizing they have value as human beings and communities and deserve to be heard and recognized and helped when and where things are going wrong" is pandering to their identity politics then yes, obviously you loving straight up pander to their identity politics, because it's the sort of "pandering" that every human being in this world deserves. But I get the feeling that's not what you meant there, is it? As to the second - You aren't going to convince them that "immigrants and minorities are everyday Americans just like them" because most immigrants and minorities aren't just like them. They're different people in different situations. Hell, immigrants and minorities aren't even just like each other, so it's pretty stupid to pretend they're going to be just like the people in question. (many of whom also aren't like each other) Now, you can spend some time trying to help these people connect to those are unlike them in many ways - to help them realize that despite the fact that they are different, they still have a lot in common, they still have value. That's great and desireable and something we should actively be doing all the time because it's true and recognizing we have shared values is great for building a strong, shared culture where some vestige of fair treatment and equality is possible. A noble goal. But it's tangential to the core issue. If you do it, they probably aren't going to suddenly become enlightened enough to enthusiastically support someone who is doing nothing for them. They're still going to be frustrated people living lovely lives that feel (often justifiably) that the concerns relevant to their own lives are being ignored or worked against or downplayed or simply going unheard. They'll still be prone to the just world and it's fallacies, they'll still be looking for opportunities to externalize the causes to their problems in the open even as they drink themselves to death while their kids OD on meth, they'll still be inclined to unthinkingly forming prejudices and projecting their insecurities onto made up enemies, they'll still be loss averse and cling even more tightly to whatever they still have the worst things look like they might get, and they'll still act out of spite because it's still an unfair and unjust world and spite is a powerful human urge that can be used for good as well as evil and it is triggered when people feel like they are being slighted, ignored, mocked, dismissed, etc. Which, since we're still talking about human beings, they're probably feeling a lot of that. So here's the real question: What are we going to do to figure out how we can empower these people in a positive way? How can we take hosed up, prejudiced, ignorant, insular people and talk about them and their families and their values and how we can build a better future for them and do it in a way that also builds a better future for everyone else? How do you turn potential enemies into allies in as many places as possible, in as many ways as possible, without letting them undermine the coalition you're attempting to build in the process? How do you give them a seat at the table while also inspiring them to be their best selves? And that question is relevant to the future of the Democratic party in a hell of a lot more ways than simply catering to specific groups of poor and working class whites or racist middle class Trump voters or who the gently caress ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Then, uh, ya'll absolutely hosed, because there are more of them by far then there are black people. The electorate is significantly majority white and will be for the foreseeable future, and Republican voter suppression is going to tilt that balance even further towards white. If an idiot racist baby man can defeat the most qualified candidate ever, chosen champion of black people, then the future looks pretty loving grim for the purity tests you and those like you want to institute. We will survive, not a step. By the way, we won the popular vote and there is much fighting to be done. But the last thing I would do is ever take advice from you. So you just do you and I'll do me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
There really isn't anyone more favorable than Clinton who is not being actively shut out by the apparatchiks working for an increasingly dead gay comedy party, however. Until such time as American democracy gives up the ghost this is gonna be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:We will survive, not a step. By the way, we won the popular vote and there is much fighting to be done. But the last thing I would do is ever take advice from you. So you just do you and I'll do me. Well most of us won't listen to mr. gently caress poor whites and Universal healthcare either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Don't worry Tom Perez will fix it! Jeb! Can Fix It!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well most of us won't listen to mr. gently caress poor whites and Universal healthcare either. Mr straw man returns again. blackguy32 posted:It's worth trying for better social programs, but coddling these people in hopes of them coming to your side isn't going to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:They got them because the economy tanked under Bush. Then started losing support the longer we got into the presidency. White support also dropped the more he started talking about minority issues. you realize the economy is still in the tank for a lot of these people? my former manager at pizzahut, a woman of 65, just finally got a "good" job managing a whataburger last year. your narrative is ignoring reality
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:We will survive, not a step. By the way, we won the popular vote and there is much fighting to be done. But the last thing I would do is ever take advice from you. So you just do you and I'll do me. If the popular vote meant something, that statement would be more comforting. But it doesnt. The popular vote is the thing people living in denial use to comfort themselves over their dying party. And beyond the meaningless popular vote, the Republicans now control the majority of state governments, the House, the Senate, and will likely find enough spineless Democrats to take over the Judiciary in a few years. The Democratic Party is failing on every front. People like you aren't helping. El Pollo Blanco posted:Uh, probably one of the most unfavourable Democrat nominees you could think of still managed to win 3 million more votes than Trump, while only getting 37% of the white vote so... It's not exactly a massive outreach you need to do with white voters to, ya know, win elections. blackguy32 would rather do no outreach to win white voters at all also do you really think the Democrats learned anything at all? You know they're going to run cory booker for 2020. Although maybe the country will be enough of a hellscape by then that anyone can win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:You know, I posted something with facts and data and put in effort, you respond with no effort and nothing to back your assertion. You posted someone else's tweetstorm, and most of the "data" that he cites, seems to come from his own website. Like, seriously - 90% of these links are to other Electionado blog posts, and the evidence that they cite links to other Electionado blog posts. Data from outside sources that he cites doesn't seem to enter into our discussion that directly. For example, he goes to a lot of trouble to demonstrate that Trump's supporters are disproportionately racist, sexist, and homophobic, motivated by racial resentment, etc. Well, no poo poo Sherlock. I don't think anyone here is denying that. The problem is, Ramachandran is talking about Trump supporters as a whole, as if they are a monolithic entity. They are not. There are soft Trump supporters and hard Trump supporters, as is the case with any candidate. Trump won this election because he won former Democratic voters in the Rust Belt, which swung states that Republicans hadn't won in literal decades. That was the major variable between 2012 and 2016, not the positions of the overall mass of Republican voters. Willie Tomg posted:There really isn't anyone more favorable than Clinton who is not being actively shut out by the apparatchiks working for an increasingly dead gay comedy party, however. Cory Booker could get the nomination, but boy...that would be a huge gift to Republicans. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Apr 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:It's worth trying for better social programs, but coddling these people in hopes of them coming to your side isn't going to work. You don't coddle them, you convert them. And part of converting people is making sure they have a seat at the table and that the base psychological needs underlying their specific grievances are being addressed in some way. And you can't convert everyone, but we're talking about actual people here, not stereotypical monoliths, so that isn't super relevant. And yes, actually giving many of these people something of genuine value would work, and it's pretty stupid to say it "isn't" because it has and will continue to do so in the future for at least some portion of voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
So if I understand it correctly - Economic reform is good and not coddling of racists... Therefore the progressive economic platform, apparently accused of a tendency to coddling racists, is actually not coddling racists. I don't see where problems come from, there is no inconsistency between what economic progressives say and what you suggest to be a desirable policy by its own virtues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2017 19:45
|
|