Fulchrum posted:

"Democrats" didn't. A voter in the Democratic party who does not hold sway, influence or power, did. There is a giant gently caress-off difference between these two points you are not acknowledging.

Hell, by this logic, Republicans cannot be racist, since A Republican Voter said he would leave the party if Trump became the nominee because he says racist things.

When someone was in a position where they could shut him out started using racist attacks against Ellison, the dems threw him the gently caress out. That shows the party leaderships attitude towards islamaphobia. Not whatever the gently caress Dershowitz thinks.

Frijolero posted:

You're equating social media nonsense to Ellison being called an anti-semite by major news corporations and donors like Haim Saban.

Confounding Factor posted:

I agree with you on Clinton, she lost for a number of reasons and I'll admit it wasn't because of her economic proposals (whatever those were). However Americans are truly desperate for a change, and keeping with the status quo economically but socially more liberal (the perception of Hilary) wasn't going to cut it.

I almost want to say Hillary herself didn't play that large of a role with why she lost. There's just so many factors out of her control. I could sit here and blame her for being poorly inarticulate with her policies that would help Americans or just generally her poor messaging ("check out my website!"). Her campaign thought they could get away with just smearing Trump's character and they were almost right, however there are still too many older Americans that couldn't wait to pull the lever for Trump.

Like I think a lot of the analysis I've read post-election, like this is result of decades of neoliberal policies, the failure of identity politics, and so on I almost wonder if that's slightly knee-jerkish. For sure those are very valid interpretations and I buy those arguments but it's not like Trump won in a landslide victory so I'm hesitant to how

I still think a lot of the blame is squarely on Obama's failure to make some significant structural changes post-Recession and a lukewarm recovery pretty much costed Hilary's chances. Had we been in something of a booming economy she would have had a better chance. You might disagree but I still think the economy (and those affected by the sluggish recovery) principally had the most influence on voters. Of course the lack of enthusiasm for Hilary's campaign contributed, no doubt.

Condiv posted:

like, there were thinkpieces being written all the time asking if ellison was really who we needed to appeal to voters in this new age of trumpism thanks to him being a black muslim.

remember when a centrist started blasting his nomination by bernie cause "bernie should really have nominated someone from the rust belt!!"?

we had the exact same handwringing about running a black candidate that we had when 08 obama was running. oddly enough, that self-same handwringing about scaring racist voters off helps to make sure that the dem party remains firmly under the control of lily-white people

Fulchrum posted:

And then they elected a Dominican. Small flaw in your argument.

Kilroy posted:

If you used racism to knock out the candidate you don't want, you're not excused because you withheld using it against the candidate you do.

Fulchrum posted:

And then they elected a Dominican. Small flaw in your argument.

Fulchrum posted:

If it's about maintaining a lily white hegemony as ranted and raved above, why is Perez any more acceptable than Ellison?

Condiv posted:

he's whiter by a lot

Agnosticnixie posted:

As very serious people have explained multiple times, donors give money out of the goodness of their hearts for no apparent reason and there is no influence tied to that whatsoever.

Fulchrum posted:

If it's about maintaining a lily white hegemony as ranted and raved above, why is Perez any more acceptable than Ellison?

Condiv posted:

he's whiter by a lot

Frijolero posted:

You're equating social media nonsense to Ellison being called an anti-semite by major news corporations and donors like Haim Saban.

Fulchrum posted:

Also, are you people seriously gonna keep pretending that the connections Ellison had to the Nation of Islam, things he himself has acknowledged, were all a big neoliberal lie?

Kilroy posted:

Also, yeah. This:

Cut that poo poo out.

quote:

The reason that the strategy and spending is so misguided and wasteful stems from the third structural flaw: the almost apartheid-like structure of the Democratic Party and progressive movement. The monochromatic composition of those who control most of the money in progressive politics more closely resembles old South Africa and not the rainbow coalition of voters who elected Obama and Clinton. The leaders and top staff of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement do not reflect the racial diversity of the party’s base. These managers, in turn, do not possess the cultural competence to run effective campaigns in a racially polarized electorate.

While “apartheid” language might sound harsh, looking at the structure of the progressive movement shows a glaring gulf between the composition of the people and the color of those in charge. Prior to Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s resignation as chair of the Democratic National Committee, and with the notable exception of Congressman Ben Ray Luján at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, nearly the entire top level of progressive leadership that controlled $1.5 billion in spending was made up of white people. The following table illustrates the problem. (The listed numbers are the budget of each organization.)
Democratic and Progressive Money In Election 2016

Leaders of Democratic and progressive fundraising organizations and how much they contributed to this year’s campaign. (Courtesy of PowerPAC+)

All of the individuals in the above table are good people, but none of them are from the hood. They don’t hang out in black barbershops and beauty salons. They don’t feel their hearts race when they see a police car’s lights shining in their rear view mirror. They don’t have family facing deportation to Mexico. They’ve never been told to “go back to where you came from,” called a racial slur, or told to speak English. They’ve never been detained at an airport because they look suspicious. They haven’t lived the experiences of the people who comprise almost half of all Democratic voters

To win elections in an increasingly multiracial nation requires leadership and top staff who come from, understand, and are committed to the rapidly growing communities of color that are transforming the composition of the country.

Fulchrum posted:

Also, are you people seriously gonna keep pretending that the connections Ellison had to the Nation of Islam, things he himself has acknowledged, were all a big neoliberal lie?

Condiv posted:

i have family in oklahoma, all who are more centrist and better supporters of hillary than i ever was. why do you still think they deserve to suffer more than dems living in a blood red state already do?

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Condiv posted:

he's whiter by a lot

Condiv posted:

imo, we need more PoC in leadership in the dem party if we're going to actually properly represent PoC. pablo from the DNC highlighted this quite well in 2016 i think

Condiv posted:

holy poo poo. so not only do you think it's not a big deal, you actually subscribe to this racism

Condiv posted:

nah. dem leadership is really really white. like, sure they're trying not to be a racist party, but it's not easy when a vast majority of your leadership is white. if we get more PoC in the leadership of the dems we're more likely to have leadership that truly responds to the needs of minorities and the downtrodden:

Condiv posted:

nah. dem leadership is really really white. like, sure they're trying not to be a racist party, but it's not easy when a vast majority of your leadership is white. if we get more PoC in the leadership of the dems we're more likely to have leadership that truly responds to the needs of minorities and the downtrodden:

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

Fulchrum posted:

So, yes. You are going to pretend it didn't happen.

Yeah, look at the white man who had the job before Perez.

Frijolero posted:

Condiv is right tho. When I heard about Dem leadership support for Perez I thought "Ya'll couldn't have picked a whiter latino." (Source: I'm a light skinned latino)

Ellison is a black former NOI supporter. Tom Perez is an upper class Euro-bred Dominican.

One is clearly "whiter" and more palatable to the ultra-white ultra-rich Dem elite.

Fulchrum posted:

So, yes. You are going to pretend it didn't happen.

Fulchrum posted:

So, yes. You are going to pretend it didn't happen.

Yeah, look at the white man who had the job before Perez.

Kilroy posted:

On the other hand, that Baltimore major.

I also don't get what you're trying to say. Perez is not white.

Frijolero posted:

Condiv is right tho. When I heard about Dem leadership support for Perez I thought "Ya'll couldn't have picked a whiter latino." (Source: I'm a light skinned latino)

Ellison is a black former NOI supporter. Tom Perez is an upper class Euro-bred Dominican.

One is clearly "whiter" and more palatable to the ultra-white ultra-rich Dem elite.

Fulchrum posted:

Also, are you people seriously gonna keep pretending that the connections Ellison had to the Nation of Islam, things he himself has acknowledged, were all a big neoliberal lie?

Fulchrum posted:

Yeah, look at the white man who had the job before Perez.

Fulchrum posted:

So, yes. You are going to pretend it didn't happen.

Yeah, look at the white man who had the job before Perez.

Calibanibal posted:

to those who say republicans are misogynist, i would note that 9/10 of rnc leadership were born of a living woman's womb

Pedro De Heredia posted:

No one thinks it's a lie, you gross idiot. They (correctly) think it's meaningless.

It's like saying "well you can't deny that Ellison IS Muslim, huhu?!?"

Condiv posted:

i'm not gonna pretend black people, or other PoC are flawless allies. however, it's hard for us to actually address black people's needs as white people, because the system we live in does it's damndest to hide racism from our sight. hence why we need more PoC in leadership positions

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

What's Euro-bred mean here

Kilroy posted:

But it's not enough, is it? If it was you'd be pleased with Perez because he's definitely a PoC, and if he threatened the "white" establishment in his PoC-ness they wouldn't have burned Ellison in favor of him. That's why I'm saying the distinction here is one of class, not race, and that's important to focus on because PoC like Perez are quite able and willing to preserve that class supremacy, and even if we fill every position in the entire DNC with PoC it's not going to mean a drat thing if they're serving the interests of our national elite first and foremost.

Fulchrum posted:

Taking all bets on whether Condiv or Crowsbeak will be the first to use the m word to describe President Obama.