|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/341936-progressives-dems-at-risk-of-perennial-election-defeatquote:Democrats risk losing election after election if they focus too much on winning back white blue-collar voters from President Trump, according to progressives worried that young minorities are abandoning the party.
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Hmmm it is almost like that article is based on a misleading false narrative. quote:“It is important for the Democrats to regain their standing with working-class voters, but not at the expense of other core constituencies like African-Americans or immigrants. That would be a huge mistake,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. “If the Democrats treat this as a zero-sum game, they will further hurt their coalition rather than strengthening and growing it. Uh yeah, okay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/341936-progressives-dems-at-risk-of-perennial-election-defeat I feel like it's taking the entirely wrong message from that information. Like, the problem isn't that Democrats are focusing too much on poor whites, but that they're not actually doing much that materially benefits pretty much anyone, including people of color. I mean, it's trivially true that it would be wrong for the Democrats to try and become more racist to win over lost voters, but I don't see many people (especially on the left) suggesting that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:As a foreigner, it's kinda mind-bending to watch the dance of both major US parties. This historical document sums it up succinctly: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:This historical document sums it up succinctly: Someone here did an edit of that with pictures Hillary and Trump and it's loving perfect, anyone have it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
yeah that article kinda draws the wrong conclusions. the democrats basically have two options, focus on progressive youth turnout vis a vis corbyn or appear eminently reasonable to try to attract white people 45 and over who are just going to vote republican anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:yeah that article kinda draws the wrong conclusions. the democrats basically have two options, focus on progressive youth turnout vis a vis corbyn or appear eminently reasonable to try to attract white people 45 and over who are just going to vote republican anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Is there anything in the news to suggest that they have picked one of those options yet? Or is it too early to tell if they've learned from 2016? The primary is going to be a complete shitshow of different factions clamoring for the ring Kamala Harris is the Clinton-anointed Centrist choice Mark Zuckerberg is the "if Trump can do it by golly so can I" piece of poo poo rich guy Andrew Cuomo is the traditional Centrist choice Bernie is the Progressive choice, unless he anoints someone else - I could see Bernie endorsing Cuomo in exchange for the VP slot
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:The primary is going to be a complete shitshow of different factions clamoring for the ring And I was talking about next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:And I was talking about next year. Oh hahahaha They're not winning poo poo next year
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Oh hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Explain. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
That's an actual ad? I thought that was a joke photoshop. Sounds like the DCCC needs a major shakeup. That's like the kind of crap when your company tries to source its advertising work in-house through a workplace contest instead of hiring an experienced outside agency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:she's a senator now Wait, do U.S. Senators get to introduce legislation in their respective states now? Because outside of cheerleading or encouraging the state Dems to pull their thumbs out (or rather one specific state Dem from District 63) I'm not sure what, exactly, Harris can personally do about healthcare. Ardennes posted:Hmmm it is almost like that article is based on a misleading false narrative. Dude, he's not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Wait, do U.S. Senators get to introduce legislation in their respective states now? Because outside of cheerleading or encouraging the state Dems to pull their thumbs out (or rather one specific state Dem from District 63) I'm not sure what, exactly, Harris can personally do about healthcare. Cheerleading before rushing off to meet lobbyists for 2020 would be nice
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
the dnc is what happens when a bunch of sleezeball lawyers take advice from poo poo-tier c-levels at mediocre companies, for three decades
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Dude, he's not wrong. How many Black and Hispanic voters are working class?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:How many Black and Hispanic voters are working class? Oh come on, "working class" is politicalspeak for "poor white people" and you know it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Oh come on, "working class" is politicalspeak for "poor white people" and you know it. Isn't that the issue? To pretend there is no way that poor white people and poor non-white people would have any common interest and the Democrats have to "choose" between the two?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
the problem is managing to woo poor older white people away from being awed by the orange monkey shaking the racism stick. imo it's a futile task
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Maybe if they just ran on a real leftist platform that would help poor people then both poor blacks and poor whites would vote for you. Nah better swerve hard right to capture those mythical moderates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:the problem is managing to woo poor older white people away from being awed by the orange monkey shaking the racism stick. imo it's a futile task You dont need every white person, you just need the ones that have blatantly displayed that they would be cool with some economic progress for the past two years. Luckily their concerns do not conflict with that of poor minorities, only rich minorities (because of the 'rich' part).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Isn't that the issue? To pretend there is no way that poor white people and poor non-white people would have any common interest and the Democrats have to "choose" between the two? The guy you quoted literally said it wasn't a zero-sum game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Oh come on, "working class" is politicalspeak for "poor white people" and you know it. then how do you discuss the entire group of working class voters? or is that not possible in centrist land?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then how do you discuss working class people of color? They don't exist, silly. All poc are glass tower liberal elites.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
working class people of color exist but working class post-2016 in editorials and what not is now short hand for white people
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:working class people of color exist but working class post-2016 in editorials and what not is now short hand for white people yeah, maybe for idiot centrists. i don't see why we have to indulge in their racism though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
well i mean we are discussing such an editorial and the shorthand the author uses seems to be the point of contention
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The guy you quoted literally said it wasn't a zero-sum game. The issue it is largely a false dilemma. Also, accepting the "working class" as only whites even if it is just rhetorically is completely unacceptable. It should be criticized every time it comes up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Isn't that the issue? To pretend there is no way that poor white people and poor non-white people would have any common interest and the Democrats have to "choose" between the two? The fact that the leadership fell for this is the new greatest trick the Devil ever pulled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
I think the main issue with that article is that it seems to be assuming that people on the left encouraging the Democrats to focus more on poorer/working-class voters are wanting to do so at the expense of minorities. So even though it says it's not zero-sum, it misrepresents the position it claims to be in opposition to. edit: Also, as is very frequently the case with liberal opinions about this stuff, it views things more in terms of "protecting against bad things happening in the future" than "improving the status quo." The concern here isn't so much the suffering happening in the present, but the hypothetical possibility of things becoming worse in the future. As I've mentioned before, I believe this is because, to a person who is already comfortable and economically secure in the status quo, their top concern on an emotional level is going to be the possibility of things becoming worse. Even if they rationally realize that the status quo is bad for many people, emotionally that isn't really driving them. I think one of the biggest causes of the current split in the party is a disconnect between more well-off Democrats (which also includes Democratic leadership/politicians), who are primarily concerned with avoiding making things worse, and a large portion of the poorer voter base, who are so unhappy with the status quo that the idea of things becoming worse isn't their primary concern. This disconnect has always existed to some extent, but the percent of people truly unhappy with the status quo wasn't high enough to be electorally relevant until more recently. To be clear, preventing the Republicans from causing harm is really important, but when the status quo is particularly bad it simply isn't enough to motivate people to vote. Even if a poor person might technically be better off if they avoid a Republican government, their lives are so poo poo to begin with that their bigger concern is wanting things to improve. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jul 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:The fact that the leadership fell for this is the new greatest trick the Devil ever pulled. The leadership didn't fall for anything. It's a tactical choice they made to push that narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Part of the problem here is that Democrats have given up on actually evangelizing for policies. Arlen Specter in the US is a microcosm of the whole problem. He was a Republican for decades. Couple years back they trying to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill to help give workers be able to form unions. Specter was against it, but was facing a primary challenge from the right, so the democrats took him in so that they'd essentially get an uncontested seat. It hosed over unions since Specter voted against it, but the Democrats basically got a free seat. He lost the primary to a guy who was then beaten by Toomey. They betrayed the base for a momentary gain they ended up bungling. The decline of unions has made the democrats increasingly reliant on donors more in line with Republicans, and we're in a grotesque twilight of decades in the making geographic shift started with the passage of civil rights and the adoption of the Southern Strategy. The economic powers of the geographic concentration of political parties is starting to fray. For example, the old employer based model of health care insurance is an expensive nuisance for many companies. Employment in the most booming tech industries is expected to be for relatively short periods of time with re-hiring at later points having its own standard procedure, the hassle of employer based health insurance isn't desirable for any player, some form of UHC would be more convenient. On the other hand in rural areas whose private economy is based more in the low end remnants of industrial unskilled labor like poultry factory work, anything that increases worker options and negotiating power and decreases reliance on employers is bad for the bottom line. Modern info-tech economy needs educated workers and modern infrastructure with public safety nets robust enough to create a leisure class to consume and provide content for its products, decreasing reliance on employees is preferred. The federal government managing the interests of two diametrically opposed relations between labor and employer is probably going to be a big problem. The GOP is now the solid south and public education/infrastructure/healthcare/general first world public services are against the interests of the major economic powers who need the most desperate workers. Whereas the north is more urban and based in things like Google/Microsoft/Facebook etc, who need more well educated workers with better infrastructure who expect employees to have much more mobile careers and aren't looking to ransom them to benefits packages that are just more overhead. The Democrats have to accept they aren't going to win southern industrialist powerbase, and trying to do so is just going to frustrate their actual base. Southern democrats are dead as of 2014 and Clinton losing 2016 should have been the end of their ghost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/341936-progressives-dems-at-risk-of-perennial-election-defeat Minorities only make up about 30% of voters. If millenials are also 30% of voters, we can say 'young minorities' are probably 10% of the vote, at most. There aren't that many of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
There's a very real strain of left-liberalism that seemed to genuinely believe that 'white men were over' and Hillary Clinton was going to win a landslide due to support from minority voters and women. It did not happen, and a big part of why it didn't happen is because the numbers aren't actually there for anything like that to happen. In a very real sense, the Democratic Party cannot afford to lose more of the white vote. If white people, who are like 70% of all voters, vote in block in favor of the Republicans, the Democratic Party is done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:
You call it southern, but that description basically covers anything that isn't a large city with a tech industry. Since our political system is biased toward geographical distribution, poo poo-headed exploitative companies and their increasingly more desperate employees are going to be what drives political policy under the current setup, and those corporations will fight UHC and unions to the death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Couldn't we just appeal more to blue collar workers and bring the Reagan dems back into the fold? It's what Clinton fatally overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
The problem is that the political imagination of the Democratic Party is so limited that they think 'appealing to people who voted for the other party' is 'do what the other party did'. Sanders does a bunch of town halls in conservative places and he actually tries to argue for his policies, he doesn't go there and say 'how many of y'all like to racism'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:The economic powers of the geographic concentration of political parties is starting to fray. For example, the old employer based model of health care insurance is an expensive nuisance for many companies. Employment in the most booming tech industries is expected to be for relatively short periods of time with re-hiring at later points having its own standard procedure, the hassle of employer based health insurance isn't desirable for any player, some form of UHC would be more convenient. On the other hand in rural areas whose private economy is based more in the low end remnants of industrial unskilled labor like poultry factory work, anything that increases worker options and negotiating power and decreases reliance on employers is bad for the bottom line. Modern info-tech economy needs educated workers and modern infrastructure with public safety nets robust enough to create a leisure class to consume and provide content for its products, decreasing reliance on employees is preferred. The federal government managing the interests of two diametrically opposed relations between labor and employer is probably going to be a big problem. The GOP is now the solid south and public education/infrastructure/healthcare/general first world public services are against the interests of the major economic powers who need the most desperate workers. Whereas the north is more urban and based in things like Google/Microsoft/Facebook etc, who need more well educated workers with better infrastructure who expect employees to have much more mobile careers and aren't looking to ransom them to benefits packages that are just more overhead. It sounds like you might be heavily overstating how friendly more educated/higher-paying employers like the tech industry are. The labor relationships are different in some of the ways you describe, but neither industry group really has the interests of working class Americans in mind. edit: Also there's the fact that the overwhelming majority of workers and businesses, regardless of geographical location, are not in the tech industry (or other similar high skill/education industries).
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:39 |
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Oh come on, "working class" is politicalspeak for "poor white people" and you know it. jesus loving christ
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2017 01:15
|
|