|
Oracle posted:Basically, gently caress white people, focus on minorities, they'll be the majority in 2050 anyway. The non-racist whites will still vote for you (approx. 30-40% of white voters), the others aren't worth throwing minorities under the bus to appease. 1. Who's advocating throwing minorities under the bus? Why would that be necessary to "appease" young white voters (or, more accurately, young voters in general)? 2. Excellent plan, just lose elections for the next 33 years and it'll all come together. Your career as a Dem consultant is secure.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I thought Kamala Harris wasn't acceptable as the nominee any more because of some of the cases she took on as a prosecutor. That’s certainly what the Sanders campaign will try to say, but Harris has 2 years to come up with a response, and she’s already known as a supporter of criminal justice reform. Given the kind of social media advertising she’s done, she’ll probably run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Same problem as reaching out to suburbanites across the board. They skew white and racist. All whites voted for McCain over Obama 57-41. All white millennials voted for Obama over McCain 54-44. By 2012, he'd lost white voters under 30, white males by 11% and white females by 8% less than in 2008. You know the definition of white is just going to get a little wider to include Hispanics, right? Its happened before and it will happen again. Also we already know that Hispanics aren't a unified voting bloc in the same way black people are. Black people will continue to be a small but reliable captive voting group for the Democrats - largely because its not like they have any other choices - but you can't base an entire election strategy around 15% of the population.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:That’s certainly what the Sanders campaign will try to say, but Harris has 2 years to come up with a response, and she’s already known as a supporter of criminal justice reform. Given the kind of social media advertising she’s done, she’ll probably run. looking forward to her explanation for why "the state of california needs the slave labor" is actually a reformist stance, that's gonna be a good one
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Name recognition can cut both ways. Clinton’s name recognition connected her to the Presidency of her husband in some negative ways and to a number of “scandals” stemming from her years in politics. Likewise, Sanders is connected to a highly contentious primary and without an easy foil or uncontested ownership of his issues, he’ll probably have a tougher time generating the same enthusiasm. Maybe no one actually steps in to take up those issues, but I have a hard time believing someone like Harris or Warren won’t use them. Eh, Sanders and his role in the primary isn't contentious anymore among the vast majority of Democrats. It's just disproportionately common among a certain type of liberal who is highly represented in the political/media spheres, and those people tend to be more visible than the ones who don't care. Anti-Sanders folks would mostly be a non-issue. Ze Pollack posted:looking forward to her explanation for why "the state of california needs the slave labor" is actually a reformist stance, that's gonna be a good one I think that given the right campaign and messaging she would have a pretty good chance (though it depends largely on her personal charisma, which I don't think we know much about yet), which is unfortunate because her being the candidate would effectively doom us to 4-8 more years of an Obama-equivalent situation lacking any substantive change to the political status quo. I feel like the biggest schism between attitudes about Democratic candidates is whether the person in question cares more about positive change or whether their primary goal is just defeating the Republicans. You'll notice with a certain kind of person that they always frame things in ways like "I think X would have a good shot at winning" rather than "X would support these good things that I want to happen." The absurdity of this attitude is that "positive change" and "defeating the Republicans" aren't exactly mutually exclusive, and focusing on the former doesn't somehow mean sacrificing the latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:That’s certainly what the Sanders campaign will try to say, but Harris has 2 years to come up with a response, and she’s already known as a supporter of criminal justice reform. Given the kind of social media advertising she’s done, she’ll probably run. Nothing says criminal justice reform like denying prisoners medically necessary operations and keeping prisoners in jail for cheap labor 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think that given the right campaign and messaging she would have a pretty good chance (though it depends largely on her personal charisma, which I don't think we know much about yet), which is unfortunate because her being the candidate would effectively doom us to 4-8 more years of an Obama-equivalent situation lacking any substantive change to the political status quo. oh, definitely, particularly with california's planned fuckery with the primary schedule, she's got an excellent shot i am genuinely looking forward to seeing how she tries to spin her way out of that one, because it is going to be a wonderful look at if the spineless loving worms you describe have learned anything about messaging since 2016
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, Sanders and his role in the primary isn't contentious anymore among the vast majority of Democrats. It's just disproportionately common among a certain type of liberal who is highly represented in the political/media spheres, and those people tend to be more visible than the ones who don't care. Anti-Sanders folks would mostly be a non-issue. Given the polls I’be seen showing Democrats’ overall contentment with the tenor of the 2016 race, you may be right. Certainly he won’t try and court anyone hyper-partisan for Clinton. But he’s gotta expand his vote share in a race with more candidates supporting progressive positions. It’s tough sledding for him, but it essentially will have meant that he achieved what his goals were when he set out to run in 2016, which was to move the party substantively to the left on economic issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Nothing says criminal justice reform like denying prisoners medically necessary operations and keeping prisoners in jail for cheap labor Don't forget that she opposed legislation to allow for independent investigation of police shootings. Also she defended the death penalty in court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
older gen xers especially are worse than boomers because they looooooove reagan
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:Are we advocating supporting policies because we think they win elections by appealing to certain demographics or because we think they are good policies that should be implemented? I agree that a focus on minorities is good because they generally want good things, so that's a win/win situation, but it feels awkward for someone to observe "The non-racist whites will still vote for you" without also observing that black people are more reliable Democratic voters than actual Democrats are. If we're dropping demographic issues because those demographics are reliable voters, starting with young voters makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:You know the definition of white is just going to get a little wider to include Hispanics, right? Its happened before and it will happen again. Also we already know that Hispanics aren't a unified voting bloc in the same way black people are. Black people will continue to be a small but reliable captive voting group for the Democrats - largely because its not like they have any other choices - but you can't base an entire election strategy around 15% of the population. I dunno, are Asians white yet? Indians? Some Hispanics can pass (hell some Hispanics are 'white' if by white you mean mostly European) but I don't think they'll be able (or want) to claim them all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Oracle posted:We're advocating for stopping trying to tiptoe around white people's fee-fees that they are the most important and specialist and actually selling progressive policies hard with plenty of identity politics for everyone instead of constantly trying to convince white people 'no see this is good for you because.' Young voters aren't reliable Dem voters, young minority voters are. Start tailoring your (already existing) message to where the votes are. If you call them they will come. The people who already agree with your policies will also come. Stop focusing on the class war stuff and start focusing on the racial aspects of what they've been up to, the sexist aspects of what they've been up to. Its loving all the same people in the end. Barack Obama successfully combined race with class with his campaign in 2012, which played a lot on Mitt Romney being a rich evil plutocrat. I think you can do both, but it takes a conscientious focus. The Democrats, I would argue, need to do both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Oracle posted:We're advocating for stopping trying to tiptoe around white people's fee-fees that they are the most important and specialist and actually selling progressive policies hard with plenty of identity politics for everyone instead of constantly trying to convince white people 'no see this is good for you because.' Young voters aren't reliable Dem voters, young minority voters are. Start tailoring your (already existing) message to where the votes are. If you call them they will come. The people who already agree with your policies will also come. Stop focusing on the class war stuff and start focusing on the racial aspects of what they've been up to, the sexist aspects of what they've been up to. Its loving all the same people in the end. Who the gently caress has ever actually and genuinely focused on class war stuff from the left, though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Barack Obama successfully combined race with class with his campaign in 2012, which played a lot on Mitt Romney being a rich evil plutocrat. I think you can do both, but it takes a conscientious focus. The Democrats, I would argue, need to do both. I don't think he did. He lost white people that he'd won four years earlier. Without the minority vote he'd have lost. Cerebral Bore posted:Who the gently caress has ever actually and genuinely focused on class war stuff from the left, though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
From a purely cynical devils advocate perspective: Maybe the real path to victory is an economically left anti immigration candidate who doesn’t offend minorities but doesn’t get too radical with social change that would make white Americans think there’s a “blacklash” coming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
that last clause there is mutually exclusive with economically left
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I don't think he did. He lost white people that he'd won four years earlier. Without the minority vote he'd have lost. It’s true that he definitely lost some white votes, but he also had a lot of white votes to lose following 2008. He actually won the white vote in Iowa, and had strong performance with non-college and some-college voters in key swing states. And he spent most of the summer of 2012 running ads calling Romney a rich rear end in a top hat who worked for a company literally called Bain Capital.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I don't think he did. He lost white people that he'd won four years earlier. Without the minority vote he'd have lost. This is very misleading, because it implies that the Democratic center-left/center has a better history of addressing racial issues*, when this isn't at all the case. Like, the most generous (to your perspective) interpretation is "the left has been bad on issues of race, while the center-left/center has been bad on both issues of race and issues of class." The reason that's generous is that the left has generally been superior to the center-left on issues of race throughout history, but a bunch of people have poor memories (or are young) and completely bought into the framing of the 2016 primary of the left somehow being worse than the mainstream center-left on social issues. Attacking the left for its flaws with respect to social justice issues is completely reasonable (since it makes sense to hold them to a high standard), but doing so in the greater context of a comparison with the mainstream center-left is absurd, if not outright harmful. Pretending that there's even remotely a problem with the Democrats focusing on class warfare at the expense of social justice is even more absurd. It's definitely true that Democrats have focused on others things at the expense of social/racial justice, but those other things sure as hell haven't included class warfare. * Just to clarify, it implies it because it specifically points to notably left-leaning candidates (well, minus Dean) as having "ignored race/been racist", which implies that it was an attribute unique to those political campaigns, rather than something common across all society at the time (in the case of FDR/Debs). Dean doesn't really fit with that list, because he wasn't approaching things so much from a leftist perspective as a centrist "willing to sacrifice social justice for supposed political gains" angle. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
At absolute best when you posit that minorities are going to save America you mean Hispanics, and, uh, they aren't the monolithic voting bloc you seem to think they are. Hispanic Republicans are a very real thing and will continue to be a real thing. Black voters may be reliably Democrat (again, because they have nowhere else to go) but they will never be a demographic majority capable of carrying a national coalition. Asians and everyone else are a relatively tiny portion of the electorate, and, again, are generally afforded more freedom of ideology than the captive black population. Even the entire spectrum of LGBT makes up, at best, 5% of America, and many queer people don't automatically identify as Democrats. Trying to build a successful coalition purely around 'gently caress whitey, minorities will save us' is going to be a failure, especially since the Democrats don't really seem to give a poo poo about anything beyond keeping the donor class happy. We need a political party based around 'Hey, what if we didn't treat the working class of *any* race like disposable garbage?' but, uh, doesn't seem like the Dems are up for that at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
You guys really should just make a "Leftism and IDPOL" thread at this point, the topic comes up all the loving time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You guys really should just make a "Leftism and IDPOL" thread at this point, the topic comes up all the loving time. there's already a thread for bad posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You guys really should just make a "Leftism and IDPOL" thread at this point, the topic comes up all the loving time. Why would you wish this on anyone?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You guys really should just make a "Leftism and IDPOL" thread at this point, the topic comes up all the loving time. this thread was created explicitly because the USPOL thread did not want to have to deal with those issues as they relate to US politics
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Oracle posted:. So you have one guy who actually did it literally a century ago and got thrown into jail for his trouble, one guy who did it halfheartedly in order to shore up the capitalist system eighty years ago, another who tried and failed to do the same thing ten years ago, and Bernie. Somehow I don't really get the impression that it's the class war stuff that has been overly focused on from this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Is Sanders really going to run again? I like what he can bring to the table in terms of issues and policy, but I don’t actually like him as a general election candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Who the gently caress has ever actually and genuinely focused on class war stuff from the left, though? In terms of successful candidates, both Roosevelts, though both of them were from the moderate capitalist left -- i.e., "we have to implement mild progressive policies, or those leftist crazies will take over."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, Sanders and his role in the primary isn't contentious anymore among the vast majority of Democrats. It's just disproportionately common among a certain type of liberal who is highly represented in the political/media spheres, and those people tend to be more visible than the ones who don't care. Anti-Sanders folks would mostly be a non-issue. I'm less worried about the impact the numerically small but disproportionately powerful anti-Sanders grievance wing might have on the primary than I am about the possibility of them backing a third-party spoiler candidate like Bloomberg in the general.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You guys really should just make a "Leftism and IDPOL" thread at this point, the topic comes up all the loving time. Its like it's a part of US POLITICS, or something!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Barry Convex posted:I'm less worried about the impact the numerically small but disproportionately powerful anti-Sanders grievance wing might have on the primary than I am about the possibility of them backing a third-party spoiler candidate like Bloomberg in the general. Yeah, that's true; given the margins usually involved in elections, even 5-10% can sway things (especially in the general). Though I would argue that being risk-averse to that extent is just more harmful in the long run. Sephyr posted:Its like it's a part of US POLITICS, or something! Politics being synonymous with attacking/making fun of Republicans is the mindset of a lot of American liberals, and topics where their moral superiority isn't as obvious are outside of their comfort zone. There's never any need to doubt or question yourself when it comes to attacking Republicans, because of how obviously terrible and evil they are. Dealing with intra-Democratic Party conflict isn't quite as straight-forward and might require turning a critical eye towards people you once admired, so it isn't nearly as appealing. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's never any need to doubt or question yourself when it comes to attacking Republicans, because of how obviously terrible and evil they are.  Ytlaya posted:Dealing with intra-Democratic Party conflict isn't quite as straight-forward and might require turning a critical eye towards people you once admired, so it isn't nearly as appealing. The time to set up the circular firing squad is after the Republicans have been stopped from endlessly loving up the country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Roadie posted:The time to set up the circular firing squad is after the Republicans have been stopped from endlessly loving up the country. Not if people ostensibly on your side are helping the GOP do just that due to gross incompetence and/or shittiness, buddo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Roadie posted:The time to set up the circular firing squad is after the Republicans have been stopped from endlessly loving up the country. Yeah, trying to hash out the party stance on policy is for *after* we start winning elections! *continues to lose elections at every level of government* Why aren't we winning more elections!?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Roadie posted:The time to set up the circular firing squad is after the Republicans have been stopped from endlessly loving up the country. See, this is dumb logic because that time will literally never come. The Republicans will continue to exist for the foreseeable future, so there will never come a time when you can say "okay, we are done dealing with the Republicans." Even when Democrats win control over the government, you can say that we need to focus on preventing the Republicans from coming back into power. The other reason it is dumb is that it assumes focusing on changing the Democratic Party is somehow mutually exclusive with dealing with Republicans. It is entirely reasonable for someone to assume that the Democratic Party might perform better if they became more reliable and bold advocates for the causes they claim to support. As is, we're just in this holding pattern where the Democrats make gains after the Republicans take power and remind everyone how bad they are, only to lose again once the public realizes the Democrats aren't going to deliver anything of substance either. The 2016 primary showed us that there can be real benefits to having these discussions. If Sanders hadn't run and that debate had never been triggered, the Democrats would never have moved left even to the limited extent they have over the past year+. If anything, I would argue that the people pushing against these discussions are more harmful in the long-run. If the party was composed entirely of these folks, we wouldn't have even accomplished broad support for basic things like $15/hr minimum wage. Keeping the party stagnant and impotent doesn't help anyone. edit: Perhaps more importantly, these divisions obviously exist and saying you wish they didn't exist doesn't help anyone, because they aren't going to magically go away. The question is how you choose to deal with those divisions, and I can assure you that trying to silence them only makes things worse. The best way forward is to actually listen to people and change, because things aren't going to magically return to "normal." Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You guys really should just make a "Leftism and IDPOL" thread at this point, the topic comes up all the loving time. Leftism is inherently about identity politics, in that it is about attempting to forge a solidarity among working class people so that they identify as working class and base their politics around that. The notion that identity politics are somehow separate from class politics is a nonsensical position, class politics are identity politics. Kraftwerk posted:From a purely cynical devils advocate perspective: Maybe the real path to victory is an economically left anti immigration candidate who doesn’t offend minorities but doesn’t get too radical with social change that would make white Americans think there’s a “blacklash” coming. Absolutely not. Both because this is a reprehensible idea and it would cost you dearly among Hispanic voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Leftism is inherently about identity politics, in that it is about attempting to forge a solidarity among working class people so that they identify as working class and base their politics around that. see for example: california’s solid blueness after the prop 187 debacle
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Absolutely not. Both because this is a reprehensible idea and it would cost you dearly among Hispanic voters. I agree its a reprehensible idea, but I take issue with the idea that Hispanic voters in particular would be opposed. "Hispanic" covers a vast number of distinct cultural and economic groups. gently caress you, got mine Hispanic voters certainly exist who would be more than happy cutting off the flow of illegal migrants. I feel the notion that Hispanic people are the same kind of captive demographic as black people underlies a lot of bad takes on 'demographics as destiny' that gets used as an excuse to ignore class identity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
stone cold posted:see for example: california’s solid blueness after the prop 187 debacle You're not wrong, but there were other factors in play to make that happen, such as the end of the cold war hitting the defense contractors in Southern California hard, and BRAC hitting California harder than any other state, meaning a lot less of ARE TROOPS living in California on or around bases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I agree its a reprehensible idea, but I take issue with the idea that Hispanic voters in particular would be opposed. "Hispanic" covers a vast number of distinct cultural and economic groups. gently caress you, got mine Hispanic voters certainly exist who would be more than happy cutting off the flow of illegal migrants. I feel the notion that Hispanic people are the same kind of captive demographic as black people underlies a lot of bad takes on 'demographics as destiny' that gets used as an excuse to ignore class identity. that’s true but i really question that fygm poc voters exist in anywhere near the same proportion as the fygm white voters Instant Sunrise posted:You're not wrong, but there were other factors in play to make that happen, such as the end of the cold war hitting the defense contractors in Southern California hard, and BRAC hitting California harder than any other state, meaning a lot less of ARE TROOPS living in California on or around bases. yeah but I think the shift of clueless white and white/Hispanic people going “hey wow, republicans are racist as heck, guess I’m voting democrat now” and huge mobilization of Hispanic voters after 187 and later 227 is a bigger contributing factor than anything else aside from the death cult congresspeople (14/53), some of whom are extremely vulnerable next year, the republican party is really dead in california and a lot of it stems from 187 and the increase in hispanic voters (plus the demographic shift now, minority majority whoop whoop)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:I agree its a reprehensible idea, but I take issue with the idea that Hispanic voters in particular would be opposed. "Hispanic" covers a vast number of distinct cultural and economic groups. gently caress you, got mine Hispanic voters certainly exist who would be more than happy cutting off the flow of illegal migrants. I feel the notion that Hispanic people are the same kind of captive demographic as black people underlies a lot of bad takes on 'demographics as destiny' that gets used as an excuse to ignore class identity. I should’ve clarified with “Hispanic Democrats,” who are much more likely to give a poo poo about immigration. FYGM Hispanics aren’t going to vote D, as clarified by them being FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:24
|
|