Princess Di posted:

So when we talk about Hillary voters in the general election class,

You are talking about minorities. We voted for Hillary.

You are talking about women. We voted for Hillary.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

anime was right posted:

im like one of the 10 ppl that got the nasty women tag and didnt toxx for hillary lol

Mutant Standard posted:

i guess not then huh

Zikan posted:

i agree with bernie and all and am heavily involved with the draft keith campaign.

but explicitly saying white working class instead of working class is not going to go down well with some of the people we need to win over in the democratic coalition

jackofarcades posted:

Why do people think Starbucks is only a coastal elite thing? I live in Louisiana and we got like 10 in my city. My racist rear end aunties go to starbucks all the time.

...

Look, we gotta acknowledge that racism and sexism played a huge part in this election. Now, to a lot of people this election wasn't about that ... there's a lot of white people who just kinda compartmentalized that part of the Trump campaign. They just kinda shrugged it off or thought he was pandering, but they still thought, in the end, it was ok to vote for a guy who went out and said a bunch of racist poo poo and empowered Nazis. Not to mention the sexual assault poo poo. It's no wonder a lot of Democrats - especially PoC and Women Democrats - saw this election through that frame and are despairing about it.

Now when people com along and say "Dems gotta talk to White Working Class Voters" you can see the pushback. They're afraid of being abandoned, of anti-racism being thrown to the wayside to chase a bunch of racists.

The people who see this election this way aren't just a bunch of dumbass bubble coastal elites. They're just normal people who saw this election as a referendum on racism/sexism that they lost. They need to be reassured that they're still the core of the Democratic Party, that we'll still fight for their rights, and a lot of Trump's voters aren't lost causes or actively racist, just... ignorant.

jackofarcades posted:

You know, there's nothing wrong with criticizing free college as not going far enough. I mean blatantly trying to judo it like Hillary did was dumb, but we can critique it.

Black people can say "yeah I can get free college, but I'm still less likely to get a job than a white person with less qualifications." And they can say "I can get an education, but that won't stop a cop from unjustly shooting me and getting away with it."

But it's also not going to help a lot of white voters who feel "I got a high school degree, that should be good enough for a high paying job" or whatnot?

... It's a little unfair, sorry. I don't mean to do that. I do mean to say that it's not unreasonable for PoC to look at Bernie's platform and be like "okay, what else you got?" Maybe it would've been enough to stave off the collapse in the Rust Belt, but it definitely left a lot of people feeling cold.

That's cool. Bernie doesn't have to be everything for everyone and we can take his vision and move forward with it, combining it with other parts of the dem platform and appealing to a bigger tent.

Larry Parrish posted:

mrmcd posted:

Nah but I would legit marry Abbi from Broad City reformed hillbot or no.

Battle Royale Baby posted:

Where does the party go in a presidential election where their candidate is already coming out of this with a million more votes than her opponent in growing? Hopefully, not too far. And, anyone purposefully trying advocate for some huge shift is likely someone trying to re-fight a primary they couldn’t win because their guy could not attract the diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party. If they try this coup, it’ll be beaten back, again.

Trump was a unique candidate who managed to rearrange things just enough to win a unique election. The worst thing Dems could do is overreact to this. The GOP still needs to soul search and figure out why they allowed this. If we need to do anything it’s make sure we’re turning out our base better, which has ALWAYS been a problem with Democrats.

No, we are not going to hang ourselves for not doing enough to attract racist white people with illegitimate persecution complexes. The biggest lie anyone could tell is that this was about legitimate economic anxiety. And, for people who don’t live here this stereotyping of the “Rustbelt” as some economic hellscape is ridiculous when you look at the recovery since the recession. What these voters wanted to hear was a racist, xenophobic appeal, and that is not something we could offer or ever desire to offer them.

It’s not about the economy, stupid. It’s about a group of people who routinely prize their privilege above ALL else. Period. We don’t get those voters. We don’t want to get those voters. We turn out our base and we don’t even have to worry about this.

bump_fn posted:

im a big dumb idiot why is free college racist

is it just that it would serve white people more than under-served minorities?

Battle Royale Baby posted:

Also any education reform should involve tuition not only for college but for (legit) trade schools.

Also provide better incentives for people who take up trades or degrees that actually matter for the country. We need STEM degrees, not an army of liberal arts media studies with film minors.

Guy Goodbody posted:

You're saying there should be more word problems?

Concordat posted:

Is it actually impossible to do manufacturing in the US nowadays? I assume the primary problem is that countries with no worker protection laws, minimum wages, etc, can produce products for far cheaper by spending less on labor. The only way I could see to "fix" this problem would be to impose tariffs on products from countries where this occurs, with the promise to lift said tariffs when said countries enact worker protections, but that only helps native industries compete within the country, not internationally.

Also this causes trade wars, doesn't it?

Tell me why I'm and idiot and how economics is bullshit black magic.

Internet Explorer posted:

I live in a fairly big city, do I looked up my local Dem party and saw they had a meeting in a few days (today). It's worded as an "Executive Board" meeting, but they have it every month with nothing else on the schedule so I figured that was just their normal meeting. Wanting to be sure, sent an email to their info@ address. No response after 3 days. Gee, I wonder why these groups are having trouble bringing in new blood!

Sheng-ji Yang posted:

none of those people want a helpful and productive actual workers party

skylined! posted:

Me too. My new theory is that the moment it was clear trump won they were all raptured.

tower time posted:

Hell, a huge part of labor I don't see anyone mention often unpaid internships. They drive down the price of labor, primarily benefit people who are already well-off enough to be able to work for long periods without pay, and have otherwise eliminated a lot of entry level positions at large companies. Move the Democrats toward banning unpaid internships in any for-profit situation and I bet that would motivate voters in the 18-30 range just as much as forgiveness of college debt.

Pomp posted:

wtf even is lacrosse

i'm not googling it

Thoguh posted:

Woulda lost the Auburn vote.

GlyphGryph posted:

Any slogan where you are reminding people of problems without offering solutions, however trite, is not a good slogan.

Powercrazy posted:

Yea. I'm not sure how you target one while still allowing another one. Would it be as simple as saying news sites who identify themselves as parody, through some means, are allowed. But News sites identifying themselves as "real" would be subject to scrutiny and fact checking? What about editorials? What about reports of police brutality which often have precious few corroborative sources. Basically how do you be actually "fair and balanced" instead of just censoring content?

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

and now their kids are all gonna be retarded or imprisoned from impulsive crimes

Mirthless posted:

I think Obama tried very hard to stay away from any "controversial" black issues for his entire term of office, and the Flint water crisis was apparently one of them.

You'd think the first black president would have actually done something with all these civil rights protests and everything, but nope, total silence from the white house for the overwhelming majority of the time the protests have been running

Fulchrum posted:

Are you seriously going to try and claim that Hillary was actively oblivious to any economic problems being faced by people in the rust belt, and not a single one of her plans and policies had anything to do with helping these towns? Or is this just the return of "Well she didn't really MEAN it" fallacy?

Fulchrum posted:

Opiod addiction focus and rehabilitation to affect poverty cycles, and heavily subsidizing green energy factories in those same towns to manufacture lithium batteries, solar panels, windmills, and so on.

Oh, I'm sorry, was this supposed to be some dumbass rhetorical question because you were so sure these things couldn't exist?