Why have some decided the only way to improve the party

[BainsBane]

Is to cater to white male Republican voters? Why do they require special attention? What about the million or so disenfranchised voters of color across the nation, many of whom lost access to the vote following the repeal of Article 5 of the Voting Rights Act and Republican state governments closing polling locations in communities of color?

Exit polls show that Trump won roughly the same percentage of white voters as Romney did, but the turnout among voters of color was down. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ That is particularly true in areas where state governments restricted access to the vote. Most of the key states in the 2016 election were run by Republican governors and Republican Secretaries of State: Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida. All of them underwent purges of the registered voter lists, shorter poll hours, fewer voting days, and/or fewer voting locations.

Yet self-described progressives insist that the focus should be on the white working class, while making no mention of the problem of disenfranchisement. Why? Is it because they take their lead from a politician who has traditionally relied overwhelmingly on white voters for his electoral wins? Is it because of an implicit, unconscious bias that white male voters matter more? They just don't think about disenfranchised voters because they don't know any? Is it because they want to see the party whiter, like in the days they insist the party was so much better than today? Or is it something else?

Certainly the Democratic Party can try to appeal to voters of all races, but not if they are continually told what matters are Trump-voting white males. The discussion has been almost exclusively about 50-80,000 white voters. The election was only a few months ago. The Trump voters have their man in the White House. Polls indicate that Trump is enormously popular with them. His approval ratings among Republicans are higher than Ronald Reagan's were! So why do Trump voters need special attention from Democrats now? Why should they be in red districts campaigning now, when they have work to do in congress, when they need to represent their constituents dealing with the Trump regime's racist policies?

Would social justice not require us to direct our attentions to the victims of Trump's policies rather than those who see themselves as beneficiaries? I submit it is not the white male Trump voters who are being neglected but the migrant families ripped apart by immigration raids and the Muslim ban; the victims of hate crimes; and the communities that face the brunt of the worst of Trump's actions. Morality, basic decency, requires standing up for the poor and oppressed.

[TXCritter]

1. two words - "Reagan Democrat"

The Democrats have been running a defensive game based on politics of cowardice ever since the Reagan Democrat appeared on the scene.

You're right. They're wrong.

[JI7]

4. Reagan democrats are dixiecrats

White men left the party over equal rights for others.

[BainsBane]

16. It also refers to places like McComb county Michigan

Not just Dixiecrats.

[Freethinker65]

55. Yep. I lived in Macomb County for nine years. Not "Dixiecrats".

Lots of undereducated hard working people doing the best they can.

[Squinch]

133. Good for them. But they voted for Trump. They are not the lowest hanging fruit for us.

[Chitown Kev]

147. Yeah...but they voted for Obama twice too...

There's a north-south split in Macomb County, too...

[yeoman6987]

87. Right now the Democratic Party has seats that haven been this low since 1920

Something needs to get done to get at least the 1,000 seats back. And one of many ways is to get more voters. We are about 96 percent of the African American votes and 88 percent of the Hispanic. Picking up the four and 12 percent of the two groups will help but is that enough to get our party back on track? I don't think it is.

[Kingofalldems]

100. Why is it, yeoman6987, that so many of your posts

are about how the repubs are in charge and there is nothing we can do? This one is particularly annoying as you once again post there is no solution

To be blunt it looks like taunting and bragging to me-- and more and more members of DU every day.

[Jake Stern]

118. Let's see. . . .

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 03:53 PM - Edit history (1)

They control congress, the presidency and almost certainly the SCOTUS. They have total control (Legislative, Executive, Judicial) in 25 states and at least one branch in 19 more. By contrast the Dems have total control in just six states and at least one branchr in 19 others.

That's not taunting, that's truth.

Now the big question is how to we win that back?

[kcr]

168. Gee, doesn't everyone know that's how you motivate people?

Pound them over and over with how hopeless it looks! Everyone knows that, duh.

[BainsBane]

17. Good point about Reagan Democrats

I hadn't though of that.

[jalan48]

2. It sounds like this has to be an either/or decision. Why not both?

[BainsBane]

3. I addresses that point in my OP

It isn't either/or, but the focus has been entirely on white Trump voters. Ask yourself why.

[jalan48]

5. Lets do both. We have lost almost all the state governments to Republicans, we need a strategy

to win back voters as well as help those who have been unable to vote. Republican control of state houses will only mean continued disenfranchisement.

[JI7]

6. And at the same time denying why they support trump

And making excuses and defending them over it.

[BainsBane]

10. Despite surveys showing

The one thing that the majority of Trump supporters agree on is race.

[SharonAnn]

119. I believe that overcoming voter suppression is a HUGE opportunity.

While we can't change the laws overnight, we can be sure to reach out to people and be sure they get ID's, help them get ID's including covering the cost), get them to vote (absentee if necessary).

We're often leaving this all to the individual whose vote is being suppressed. Shame on us.

[jalan48]

124. I agree and because voting is controlled at the state level we need to focus our efforts there.

Simply yelling about how bad a a specific group is (white males) accomplishes nothing.

[get the red out]

7. More important

I think it's more important to get democrats off their asses to vote! People need to really see how the next Presidential candidate (Congress, Senate candidate down to State Legislator) is fighting for THEM.

[JustAnotherGen]

39. I think she addressed that - but

What if they turn you away?
What if the VRA changes made it impossible for you to vote?
What if you were in a place like MI and your vote was thrown out - based upon where you live . . . which in many cases in Michigan correlates to the color of your skin?


People WANT to vote. We are looking down the barrel of a gun that is blasting a solid voting block - blacks - in particular black WOMEN - back to 1963.

I can't change those people who voted for Trump and will support him until their dying breath. That would be like trying to shift me away from my deep admiration of President Obama and VP Biden. It's not going to happen.

We can't change them - but we can assure those who are NOTHING like them in terms of beliefs, morality, concept of patriotism, etc. etc can indeed vote IF they want to.

[littlemissmartypants]

45. This.++++++++

I talked with someone yesterday that was actually bragging about NOT BEING INVOLVED IN POLITICS!! What the hell?? We ARE the government. It's that simple. If you can't show up for your own governance why get out of bed? It goes beyond stupidity straight to arrogant pride. Like that's helpfully sustainable. Good grief.

[get the red out]

114. That is who I meant

People that easily can but won't vote.

[BainsBane]

112. If we focus so much on the presidency

You can forget about accomplishing anything. Fighting will be nothing more than words. We have to focus on regaining control of state governments so that the GOP does not continue to control redistricting.

[uponit7771]

8. THANK YOU!!! of course POC votes were down in voter suppression states!!!!!

[JHan]

9. I don't get it either

On top of feeling the brunt of Trump's xenophobia and bigotry, I must now reach out to white males who found it appealing?

I'm a young black woman - they can go fuck themselves.

[BainsBane]

13. They've been told that's what matters

By a politician whose word is treated as gospel. But then they are also poised to be receptive to it.

I'm not saying that Dems shouldn't try to win every vote, but when we are told time and time again that Trump voters require special attention, it becomes offensive.

And no, you have no responsibility to cater to the egos of white men who voted for a White Supremacist. The mere suggestion of it is awful.

[JHan]

14. Thing is..

there is no conceivable way to empathize with folks who believe in zero-sum solutions unless you abandon your moral principles.

I can feel for people who've lost their job, or about to lose their home. I am passionate about us getting to the point where we can have universal health care, even a UBI.

But I am not going to reach out to "Trump Voters" . They aren't the only ones suffering, they aren't the only ones who need a helping hand.

it's unbelievable the conversation is even being framed that way given Trump's campaign last year and what we know of this administration.

[iluvtennis]

43. +1000nt

[JustAnotherGen]

40. Yeah and our best

Go fuck themselves - do anything and everything we can to secure voting rights. The vote was suppressed, it benefity bigoted white men who were just out for themselves -

We are not obligated to lick their heels.

We are obligated to be out 'for ourselves TOO'.

Being the better person gets one NOTHING. Not in politics - that's for sure.

[Cosmocat]

49. I am a white male

and I 100% have had my fill of pussyaching by whites generally, and white males specifically.

And, for good measure, I am completely unreligious, but also have had my fill of this thing where "good christian" only applies to whites.

[world wide wally]

11. The thing most Democrats don't get is that saying exactly what they believe without

catering to polls or focus groups will earn them a ton of voters.
Look what people said about why they liked Trump. They said he "tells it like it is or says what he thinks".
Having a little faith in our message will go a long way in flipping Trump voters.
We will never get 100% of the vote, but neither will they. So fuck it.

[BainsBane]

15. "Like it is"

is not about principles or ideas. It's code for racism and sexism. They describe his offensive, hateful comments as "telling it like it is," when the fact is Trump is a complulsive liar.

My OP is responding to the explicit and frequently repeated message that Democrats are neglecting Trump voters. That's very different from what you propose.

[Occulus]

73. His response was about their perceptions. Not yours.

See, this is part of why we lost: we were so buried in our own certainty about the "real meaning" behind their "real reasons" for voting for Trump that we never ever considered even once that these people genuinely believed what they were saying about their perceptions of him.

We did nothing at all to counter that. We instead insisted, often to their faces, they they didn't really think what they said they thought, that they were lying about their own inner racism/sexism/hatred, that they knew they were lying about, etc., etc., etc.

I'm sure in some cases that was true. It was not anywhere close to universal.

Insisting someone's lying to you about their motives when they themselves do not believe they are doing so will only turn them off and drive them away.

[Cha]

12. Eloquently said, Bains! I reject that plea

to pander to racist, homophobic, misogynistic, trump voters.

We're too busy fighting for people whose lives are being threatened by the results.

[geek tragedy]

18. We need them to win Congress back. nt

[BainsBane]

21. But not the far more numerous black voters?

How do you figure that?

[geek tragedy]

35. 1) the swing districts don't have a lot of African-Americans

2) there are twice as many WWC voters as there are Latinos and African-Americans ... combined

Part of winning is being clear-eyed about the country we actually live in.

[JustAnotherGen]

42. What would you be willing to 'give up'

To win them back?

You? You I will listen to because you very often type and think as I do.

What is the devil's arithmetic that must be done to 'win them'.

[geek tragedy]

113. As one of the infamous liberal coastal elites, I'd be willing to have the party

reflect less of the sensibilities of myself and people like me--we probably do have outsized role in shaping the party.

In terms of actual policies, I dunno. I'm not in a position where I'm able to compromise on other people's civil rights, but at the same time we do need to find a way to attract good jobs to areas outside the cities--both to increase incomes in the outlying areas as well as decreasing the relative cost of living in the cities.

[delisen]

105. ...and since 2010 those "wwc" have put in Republicans in

governorships, state legislatures----at record numbers-so if they voted for Obama, where were his coattails ?

[geek tragedy]

115. not everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 (or in 2012) were madly in love

with him. A lot of them were severely disgruntled with Bush's record, and couldn't warm up to an economic royalist like Mitt "the guy who laid your dad off" Romney.

[Charles Bukowski]

121. But they warmed up to Donald "stiffing the working

class for decades" just fine. Sure it wasn't the "Make America White Again" rhetoric that proved seductive to these voters?

[BainsBane]

146. How is converting Republicans "clear eyed."?

How is refusing to engage with the data from the election and instead taking one politician's word on why the Democrats lost "clear eyed"? What about all the districts that may be lost due to low turn out because voters of color understand the party prioritizes white men above their second-class votes?

And lastly, what about social justice? What about doing what is right? What about standing for something other than upholding white male privilege?

There is a real irony that we see the same "progressives" insist that existing red states lawmakers should be purged while then arguing we need to focus on white Republican voters. It starts to look like the goal is not an electoral majority or "progressivism" but elevating whiteness. I don't mean you here. I'm surprised to see you make the argument you are. You have never been one to dismiss the concerns of women and people of color. I consider your new position a troubling sign of what I fear to be a rightward, or whiteward, direction of some in the party.

[geek tragedy]

161. We've won the House twice since 1992.

Both times because WWC were alienated from the Republicans.

The amount we can do for POC as the minority party in Congress is zero.

[Blue_true]

132. Black voters tend to be concentrated in urban and Surburban areas.

That can help win US Senate seats and Governorships, but helps little with the US House, State Senate seats and State House seats.

[kcr]

19. People who think this are white

and have never had to deal directly with racism. They live with the mindset that everyone is basically the same inside and need and want the same things. So, what's the problem, they think? Just reach out to them and show these stubborn voters what they need. Problem solved. Why can't Dems see this very basic problem the way they do? Why are they futzing around with these other issues and letting these votes go to waste?

They don't see Trump votes as racism and the Southern Strategy at work. They see it as Dems dropping the ball. It's not a part of their life, so racism is just this academic myth to them.

[BainsBane]

22. A good point

I think you're right.

[kcr]

97. They're the same ones who buy the myth that Trump voters switched from Obama

They voted for Obama! So it can't be racism! These amazing and complex ex-Obama supporting Trump voters that came from the same vault as climate denial. They're never going away.

[Chitown Kev]

149. That's not a myth...

The fact that some Trump voters voted for Obama is real (great recessions will do that to you!) but that doesn't mean that they're not racist.

[kcr]

167. I wasn't clear. Obviously there were some actual voters who flipped.

It would be ridiculous to say that no white voter anywhere who voted for Obama switched to Trump. But it wasn't en masse, hence the myth. The county flips happened because voters stayed home. Not because they all switched to Trump. And you are absolutely right. The ones who DID flip are still racist, even if they voted for Obama. It's that "I have a black friend" defense.

[Chitown Kev]

148. Yes..

and a lot of times when this level of abstract politics is engaged, I wonder if white people who right this are friends with back people and have these needed conversations.

[betsuni]

164. +1

[George II]

20. What concerns me is that we have someone in charge of so-called "Outreach"....

....whose responsibility is to attract voters - Democrats, independents, and even republicans - by point out the positive things about the Democratic Party and what we can do for them.

Unfortunately all that's coming from him is how bad the Democratic Party is, what's wrong with us, and what we have to do to change.

[BainsBane]

23. We do have to change

But the way to achieve that is not to constantly assail the party is the press. If the goal is really for the party to reach out to Trump voters, how does continually claiming they are ignoring them help that? It serves only one person, not the party and not voters.

[truebluegreen]

44. Dude. We lost to DFT.

Do you seriously think no introspection is needed?

[George II]

84. The thing is I've seen lots of criticism, but very few specific, positive recommendations....

My very last college class (45 years ago now) was basically a seminar on what to expect in the real, working world.

The one thing that sticks in my mind even today was what the Professor told us - "you're free to criticize anything that's proposed by your co-workers or supervisor, but if you do, you'd better be prepared with a specific recommendation yourself".

I'm not seeing much, if any of that.

[ismnotwasm]

24. It keeps coming up

My only conclusion is that some people are afraid of bigots--or are afraid to call it out. I am a nurse. I recognize the human being in everyone. I've cared for many Trump supporters, laughed with them, cried with them, cared about and for them on a deeply human level.

And Bigots are still bigots, and I can fight against what that means when forming policy--as well in my daily life-- without losing sight of the inherent destructive force in the entire concept of a white, male ruling class.

[brooklynite]

25. Answer: because they voted for us before

First, nothing stops from reaching out to BOTH voters of color and white working class males. Second, sticking with cliches like "dixiecrats" may make you feel better about your opponents, but the reality is that, while we did well in traditional Blue urban enclaves (and I've had this confirmed by Party Chairs and Senators in three of the battleground States), our margins in rural counties plunged. People voted for Obama in 2012 and switched to Trump in 2016. Not because they're all misogynistic xenophobes, not because they're all Bible-thumpers, but because they were feeling economically anxious, and saw Trump as a representation of "change" while Clinton was not.

Can I also point out that it was Bernie Sanders who said the Party needed to focus less on "identity politics" and spend more time addressing broader economic issues that would be applicable to ALL voters who are inclined to consider supporting Democratic candidates.

[True Dough]

31. Excellent post, Brooklynite!

You can see how this narrative gets distorted by those who are hell bent on making ALL Trump voters pay for their "sins." They accuse anyone who wants to reach across the aisle of only courting white male voters. Not true!

They point out that polls show the majority of Trump voters agreed with his bigoted policies. So what's the majority? 60%? 70%? That still leaves 30 to 40% of voters who might be candidates to convert to Democratic voters in the next election. Even if we do only get 10%, that would likely make a big difference.

And, yeah, fark all the bigots and misogynists. Absolutely! You can be in favor of wanting to convert the remainder without sympathizing with the most crude and vulgar among the Trumpsters.

[BainsBane]

123. Whereas punishing the majority of Americans

For the failure of the Democratic leadership to assuage the anger of a relatively small group of progressives is to be celebrated.

How is it that there is so much sympathy for Trump voters and none for the people dealing with hate crimes and immigration raids? We have a thread of over 100 recs saying Democrats deserved to lose, and damn the consequences. Whereas the suggestion that other people besides white male Republicans should count too is treated with anger. Something is seriously wrong.

[True Dough]

125. I think generalizing is part of the problem here

You continue to use terms that describe either end of the spectrum and little (or nothing) in between.

"Sympathy" for Trump voters is not the term I would use. I don't feel "sympathy" for Trump voters. I just want some of them who inevitably become disillusioned (if they haven't reached that point already), to realize the Democrats have something better to offer. That's what I'm arguing and I got the impression that it's what MineralMan is advocating as well.

On the other hand, to suggest there is no sympathy for those actually dealing with hate crimes and immigration, that's patently untrue. Perhaps some fraction of Democrats lack compassion on that front, but the majority of what I've read on this forum is that people here are absolutely appalled by these attacks on law-abiding individuals who make America a better place.

And, again, I don't know who you're referring to that is so strongly behind "white male Republicans." Obviously you've seen some posts from X number of people to compel you to keep coming back to that demographic, but it certainly doesn't apply to all of us who are willing to have a conversation with a portion of Trump voters willing to swing our way (not all of them are "white male Republicans" -- among those who may convert, it may actually be more women and minorities).

[JustAnotherGen]

46. Question re this:

but because they were feeling economically anxious

How does the party balance the message that won't alienate affluent blacks, latinos, asians, Indians, new comers from all races and religions?

Have they figure out they have some real 'meanies' in the party that are wondering why they couldn't get ahead the past 8 years while so many of us did?

[liquid diamond]

59. You people keep bringing

up the fact that some white Obama voters switched to trump. I'm so tired of that fucking talking point. That just shows how pathetically stupid they are. Trump conned their dumb asses into thinking big coal was coming back and they fell for it.

And for the millionth time some trump voters might not be racists, BUT THEY HAD NO PROBLEM VOTING FOR ONE! They knew his policies would hurt blacks, latinos, gays, and immigrants, but they didn't care. They are white so they felt they had nothing to worry about. I don't want those assholes in the Democratic Party.

[BainsBane]

65. Those voters of color voted for Democrats before too

and there are many more of them. The point is that voters are not being treated as equal. A small number of Trump voters have consistently been treated as more important than a million voters of color. What does that say about the values being promoted?

I did not reference Dixiecrats. I also specifically referenced the point about reaching out to both. That is only possible if people acknowledge that all Americans are important instead of relentlessly focusing on a small number of white Republicans while ignoring millions.

Lectures about identity politics are what white men--typically, and previously only, conservatives--say as a way of silencing the voices and concerns of people of color and women. That is not a call for inclusion but rather exclusion. All lives are not the same, and pretending they are ensures that women and people of color are not represented. Everyone is not stopped by police for being black or brown. Everyone does not face a government controlling their bodies. Everyone does not face discrimination due to religion. Everyone does not face victimization from hate crimes. Dismissing those concerns as "identity politics" demeans those citizens, placing them below the interests of white men deemed universal simply because they are white and male. That those comments came on the heels of an election that turned on the politics of white identity made those comments all the more disturbing.

I will not stand back while my party capitulates to discrimination. That those advocating for it claim it is progressive does not make it so. It is an effort to turn back the clock to a time when the privileged did not have to suffer the public existence of those they see as less than themselves.

[brooklynite]

67. How is it you imiagine Democrats are "discriminating" by reaching out to White male voters?

Are the caving on immigration rights? No.

Giving up on support for Planned Parenthood? No.

Demanding more "law and order" in Cities? No.

Remaining silet on transgender rights? No.

[BainsBane]

82. Decrying identity politics means abandoning those issues

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 01:58 PM - Edit history (1)

That is what it is an appeal to do. Note that the politician who critiqued "identity politics" focuses on only one of your points above.

[LanternWaste]

69. A more accurate and relevant translation being...

"but because they were feeling economically anxious, and saw Trump as a representation of "change" while Clinton was not..."

A more accurate and relevant translation being: "they bought into an unsupported, commercially branded message because, and only because it validates their biases..." (regardless of whether it makes you feel better about your opponents or not... as accuracy doesn't care about feelings)

[brooklynite]

106. Name the policies Clinton campaigned on...

...NOT the policies on her website; the ones that were an integral part of her daily message.

I think you'll be hard-pressed to come up with any.

[emulatorloo]

134. She talked policy @ debates and at rallies

Economics, creating jobs, retraining and education for people who work in dying Industries, fair tax policy, income inequality, healthcare, civil rights, you name it.

I'm sorta shocked you would try to claim she did not talk policy. That is her forte.

Just a reminder, Trump lied and spun fairytales to WWC voters about everything.

[Hortensis]

139. Sensible, informative, rejection of foolish bias.

Brooklynite's always worth reading.

[Stonepounder]

26. Several points.

1. I agree, the Dems need to grow a spine and quit trying to 'triangulate' during the elections. Find a young, charismatic, articulate, passionate person to run. A Bernie Sanders in their 40's-50's.

2. Force the states to accept a nonpartisan committee that draws precinct/district boundries in a non-gerrymandered fashion. One person, one vote in an ethnic/color blind fashion. (Don't ask me how we are going to do this, I don't have a freaking clue.)

3. Go after the unfair voter suppression crap. I, as a middle-class white person have never had to wait more that 10-15 minutes to vote in any election and I vote in most of them. There are always plenty of machines and it is a simple matter to show my ID, sign the voter book, and vote. My MIL never had any trouble voting, even into her 90's when she didn't have a Driver's License, she just converted it into an ID card and that was it. The only place we ever had trouble was in Missouri when we tried to register to vote and they demanded to see a Social Security card and said a bloody US Passport wasn't sufficient ID. Make it easy to register and vote.

Then sit back and watch.

[BainsBane]

47. First

Bernie is the one who has repeatedly argued that Democrats need to focus on what he calls neglected Trump voters. He hasn't, to my knowledge, once mentioned voter disenfranchisement. Someone in his image would not promote point three.

There are only two ways to force the states to open up the vote: through the courts or through congress. Congress is out, and DOJ is out. The ACLU and other organizations can press some cases, but the only truly effective mechanism is to regain control of state government by focusing relentlessly on building the party at the local level. That means Democrats need to get over the fixation on the presidency and focus on how power is really wielded in our system, at the local level. That means driving turnout in congressional and state elections. That must be treated with equal or greater importance than the presidency.

[Stonepounder]

50. I agree.

I wasn't specifically endorsing Bernie's policy, but even his detractors have to admit he has more 'fire in the belly' than someone like Hillary. That's what I am looking for in a candidate. That's what Trump had, the ability to fire up a crowd. Hillary (who would have made a very good President, and who I voted for unreservedly) was a wonk (not a bad thing) who never seemed quite comfortable addressing a crowd.

And I completely agree that we need to start at the grass roots. Elect the City Councilmen, the Mayors, the Sheriffs, and the like. Then go for the Statehouses and the State Legislators. It won't happen overnight, but there does seem to be a resurgence in grass-roots activism in the Dems across the country.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that we can remain fired up!

[delisen]

27. Well said.

[Parmenides72]

28. I think the point is to reclaim the obama voters we lost.

Certainly it would be a gross mistake to simply cater to white male voters, that would require a substantial shift to the right on all major issues.

[pnwmom]

32. We lost very few Obama voters to DT. That is a misconception. n/t

[Hortensis]

138. Yes.

[klook]

29. You mean like this guy?

Democrats at Crossroads: Win Back Working-Class Whites, or Let Them Go?

I agree there are other voters Democrats should be courting and supporting first, especially people of color, young voters of all types, and the many eligible voters who didn't cast a ballot at all.

Working against the Republican voter suppression machine (with Atty. General Sessions now at the helm) should be Job #1. I would argue it's even more important than figuring out which politician to blame for the 2016 electoral defeat.

[BainsBane]

34. I'm totally on board with looking forward

[Iggo]

30. Fuck some. (n/t)

[wcast]

33. For some reason many like to pretend that whites are the future of our party.

They aren't but are an important piece. We win them back by proposing legislation that helps every working person, not just the supposed white working class. We shouldn't change our party one iota to appeal to them but we need to stop being in bed with big business.

[BainsBane]

37. I agree in principle

But it's hard to get the party off big business without campaign finance reform.

[Iggo]

48. Fuck many. (n/t)

[greatauntoftriplets]

36. The white male Trump voters I know will never vote for a Democrat.

[BainsBane]

38. No, and those who make that argument

Don't acknowledge the kind of changes that works ve ne essay to win them. They pretend it's all about being more progressive, but a lot of those voters are angry about environmental protections they believe cost jobs. They also resent the Democrats for the representing people of color and women, a view some so-called progressives share.

[Cosmocat]

52. YEP

nm

[KittyWampus]

58. Except a few voters switched from voting for Obama 2x. So you are wrong.

That is the inconvenient truth that many DU'ers go to great lengths to forget.

[greatauntoftriplets]

60. I am talking about men who have NEVER voted Democratic.

These are specific people in my life; I am not speaking generally at all.

[KittyWampus]

63. Thanks or setting me straight on your post. Have a good weekend!

It's snowing here. After being 58 degrees yesterday.

[greatauntoftriplets]

68. You're welcome.

To my knowledge, I don't know any Obama voters who switched to Drumpf. Or they're not people with whom I discuss politics.

It's 28 here after several weeks of temperatures mostly in the 50s and even 60s. Snow is forecast, but I don't think it's supposed to be very much. We're celebrating a family birthday this weekend; that will be fun and we won't discuss politics.

[iluvtennis]

41. Well said!

[gordianot]

51. As a white male I can attest to the prevailing mindset of white male entitlement.

As a white male you are expected to follow undeserved privilege. When you do not you are held in disdain by other white males. I welcome that disdain.

[liquid diamond]

53. Lack of empathy

I notice it is white voters who insist we reach out trump voters.

[Cosmocat]

54. Agreed

They simply have VERY different world views that there is no halfway point to ...

[NCDem777]

56. How to activate the base?

That's the big issue.

For starters, let's try getting people to vote for our candidate because our candidate has the better platform. Last election, the best message we could come up with was "We aren't Republicans."

And maybe reconnecting with the anti-war movement would be helpful. One of the big reasons, Bernie, love him or hate him, got such big crowds was that he was the first one saying we should DIVEST from trying to solve every minor problem in the Middle East and INVEST in shit we need here.

[KittyWampus]

57. I haven't seen much of what you allege... we should "cater to white male Republican voters".

Not on DU. I think you've created what is mostly a straw man to knock down.

I haven't seen anyone saying we should change our platform to appeal to the people you talk about.

Would you please provide some links?

Sanders talks about reaching out to Trump voters. Is that whom you are referring to?

His message is to focus on the economics of the situation. And while that doesn't fly for many demographics it might reach a few generally rightwing men and women.

And then there's the inconvenient truth that a certain number of right wingers voted for Obama twice.

I think those who voted for Obama and switched to Trump can be manipulated by marketing and propaganda.

[bettyellen]

102. I've seen OPs about softening our support for abortion... also posts about immigration

And how we have to move to the right on that. I'm not sure if they're intentionally trolling but I found both suggestions pretty darned disturbing.

[NastyRiffraff]

61. Great post!

I'm sick of people whining that white males aren't getting enough attention from the Democratic Party. Since when? The Trump voters didn't vote for a monster because they were pouting about Democrats ignoring them. If you look at videos of a Trump rally, you can clearly see their bigotry; they voted for Trump because they agree with his racism, misogyny, neo-Nazi demagoguery. Watch a video of any Trump rally, including the ones after the inauguration. White males fill them by a large margin.

We're never going to get these people to vote for a decent Democrat, and frankly I don't want them in my Party.

[Orsino]

62. Cutting into Trump's largest voting bloc is a good enough idea.

There's no way around our needing special outreach to a demographic we lost so badly.

Maybe don't get hung up on language. "Appealing to" isn't the same thing as offering back rubs or apologies.

[KittyWampus]

64. Some good marketing people can come up with stuff that might work. And with data analysis

coupled with social media platforms, that message can be tailored very, very specifically.

[Bradical79]

98. Or just normal outreach

My brief take on the campaign itself after reading some pre and post election alaysis:

Need to still advertise adequately in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio. Also need to show up at labour events.

Advertising wise, construct a cohesive narrative around policy, and a moto less focused on the candidate as an individual. Her "Stronger Together" was a better slogan than "I'm With Her", imo. Also, make the vast majority of ads airing policy based rather than focused on the character of the other candidate. Save that stuff for social media, leaks to the media, and the occasional debate "gotcha" statement in debate, like how she rattled Trump.

The "story" aspect of a campaign is something her campaign did a poor job with. She had a great amount of in depth policy to fix a variety of issues, but wasn't able to bring it all together as a narritive to sell a wide variety of voters on.

I think keeping that stuff in mind would make it far less likely for Russia, voter suppression, the FBI, and third parties to give the steal to the Republicans.

[redgreenandblue]

66. The "everyone except me is racist/sexist" attitude that is seeping from this post is why we lost.

Is it because they take their lead from a politician who has traditionally relied overwhelmingly on white voters for his electoral wins? Is it because of an implicit, unconscious bias that white male voters matter more? They just don't think about disenfranchised voters because they don't know any? Is it because they want to see the party whiter, like in the days they insist the party was so much better than today?

"I'm not accusing anyone of being racist. I'm just asking *wink wink*"

Clue: Hillary achieved meh results with female and Latino voters and that is not the fault of mythical "white male racist progressives".

[BainsBane]

74. I asked questions

Others have suggested explanations that I did not think of, many of them excellent, far better than mine. You are free to offer some yourself.

How is it you missed my entire argument about voter disenfranchisement on populations of color? Or did you simply not think it relevant?

[lagomorph777]

70. We don't have to cater to the worst elements of voters' personalities.

The worst way to do it is by appealing to the racist, hyper-religious, cruel traits of some white males. That approach repels everybody else.

Why not appeal to what all working and middle-class people have in common: the desperate need to reverse the upward transfer of wealth that has been perpetrated for decades? That will appeal to all regardless of color (well, all except the top 1%, who can go fuck themselves).

[BainsBane]

71. That can be part of a message

But not all of it, because the fact is there are many concerns than are not common to everyone.

[lagomorph777]

72. We have to select issues that appeal to the most people, and are the most important.

The wedge issues can remain in the hands of the Reputin Party and their deplorables. They are a minority, and nothing sane will ever enter their brains.

[BainsBane]

78. And that attitude is a problem

The experiences of the majority are not "wedge issues", and the experiences of a minority are not more important. That you assume they are is a serious problem. I do not share your desire to turn the clock back to when most Americans had no representation or opportunity to express their concerns. I do not want to become the GOP.

[lagomorph777]

120. OK I think you need to list some positions that Dems should take, despite them being

against our values. I for one do not think it is appropriate for any Dem at any time to take positions that are in opposition to moral justice. If you think there is majority support for some morally injust position, so Dems should take that position to win some votes, we are in very strong disagreement.

[mcar]

109. HRC did that in her campaign

As did all the Democrats. I heard it at the rallies I attended/worked and saw on TV, and read on her website.

But she had emails...

[liquid diamond]

75. Bravenak

has been arguing against this bullshit for months. If democrats pursue fickle and racist white voters, that pandering will lead to loyal minorities leaving the party. Do you caucasians want that?

[Act_of_Reparation]

76. Why does everyone think we have to do one or the other?

Social justice, economic justice... is there some fucking reason we can't both?

[BainsBane]

80. Why don't you read my post?

Before claiming I am arguing something I don't, and in fact specifically say I am not.

[Act_of_Reparation]

91. Why don't you read your post?

Because that's exactly the argument you're making.

[JHan]

101. that is not the argument she was making.

[BainsBane]

141. Quote

Certainly the Democratic Party can try to appeal to voters of all races, but not if they are continually told what matters are Trump-voting white males.

[Dem2]

77. Rigid arguments

Arguments designed to achieve maximum responses are worded to appear as either/or. Not so productive IMO.

All groups of people should be treated with about the same level of respect - that's my interpretation of the arguments you're ascribing bad motives to. I'll assume some of the one's you're referring to are also poorly argued and seem to pay too much credence to the "white male" voter. Responding in kind leads to pointless circular argumentation. Stereotypes are bad. Period. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't particularly useful.

[BainsBane]

85. If the point is to treat all groups of Americans with equal respect

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Why is one group continually focused on but not others? We have seen a myopic focus on the "working class white voter" since the GE, with virtually no discussion of disenfranchised voters of color. How does that communicate equal value?

[Dem2]

99. Seems like a voter Democrats feel like they should have done better with?

I see nothing wrong with wondering why certain voters feel less that welcome in the Democratic party. I also see discussions about voting issues/disenfranchisement as well. I'm not sure what the problem is?

[BainsBane]

117. The problem is there has been no attention on to disenfranchisement

in the aftermath of the GE and a relentless focus on white male Republican voters, especially among those calling themselves progressives. They have ceded analysis of the election to a single politician who has a myopic focus on this point, possibly because his own political fortunes are tied to white voters.

I'll put it plainly. Many progressives aren't paying attention to disenfranchisement because Bernie hadn't told them to.

We also see comments, even in this thread, that issues that relate to women and voters of color are "wedge issues" that should be be championed by the party.

[Orrex]

79. HOLY SHIT LET ME RECOMMEND THIS 50 TIMES!

Again and again and again I see that we're supposed to "reach out to" white working class male voters.

Well as a representative of that demographic, I say fuck the white working-class male voter for enabling a racist rapist who shouldn't be allowed within 1,000 miles of DC. Fuck them fuck them fuck them.

Clinton WON by 3M votes. The last thing we need to do is "reach out to" the increasingly irrelevant white male who thinks that things will be great once Trump reopens the coal mines and gets rid of women's health once and for all. Fuck them fuck them fuck them.

I don't want to hear how they were conned or how they regret their votes or how they feel disadvantaged by society. Fuck them and their bullshit snowflake fragility. Fuck them fuck them fuck them.

And fuck every one of you assholes from The Discussionist and from JPR who having nothing better to do than to scour DU for ways to get your knickers twisted. Fuck you too.


We should continue our outreach and support of women and minorities. THEY are the strength and the future and the promise of the party, and anyone who can't see that is living in a delusion 60 years out of date.

[BainsBane]

86. The point that the party needs to focus more on

workers' issues is a good one. It's the constant refrain that the Trump voting white men are being neglected that has long worn thin.

[Orrex]

93. No, only white working class males matter. Didn't you get the memo?

I agree with you, of course.

We as a party should definitely embrace and support and defend workers' rights, but there's no reason to (continue to) prioritize white males at the expense of all the rest.

[irisblue]

137. I so agree with you Orrex. nt

[iamateacher]

81. The governor of Pa. is Democratic

As is the Secretary of State... But I agree with you, we will never get white Trump voters on our side. ((I am related to some of them.) We need to go after young people who didn't think it mattered if they voted (they know better now) and the other specific groupwho are being hurt, even terrorized by his policies.

[BainsBane]

83. But there was a Republican

Who implemented voter ID, was there not?

[iamateacher]

89. The last governor Tom Corbett, repub

Tried voter ID, it was struck down by the Pennsylvania Supreme court. There is no voter ID requirement, I worked the polls ..to my knowledge, days and hours were not shortened, but then again, we have never had polls open other than election day. Pa. was lost by poor voter turnout in the cities and heavy turnout in rural counties.

[BainsBane]

96. Okay, I'm wrong on that

Thanks for the correction.

[lark]

88. Dems need to stand up for poor, oppressed, environment, unions and working class people

regardless of their race and ethnicity. If they can find a way to do this, and stop the BS hacking and collusion with foreign powers, they will win again, and bigly. lol

[iamateacher]

92. Yes!!

We have to educate people to understand that it is important to vote and there are severe consequences if they don't!

[LexVegas]

90. White people are saying that. nt

[bettyellen]

94. It's disturbing to see no one talk about getting more women- which would make more sense to me....

[Gothmog]

95. The Democratic Party cannot win over Trump voters and the future is in the diverse base of the party

The Democratic Party is not going to win over trump voters. These voters will either not vote or will vote for any candidate with a R by their name. The decline in the turnout of voters from POC is what hurt Clinton. I strongly reject the concept that the party future lies in trying to convince white voters to vote for a Democrat.

In Texas, the holy grail is to increase turnout among Latino voters. If Latino voters in Texas voted in the same percentages as California, Texas would be a solid blue state.

[delisen]

108. I think the future of Dem party is South

[Gothmog]

129. As someone who is working hard to turn Texas blue, I agree

[mcar]

103. K&R

[La Lioness Priyanka]

104. because white lives have always mattered more than the rest of ours

even to liberals

[brer cat]

127. And here is the thread winner!

Talk of appealing to trump voters seems to go hand-in-hand with getting rid of "identity" politics, and that seems to meet with the approval of a big contingent of self-described progressives.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

128. yup

[melman]

107. Same tired bullshit

No one has said that. Obviously.

[BainsBane]

143. The issue is what they have said

What have they insisted we focus on. Don't neglect trump voters. The Democatic Party left the (white) working class behind. Shame on the Democracy party for not winning the loves of white Rust Belt voters. Dozens and dozens of times since the election.

Disenfranchisement of voters of color, record levels: crickets.

The emphasis and omissions say everything.

[ymetca]

110. There are not enough people in the House of Representatives

Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution includes this line:

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative

We should have a LOT more members in the House. More representation. Less see-sawing between two parties. More populous parts of the country would have more power. Less power to rich, rural landowners, which have now been largely replaced by billionaire oligarchs who've basically "bought" the less populous, mostly "red" states.

Just sayin' ...

[BainsBane]

111. People of color and women live in red states too

What are you willing to sacrifice to win over Republican voters?

[ymetca]

116. More representatives in each state

would increase representation for marginalized groups. I live in a deep red state, but which often elects Democratic governors. It is much harder to gerrymander districts when there are more of them, and more people of the opposite party in each of them. The district I am in used to always put a Democrat into the state house. But it was gerrymandered, as the population increased. Now it has this weird, long tail, then spans out again to include an area much larger with mostly white, rural (and richer) constituents. The intent was clearly to split the urban/suburban, more racially and socially diverse population in which I live. Now we always lose to a Republican by a margin about the same as the difference between urban and rural voters added to the district.

Gerrymandering is basically just Jim Crow 2.0. And they keep getting away with it.

[Chitown Kev]

151. A lot of POC in some rural areas

of red states, esp. in the South.

[Jamaal510]

122. K&R

[Fiendish Thingy]

126. Focus should be on the working class, period

Including whites, along with everyone else.

[BainsBane]

142. How do you define working class?

And what percentage of the population do you think that is?

[Starry Messenger]

130. k&r

[sheshe2]

131. K&R

[JustAnotherGen]

135. Then there are these people

DU Thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028776029

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/trump-supporters-call-liberal-genocide-and-deportation-jews-arizona-rally

I don't want 'em, as a veteran I don't want 'em, let 'em go back home," another seconded. "If they've got a problem, let Saudi Arabia take care of 'em."

Some even dared to tell Dan Cohen of the The Real News Network how they'd make America great again now that Trump was in office. And Muslims weren't the only religious minority unwelcomed.

"If she's Jewish, she should go back to her country," a 13-year-old Trump supporter said of a protester.

"This is America, we don't want Sharia Law," one attendee explained. "Christian country," he added.

I have zero desire to charm and enchant maggots like that. When these "good ones" people wax poetic about at DU start to denounce, denigrate, and degrade these bad ones . . . We can talk.

Their silence is approval. They gave us these maggots and it's up to them to put them down.

[BainsBane]

145. You don't understand

It's the corporate media misrepresenting voters whose true concerns are TPP and Standing Rock. They are simply anti-triangulation. If you were smart you'd know that.

[JustAnotherGen]

158. Bains

Its just so hard to understand. It's like string theory.

[BainsBane]

159. String-us-up theory

is more like it.

[JCanete]

140. A triangulating party tries to cater to white republican votes. Our party has a history of doing

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)

that, from "super predators" to "don't ask don't tell."

And don't worry, I already know, you aren't going to read this. You can spare the ink that you would have used to tell me so.

Liberals who are frustrated with our party want us to win those voters with a message that gets through to a chunk of them in spite of their bubbles of misconception and alternate reality, not by pandering to those misconceptions.

I guess this can get confusing when the media takes populist messaging about how we need to reach these groups of voters and turns that into us needing to cater to their worst instincts. That's them doing the job they are paid to do, being intellectually dishonest or lazy.But nobody who is a liberal is saying what you think they are saying.

You are right, voter suppression is fucking huge. For that matter, continued erosion of quality education is HUGE. Why aren't we nagging the fuck out of our so-called fourth estate to do their job and cover it like a responsible media would? Why are we letting this happen? Sure, we try to draw attention to it, "please media please...don't you see?" but that is not the same as embarrassing the media for the horrible job it is doing. We never seem to want to take on the forces that benefit from all of this, and that is why we can't break off voters. We never seem to want to find a galvanizing war-cry that puts the middle class on the side of the poor, rather than allowing the GOP and the media to manipulate our message into it being about taking money from the middle class.

[BainsBane]

144. Are you prepared to tell Bernie and his supporters

They are triangulating through the relentless focus on White Republicans? Please. I'd love to see that OP.

Bernie's got essentially a running prime time series. He's got more access to the corporate media than any politician except the President. He can raise any issue he chooses. He choses to focus on Republican white men. How about nagging him to focus on something "huge"? How about nagging his supporters to shift their attention away attacking "identity politics" to working to empower and enfranchise the non-white population whose rights have been ripped away by the GOP?

[Chitown Kev]

152. I just might write an essay like that

after all, it is triangulation of a sorts...

..if we're going to go this route...

https://withoutbullshit.com/blog/nate-silver-wasnt-wrong

The second factor is the undecided and third-party voters. Late polls showed about 8% undecided and 7% third-party voters — 15% of the electorate choosing neither Trump nor Clinton. In the end, 5% of the votes went to third-party candidates. Where did the remaining 10% go? Mostly to Trump. I have to admit, this was the thing that made me most doubtful about Clinton win predictions ahead of the vote, and it turned out to be right. It was also the reason that fivethirtyeight was less certain about a Clinton win, and they were right.

Voters that liked neither Trump nor Clinton voted for Trump, by and large...

...if you can ID those Trump voters, I say go for it.

[BainsBane]

155. I look forward to seeing your essay.

[JCanete]

154. They are not. They are focusing on the class warfare being waged on all of us. Yes, the white middle

class is being bribed and manipulated into supporting interests that are not even good for most of them. Focusing on getting them to see that kind of seems important, since they represent a huge fucking chunk of our American population, and they breed.

If we fight against the pawns and not the power, we are not helping people of color or anybody but the 1 percent. All Sanders has done was attempt to Judo the language already familiar in that bubble towards getting them to see that they are being played. He has not once appealed to the twisted ignorance that is pervasive in these circles. He has tried to dismantle it, starting from the very real understanding that even people who do vile things are people and that often, they do them because they think they are doing good according to some fucked up sense of who the evil doers and good guys are--that is a reality built up on falsehoods fed to them. Showing them that that shit is being fed to them makes a whole lot more sense than trying to appeal to any-fucking-body by just telling them that they are evil vile deplorables. And how do you think that messaging works for the next generation of "evil vile deplorables" who love their parents and their family and friends? Do you think that helps them to see the light? Do you think that is a bridge extended for them to cross over?


You may not see it, but you are constructing straw-men...or show me what I don't see. Where is he trying to actually promote conservative interests? Where is he trying to roll back rights or vilify populations, or "get harsh on crime" or say "all lives matter" or any other bullshit that is the pandering of the age and ages past? I have a feeling you are going to come up empty here, but I've been wrong before.

As to whether or not Sanders is tough enough on the media himself...he is absolutely not. He does mention that the media is owned by mega-corporations and that that affects their messaging, but then he goes on their shows and thanks them for tackling an important issue. I don't think the praise is that valuable. I think we can be pleasant but harsh in our criticism of the media to its face, and should be. But I get that no single person can do it. The party has to do it, but our leadership has no intention of doing so.

[BainsBane]

160. I didn't think so

Last edited Fri Mar 10, 2017, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

When politicians and activists tell people of color what is good for them rather than listening, it becomes clear they don't actually care. We are instead seeing excuses for why whiteness matters more. We are witnessing a hard tack to the right, to turn the party back to the days when women and people of color kept quiet while white men told them what was good for them. That is not equality. That is oppression.


Don't think we haven't figured out what the game here is. It couldn't be more transparent. Even on class alone it fails. There isn't even a pretense of addressing poverty. We see people of color and women defined outside the working class even though they are the majority of it, in favor of white males whose incomes average twice the national median. Poor whites are similarly discounted. We were told white people don't know what it's like to be poor. (That came as news to me) We were told that racism was synonymous with poverty. The black middle-class is invisible in such discourse, as are poor whites.

Besides, the candidate in question advanced an agenda that was far more about the concerns of urban college students than the working class of any color. Displace workers in coal country and the taconite regions decry environmental regulation, and workers in shale oil are not anxious to see their jobs banned. To pretend those policies appeal to this much lauded white working class requires not paying any attention to what they actually say.

Suddenly red states are important. A year ago when the votes were coming from those states were from black voters, they were dismissed as "conservative states," maligned as the ""confederacy," whose placement third (and later) the primary process distorted "reality" by undermining the more important white male voter in places like Idaho and Wyoming.

I will not sit back as a self-entitled minority work to move the party and the nation back to the good ole days, back to the 30s and 50s, just coincidental when the great majority were denied the vote, equal rights, and economic opportunity, and white men didn't have to suffer the irritation of women and people of color advocating for their own interests, when the white male bourgeoisie decided what we should be allowed to have and be.

These are the the so-called leftists you hold is such esteem. http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/keith-ellison-sheep-dogging-through-trumpland/#post-558701 They openly denounce civil rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, and everything except their own pocket books. The irony is that they denounce the rights of the majority of Americans and then claim they promote equality, when it is clear they promote white male supremacy, just like their "progressive" hero Donald Trump. I don't know what he means by New Deal values because he doesn't say, but he couldn't be clearer about opposing social justice, the rights of the majority.

That is your so-called left, which aren't left in the least. They are the people you insist should never be criticized, all while slamming voters who don't prioritize the wallets of white men above their own lives as "third way" "triangulators. But that's not division because our our lives and our rights don't figure in to the new vision of the body politics being promoted.

There is a reason they chose Trump: White supremacy. They can take their admiration for GOP white male voters to the GOP where it fucking belongs rather than working to remake the Democrats in its image.

And even for those who are not so explicit in their hostility to the rights of the non-white male majority, the relentless message that it is white voters who are being treated unfairly or ignored is not lost on the rest of the country who don't fit into that privileged demographic. Is it in fact the rest of us that make up the base of the party, and that is what so angers voters like the one linked to above.

[JCanete]

166. Who is telling rather than listening? You are doing a lot of conflating and straw-manning here.

I know nothing of jackpine that I haven't read about here, and have never visited that site. I don't know who these people are or why you use them to make claims about us on the left.

I'd be very interested to know if anyone who is advocating against civil rights of any kind actually thinks of themselves as part of the left, and if they did, I would wonder what metric they were using to arrive at that affiliation. Were they Bernie supporters? I don't know, but if they sound like you say they sound, they sound nothing like Sanders or what he's been fighting for. That happens. Maybe he found something that resonated with them in-spite of their stupid. Maybe it was when he was the first of our major candidates to say "black lives matter," or when they saw his record and rhetoric that puts him ahead of the times on civil rights issues just about always.

Go ahead and use some website of people who don't reflect any voice of prominence if you want to, but that seems ridiculous to me. Those are certainly not the people I'm defending. Nor as far as I know, do they have any traction with members of our party. Basically, who are these people so why are we talking about them? If you're talking about some fringe racist group and warning us not to go down that path, okay, that's great, but I challenge you to show me somebody here who wants us to go down that path.

From my first post I made a clear distinction between what the media has done to populist messaging about reaching out to these voters, as opposed to the actual messaging. I thought it was obvious that I was in strong opposition to pandering to right-wing interests in any way, but that didn't stop you from saying people who are racists are the so-called-left that I am defending. I think we're both in agreement here, the left you describe is not the left, so why do you call it the left?

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about what forces are making our nation regress, making it get more racist and vile.. Thankfully we don't have a disagreement about whether or not we should allow that to happen. Thankfully we do not want to return to the 30's or 50's.

As to Sanders, if we actually promoted a real safety net it wouldn't be so scary for people to lose their occupations as the world shifts to cleaner energy. If we offered retraining and income stability durning those transitions, we could reach these people. The reason we can't reach them is because we are either disinterested in, or afraid to talk big enough. Fear will absolutely make people vote for what they think is in the interests of their own family's well-being. When that happens climate change denial gets a pass, immigrants and people of color and homosexuals get shit on. We need to take the fear out of the equation to help these people to hear reason. Otherwise we're trying to communicate with their limbic systems.

I'll give you that Sanders said something goofy there about white people not knowing what it's like to be poor. I don't know exactly what you're saying here though, since racism certainly has an impact on the pervasiveness of poverty, and it is certainly its own kind of additional deprivation of national capital in all its forms. It is certainly a deeper poverty in some ways than what somebody with the "right" color of skin has experienced, and the taxes on people of color are far more insidious and insurmountable...from police harassment, less reliable law enforcement to protect your property or life, predatory practices like sub-prime loans when regular loans should be available.. etc. etc.

Getting voters is important in any state. The only point that was being made--and this is typical political spin-doctoring-- was that Sanders had lost states that were well in the red projection and that the way both candidates faired was not representative of how they would do in the GE. You are making this into something else entirely, or show me something that paints this in a different light. Maybe I missed it. I also missed evidence of your other allegations here, that the real voters were supposedly elsewhere.

[Chitown Kev]

150. Kicked and recced because

It's interesting to me that those who propose this take black voters for granted every bit as much as they accused the Clinton campaign of doing.

I've studied quite a bit of black voting history going all the back to the time that 50% of blacks (men) voted for Woodrow Wilson in 1912...and 2/3 of blacks voted for Herbert Hoover in 1932.

Black people, in various ways, vote for civil rights as a priority. Economics slides up and down the scale of priority (although it's always a big one).

In other words, you cater the the WWC at the expense of black folks at your own risk.

[JCanete]

157. they are intrinsically tied together. there is no reason to sacrifice one in favor of the other.

That only undermines the ability to make progress on the one you are prioritizing. Why should it be either or when it cannot be?

[brooklynite]

153. Elizabeth Warren thinks we can do both...if we have a clear message

At leadt, that's what she told me this evening.

[JCanete]

156. cool! nt

[betsuni]

162. K&R

[Tarheel_Dem]

163. I agree with you, and I am sick to death of hearing about working class white men. Why not go after

that 40% of the population who tend not to vote in elections, right after we fix what the USSC f***d up re: voting rights.

[BainsBane]

165. That's exactly what I want to know

and the only thing I can figure is because it doesn't serve the interests of those demanding the party reshape itself demographically.