I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
The Democrats knew this before the election. Both sides ignore the other's core voters and go after the independents.
They explicitly tried to get GOP voters this election to create a blowout and prove that this kind of candidate was unacceptable. In so doing, they ignored their own base. Oops.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+17
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
There's an important distinction to be made between how the Democratic party should address voters and how ordinardy people like us should talk. The argument for the Dems marrying better economic policy with rhetoric that is pro-minority, not anti-racists (celebrating diversity!) in the future is a pretty good one.
The argument that I personally shouldn't say Trump supporters are either racist, fine with racism, or profoundly misinformed is on significantly shakier ground.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
People getting defensive when attacked isn't a racial trait as much as a human trait. There has to be a way to speak to people about race relations in a way that doesn't default to labeling them as racist. You can be right about something and fail to reach people because of how that something is framed.
There's an important distinction to be made between how the Democratic party should address voters and how ordinardy people like us should talk. The argument for the Dems marrying better economic policy with rhetoric that is pro-minority, not anti-racists (celebrating diversity!) in the future is a pretty good one.
The argument that I personally shouldn't say Trump supporters are either racist, fine with racism, or profoundly misinformed is on significantly shakier ground.
I feel like Trump tried to hit all of the potential strong emotional notes of his voters. Many people vote for a candidate because they feel that candidate best represents them for a topic that is important to them now.
Are you a racist? Trump promised things against minority groups, which appealed to you.
Are you a misogynist who was punished for slapping a waitress on her ass? Trump appealed to your desire to get away with that.
Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Trump promised to lower them.
Do you feel America is turning into a shithole? No worries, we'll make America great again!
Hillary, on the other hand, focused on things like incremental change and policy. Hillary's own experience as a politician worked against her in the campaign, because she knows how the system works and she proposed to improve things within that system. This feels bureaucratic, and doesn't hit those emotional keys.
This, and Trump's dominance of both traditional and social medias won him the election. Trump's entire campaign was and is a sham; designed only to tell you what you want to hear so you'll vote for him with no compunction to follow through on those promises.
I feel like Trump learned the lessons from the Obama campaign better than Hillary did. In 2008 he fired up the populace in a way that an insider won't. Which is why he managed to win the nomination over Hillary despite being relatively unknown.
In the end, I don't think that many Trump supporters endorse all of the things he espoused, or even most of them. But I think Trump was able to resonate on a key issue important to that voter, where Hillary failed to connect.
If the Democratic party treats all Trump supporters like they were Trump himself then we will continue to lose elections.
Heffling on
+2
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
Ed: doublepost
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
The Democrats knew this before the election. Both sides ignore the other's core voters and go after the independents.
They explicitly tried to get GOP voters this election to create a blowout and prove that this kind of candidate was unacceptable. In so doing, they ignored their own base. Oops.
I don't see it this way, Bum. I think this was trying to get our base to turn out. "Deplorables" certainly wasn't for them, it was red meat for us.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
Fucking improvements in medical science.
(I'm kidding)
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
Appealing to racists is a great way to lose the dem base. So your first option doesn't follow.
According to sources, Biden then photocopied a “big-ass” stack of blank executive orders and grabbed a handful of official presidential pens so he could practice his Donald Trump signature.
Foreshadowing.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
0
Options
SummaryJudgmentGrab the hottest iron you can find, stride in the Tower’s front doorRegistered Userregular
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
Appealing to racists is a great way to lose the dem base. So your first option doesn't follow.
We ran the ball straight up the middle four times and couldn't get a first down. Maybe we switch to passing?
Who the fuck are we going to lose them to? Republicans?
If they defect to the Greens, or Independent if Johnson hasn't had enough of his grifting operation, then we deserve what we get. There's always going to be a certain number of special snowflakes, and the data I've seen says it's a wash between Dems and Republicans defecting to third parties.
SummaryJudgment on
Some days Blue wonders why anyone ever bothered making numbers so small; other days she supposes even infinity needs to start somewhere.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
Appealing to racists is a great way to lose the dem base. So your first option doesn't follow.
We ran the ball straight up the middle four times and couldn't get a first down. Maybe we switch to passing?
Who the fuck are we going to lose them to? Republicans?
If they defect to the Greens, or Independent if Johnson hasn't had enough of his grifting operation, then we deserve what we get. There's always going to be a certain number of special snowflakes, and the data I've seen says it's a wash between Dems and Republicans defecting to third parties.
We lost the election because millions of Dem voters stayed home. There's no wash here--minorities will be reluctant to vote for a party that explicitly throws them under the bus to appeal to a handful of Trump voters. They won't go third, they'll just stay home.
We lost the election because millions of Dem voters stayed home. There's no wash here--minorities will be reluctant to vote for a party that explicitly throws them under the bus to appeal to a handful of Trump voters. They won't go third, they'll just stay home.
How many times did Obama have to call the Romney voters racist in order to win?
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
And I guess we really are doing this now, fuck it.
I think I am done with the democrats for the foreseeable future
This is day four. We don't even know what the democrats real espoused plan is yet! Take a breath.
I dunno, maybe I am just tired, or sick of being used as a scapegoat in all this.
And here I think we see one of the great ironies in all this. "I'm sick and tired of being a scapegoat in all this!" says one of our more radically progressively minded contributors, and so do the non-left wing, non-progressive members of society who feel that the language of the radical progressives makes them the blame for all.
Of course we know that the actual content of the social justice complaints do no such thing, it is far more nuanced than that, and we, the alleged scapegoaters are providing a more nuanced prescription than the charge of scapegoating would suggest.
But here we see one of most insidious intersections of identity politics and our own cognitive biases. It's a simple and unfortunate fact that much of our interactions with those with whom we do not directly identify seems to be non-cognitive - something that I find deeply and profoundly disturbing. Likewise, our natural impulse is to accept competing positions as the only alternatives - the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Lastly, a strange twist on the "energy of the enemy is my friend" comes into play with tribal affiliation - that which my opponent disagrees with must be right/that which my opponent agrees with must be wrong.
Identity politics on the other hand makes signalling and taboos powerful and unexamined motivations for no end of things. This combination leads to a lot of bad things. The more acrimonious the more high emotion infolbed in being a part of one identity group or another the more important this signalling becomes and the less cognitive the interactions.
Which leads me to the current day. The liberal wing of US politics has very strongly aligned itself with an embrace of radical progressive anti-racism and anti-sexism. This has been conflated through the simplification of mass discourse and our aforementioned cognitive tendencies to being the only way to be an anti-racist, anti-sexist or even to simply not be a racist or sexist at all, or so it would seem in the eyes and actions of those of the liberal tribe.
The non-liberal tribe, or tribes don't see it this way - they think "I am not a sexist, I don't agree with that, they are wrong!", and some buy what the liberals are selling to a degree and conclude that the only way to support feminism is the brand of feminism that currently prevails and reject feminism. Many of them see that certain things that Trump says really tweak the nose of the other tribe, and so it becomes clear that to show everyone that they are not of that tribe they should embrace that and tweak the nose of the other tribe too - certainly the fact that there are at least plausible ways to interpret these positions and statements in ways that aren't explicitly racist, sexist or abusive helps a great deal - illegal immigrants really shouldn't be here, terrorism in the modern day really does invoke religious doctrine, women really do prefer powerful men. The fact that when confronted with people chuckling about some young men yelling "Grab her by the pussy" we so radically overdiagnose the issue further cements the division between everyone. And yet, the liberal tribe calls them racists, insults them and so on and so forth? So tensions run higher and showing the other tribe what is what becomes all the more important.
Note that none of this is to say that the issues of sexism, racism and bigotry aren't important (I think they very much are). It isn't even to say that the radical progressive program is wrong (though, I think it is) or that the approach taken in combatting such things is counterproductive (though, I think it is). But what it is to say is that the idea that bald racism and sexism motivating the results is misconstrued and that we are blinkered when it comes to the ability to see beyond our own preconceptions and the current acid testing and requirements for ideological purity in radical progressive discourse is narrow - we can't even have a conversation in which some of us suggest that we can pursue social justice in a different way without it devolving into an accusation that some wish to simply throw minorities, women et al under the bus.
It is perfectly conceivable that the a whole range of people went for Trump without racism or sexism being their motivating force, that the terrible burdens of our own cognitive heuristics and the useless garbage of tribalism delivered the most powerful position in the world into the hands of a dangerous, unpredictable child who espoused terrible views, is obviously of terrible ethical character and made incredibly dangerous remarks about truely disturbing things - like nuclear weapons, climate change, debt, international relations - any of which could truly be the unmaking of civilisation. These things however, seem to be here to stay, in one fashion or another. At best we can seek to resist them - certainly the thing least likely to defend against tribalism and it's terrible consequence is escalations of rhetoric, extreme language or the whole hearted embrace of identity politics as the right way to do things. It's extremely frustrating but unfortunately being right means little when we don't have the power to make things right.
tl;dr - it's difficult to get people to react to the content of what we say even when we're all ostensibly on the same side and share the same goals and broadly similar philosophies, when has effectively yelling at people ever made things better or fostered better communications?
Yay, I get to be a lecture item in Apothe0sis' Learning Corner. Now all the Cis-Straight dudes can finger wag and tut at how hysterical I am being, oh how fun for the MIghty Moderates! I don't know what would lead you to think I am a fucking radical unless you were so far gone as to think you are a moderate.
While I am hesitant to open the floodgates toward a referendum on my personal politics, I think this particular instance would be illuminating - what precisely do you think my politics are, if not a moderate and I presume not a radical progressive. Where do you think we differ in terms of substantive policy goals (not philosophical justifications thereof)? I don't think it's a great mystery if anyone cared to pay attention (though, I certainly don't think I am interesting enough for anyone to have bothered). I mean, I agree I am not a moderate but you seem to think that this would be an accusation I would find distressingly contrary.
But this whole exchange continues to demonstrate what I am gesturing toward - I am not attempting to be remotely antagonistic, but it seems very much the case that the current preoccupations of the liberal tribe expressed so vehemently is a strategy which can only win if it turns more people toward the cause than it does toward the inclination to spite us and make no mistake spiting us is a preoccupation of theirs (and I would argue spiting them is a preoccupation of ours, but perhaps a less powerful motivator). For the time being, at least, it seems like the numbers don't pan out. And before you say it, I care not one whit for the feelings of those who would be turned toward Trump through the mad work of tribalism and identity politics, I care for who gets to sit in the big chair.
Alright, this may be a little piece-meal. You referred to me as "One of our more radically progressively minded contributors" verbatim. In contrast this would identify you as someone more moderate then you believe me to be, because most people don't refer to themselves as radical compared to others. I do not like being used as a cautionary tale. The way you write comes across like an observer, someone who presents them self as looking at all the mess instead of in the midst of it, something proud moderates often seem to glow with.
So almost certainly a bunch of assumptive bull because I was flustered and angry.
I think you are an incredibly intelligent person, especially just from how thought out your posts tend to be on topics, but I think you are mistaking radicalism for fear, unless they mean the same thing to you.
As for winning the big chair, all the talk of how the Dems abandoned the Rural Whites, means something much more menacing to me than losing the government. It is a sign that no matter how far we go, the majority will always be foremost in even my allies minds, and that even a country ruled by progressives won't ever think that my life is as important. Because when push came to shove, such illuminating ideas like "maybe we should give up on Trans-bathroom rights" and "obviously having welcoming areas for minorities on campus was a mistake" or "If only BLM didn't happen" started to pop up like clockwork. And no this isn't just about this board.
It doesn't matter how many times you reassure me that we won't abandon these causes, I cannot trust that minimizing is where it will stop. It doesn't matter to me if we win now, because I don't feel like a part of 'we' now. I feel like I am watching a knife coming towards me in slow motion as I stand there helplessly, and it can only be halted, not removed.
This is my thought process right now, feel free to mock it.
I in no way feel inclined to mock you, that's entirely not my purpose here and never has been. Thank you very much for the kind words they were appreciated but unnecessary.
Now, I must apologise - my question about what you thought my politics would be was a dirty trick. I knew my question would be interpreted in the fashion of American identity politics when there are many other axes upon which one might situate themselves - I hold very strong classical liberal and far left socialist/pro-worker views (a somewhat uncomfortable mix given that they can be in conflict so I end up triangulating between the two depending on the issue), and in that I am am not a progressive per se (though, obviously progressive overlaps with some of that). But this has been one of my points - we don't know how to talk or listen to each other allies in almost complete lockstep - the mad work of tribalism and the escalations it engenders means we quickly allow any disagreement to become "us vs them" as if everything were binary.
There's also a whole thing to unpack about what 'radical' means in the context of radical progressive/feminist - I suggest it's best understood regard to their philosophical pedigree, but I don't think that is a fruitful discussion to have. It doesn't matter - our political goals at the same - we want healthcare for all, education to be ubiquitous and exceptional, everyone to be empowered, LBGTQ people to feel safe and be safe, equality of opportunity regardless of race or gender, abortion, misogyny and racism gone, an accountable police force, and so on and so forth. All of us here think the state has a significant role to play in the precision of those things, we think planned parenthood ought be funded while paper thin excuses for abortion bans should be never passed in the first place. I could go on - the point I wish to make is that our goals almost exactly align and the specifics of the policies to achieve those goals as pursued by the DNC would be amenable to any of us.
All of which leads to me to further harp upon my thesis, we can't the position of our explicit allies straight - consider one of the current areas of dispute, about the productivity of our approach to racism and sexism:
Some suggest that our current approach is counterproductive and that we might better succeed by modifying our approach - not deploying the language of outrage all time time, engaging in discussion rather than playing to the peanut gallery with condemnation, not minimising or ignoring issues of economy and class (or even worse, presenting them as alternative rather than complementary concerns); each of which are liable to push people away on both individual and larger scales for a variety of psychological reasons
The other side recoils from these suggestions - concerned that the prescription is to pander to the concerns of racists and sexists, surrender to destructive policies without opposition, adopt racist or sexist policies et al. Equating the recommendations of "address the concerns of working class whites" to racist and sexist policies, rather than or in addition to their economic concerns
Now, given it is their position (and to an extent, my own position) I think that the first group's characterisation of the prescription is authoritative and so the latter group is attacking a strawman of sorts, whether intentionally or not. Never the less, tempers have flared and discussions haven't progressed all that much toward actually addressing the recommendations - i.e. perhaps they are a bad idea because the groups to which this change would appeal do not exist, perhaps it is a bad idea because it shifts the range of acceptable discourse. The disagreement ought be on the premises, logic and conclusions of the position not about what the position actually entails (or against positions that the proponents do not hold). We, a bunch of people interested in careful discussion, truth and justice are having a hard time - it's only going to get worse, much worse, as we add in more people and more explicitly opposed identities that groups have consrtucted for themselves and no end of other things.
If the democratic party moves to ingratiate themselves with racists, homophobes, or bigots of any stripe then I'm absolutely done with em. Finished. Bigotry must be combatted ferociously, not coddled and catered to. There can be absolutely no compromise on this issue.
The fact that trumps voters were actually pretty well off by and large seems to indicate that the argument for them being merely poor rural rubes is pretty much bullshit. And, by the way, I live in Wyoming, where rubes are manufactured, and economic policy ain't what they were talking about. They were talking about Muslims and those uppity police-hating blacks and illegal immigrant drug dealers and "pc culture" and guns. I have seen the face of America and it's angry and white and armed, and toooootally fine with casual racism, homophobia and misogyny. So even if their concerns were purely economic, they were still totally fuckin fine with all the other shit trump said. And that makes them bad people. End of story.
Pretty much. If the party decides they were too mean to racists and runs like that in 2018, i'll go off and register with the nearest non-Green group of socialists, plant myself on the fringe of American politics, and stay there until my party comes back.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
The Democrats knew this before the election. Both sides ignore the other's core voters and go after the independents.
They explicitly tried to get GOP voters this election to create a blowout and prove that this kind of candidate was unacceptable. In so doing, they ignored their own base. Oops.
I don't see it this way, Bum. I think this was trying to get our base to turn out. "Deplorables" certainly wasn't for them, it was red meat for us.
I don't get where this idea of a massive number of Obama supporters that voted Trump is coming from. Do they exist? Statistically, yes. But it looks like that number is eclipsed by the number of Obama supporters that either didn't show up, or were turned away at the polls. I think those are the people we should be targeting.
Edit: Also, if the GOP over the last decade has taught us anything, is that when you pay lip service to a group of people, and they don't get what they want, they'll run for office themselves.
When Trump fails to make the changes he promised, then Republicans in congress are going to get primaried by Trump backers.
For even worse Republicans? This is not exactly ideal unless the new guys (yes, guys, the Trump backers won't be backing female candidates) are so repulsive that it makes it easier for Dems to win in the general.
But that's what we thought would happen with Trump and Clinton in this election, so... Maybe we pick up a few seats against weaker candidates than the incumbents, or maybe we get a more extreme Congress that backs everything Trump wants instead of trading votes for some pork while killing the worst ideas, or allowing the Dems to filibuster them.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
It's not real and it's a broadly insulting thing to suggest, not to mention being pretty racist on its own.
White fragility is very real and it's not racist at all to suggest that. The very arguments being made here, that I'm pretty sure you've been hitting agree on, about how we should tone down talk of racism in order to not turn away white voters who totally think they aren't racist is an acknowledgement of it's existence. Like, the whole premise is that bringing up the issue makes white people defensive.
Like, quite simply if the argument is that the Democratic Party needs to lay off the calling out racism thing a bit in order to not turn away white voters, we are talking pretty explicitly about white fragility.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
+5
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
We lost the election because millions of Dem voters stayed home. There's no wash here--minorities will be reluctant to vote for a party that explicitly throws them under the bus to appeal to a handful of Trump voters. They won't go third, they'll just stay home.
How many times did Obama have to call the Romney voters racist in order to win?
Romney's racism was mostly generic Republican racism and mostly by implication. Trump's racism was loud and out front and very clear and not hidden behind any form of substantive policy. Voting for Trump was not just a racist act but a really obvious racist act, and as a result a lot of emboldened people are committing hate crimes and a lot of minorities are freaking the fuck out right now. Minorities are not going to get any more comfortable over time as Trump's administration pushes to register, encamp, deport, or otherwise oppress them. They're going to want a candidate who stands up for them. I don't know if that means the candidate has to call out Trump voters as deplorables or what, but if you don't find a way to address minority concerns they're going to stay home--and not in apathy but in despair.
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
The Democrats knew this before the election. Both sides ignore the other's core voters and go after the independents.
They explicitly tried to get GOP voters this election to create a blowout and prove that this kind of candidate was unacceptable. In so doing, they ignored their own base. Oops.
I think there is an interesting question to be asked in where the votes came from though.
I do wonder if Clinton overperforming the downballot in certain areas (saw WI) and carrying others she normally doesn't (say Orange county) does actually indicate the appeal to cross-over vote did work. It's just Trump turned out even more and we turned out less of the base.
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
The Democrats knew this before the election. Both sides ignore the other's core voters and go after the independents.
They explicitly tried to get GOP voters this election to create a blowout and prove that this kind of candidate was unacceptable. In so doing, they ignored their own base. Oops.
I think there is an interesting question to be asked in where the votes came from though.
I do wonder if Clinton overperforming the downballot in certain areas (saw WI) and carrying others she normally doesn't (say Orange county) does actually indicate the appeal to cross-over vote did work. It's just Trump turned out even more and we turned out less of the base.
Clinton outperforming the downballot can be explained by people voting Clinton for Pres since she was obviously better than Trump, but didn't like/trust her so they wanted a R congress to keep her in check. This is an opinion I've heard/read several times during this election.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
Yes and no.
As was said a couple of threads ago at this point;
"That's racist" is a very powerful thing to say and can often change minds. "You're racist" shuts down communication with the person being talked to altogether, so unless you're using them as an example to string up (for people who aren't going to leap to their defense out of a sense of community), you're pretty much done at that point.
If you run right at some one rhetorically yelling "racist" they're just going to dig in an oppose you. If you point out that things they support are racist, they might not realize that yet or can at least pretend that they didn't and save some face and might come around.
No matter how right you are, no hearts and minds get won through brute force browbeating.
I'm not sure that "that's racist" is really that much of a conversation starter. I mean, people don't generally find the logic of "I'm not saying you're a bad person, just that you do bad things" to be a particularly relatable distinction.
At some point, that's sort of a difficult thing to avoid, but then we're back at scheck's distinctions in 'racism'. And we see another factor at work - academic definitions are useful precisely never when there is a common usage that contradicts it. It might be right, but when it has moral content attached to it, all bets are off.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
It's not real and it's a broadly insulting thing to suggest, not to mention being pretty racist on its own.
White fragility is very real and it's not racist at all to suggest that. The very arguments being made here, that I'm pretty sure you've been hitting agree on, about how we should tone down talk of racism in order to not turn away white voters who totally think they aren't racist is an acknowledgement of it's existence. Like, the whole premise is that bringing up the issue makes white people defensive.
Like, quite simply if the argument is that the Democratic Party needs to lay off the calling out racism thing a bit in order to not turn away white voters, we are talking pretty explicitly about white fragility.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
Let's be clear, the fact that when people feel judged, or personally attacked and consequently become at best stubborn or at worst obstinately spiteful isn't a psychological condition specific to white people. Even if "fragility" weren't laden with condescension it'd be a terrible term because it ascribes a universal property to white people alone.
People getting defensive when attacked isn't a racial trait as much as a human trait. There has to be a way to speak to people about race relations in a way that doesn't default to labeling them as racist. You can be right about something and fail to reach people because of how that something is framed.
Sorry; I'm not interested in being the battered spouse trying to find ways to appease the unstable SO.
I'm more interested in finding a way out of this situation.
That's not what white fragiliy is though. White fragility is where a minor incident where a racial minority gets some positive treatment sparks an outsized reaction from white people. Canonical example is the Henry Louis Gates Beer Summit, where white people went completely insane because Obama said arresting a guy for breaking into his own house was "stupid."
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So obviously we don't use "white fragility" in the marketing material, but "the sensitivity that some Caucasian people feel in regards to aspects of race relations topics that make them uncomfortable for reasons that they may not be prepared to eloquently and introspectively address, be it emotionally, intellectually, or philosophically" doesn't really fit in day to day conversation.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+1
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I think the slatestarcodex article is a fairly definitive argument that characterising Trump as racist or sexist is at best a fool's errand. Certainly describing him as openly so doesn't work.
Which isn't to say that racists and sexists and other bigots don't love Trump. But that's an entirely different story.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
The marketing and messaging has to change.
That much is apparent simply from the loss.
but then, there's so many post-mortems to go over. Will Dems actually learn from their mistakes? Who knows.
I think the slatestarcodex article is a fairly definitive argument that characterising Trump as racist or sexist is at best a fool's errand. Certainly describing him as openly so doesn't work.
Which isn't to say that racists and sexists and other bigots don't love Trump. But that's an entirely different story.
No, it isn't. It has a few decent points but misses the mark heavily in a lot of areas.
I think the slatestarcodex article is a fairly definitive argument that characterising Trump as racist or sexist is at best a fool's errand. Certainly describing him as openly so doesn't work.
Which isn't to say that racists and sexists and other bigots don't love Trump. But that's an entirely different story.
That guy does not think Trump ran a racist campaign. He operates in a very different reality where there is no such thing as subtext.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+5
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Let's grant, arguendo that the incidents described as "white fragility" are indeed correctly understood as a reaction to race relations, racial difference and so forth (and not, for example, an instance of pro-police reactionary nonsense - in the same vein as the reflexive support the troops sentiment - in the case of Henry Louis Gates).
It's got precisely nothing to do with whiteness and everything to do with the way that the majority and normalisation of the status quo distorts our ability to assess things accurately - our ability for absolute assessments is terrible, we tend to consider everything in relative terms even when we feel like we're not (brains are stupid and I am against them). If we're wedded to this then it's majority fragility.
Whether or not something is an insult is really up to the person who feels they were insulted.
Effective communication methods get the point across without making the other person kneejerk in opposition to your message. If they feel insulted, they're not going to listen to the rest of what you have to say.
So in order to effectively combat racism, we need to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the delicate sensibililties of thin-skilled people, i.e. political correctness?
Man, the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
White Fragility is real and may need to be coddled to win elections.
It's not real and it's a broadly insulting thing to suggest, not to mention being pretty racist on its own.
White fragility is very real and it's not racist at all to suggest that. The very arguments being made here, that I'm pretty sure you've been hitting agree on, about how we should tone down talk of racism in order to not turn away white voters who totally think they aren't racist is an acknowledgement of it's existence. Like, the whole premise is that bringing up the issue makes white people defensive.
Like, quite simply if the argument is that the Democratic Party needs to lay off the calling out racism thing a bit in order to not turn away white voters, we are talking pretty explicitly about white fragility.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I think the slatestarcodex article is a fairly definitive argument that characterising Trump as racist or sexist is at best a fool's errand. Certainly describing him as openly so doesn't work.
Which isn't to say that racists and sexists and other bigots don't love Trump. But that's an entirely different story.
That guy does not think Trump ran a racist campaign. He operates in a very different reality where there is no such thing as subtext.
This is a) mere assertion and b) doubling down on his point - we're obsessed with decoding subtext is at best unhelpful and likely wrong
I think the #1 lesson for Democrats to learn from this election is that Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (statistically speaking, spool I know there are exceptions). No more spending a month trying to convince them their extremist is extreme. Also probably a bad idea to cede July to them to raise money.
No more praising Republicans at the convention, you mean.
God that was stupid.
Right?
Dear god it felt like I was watching a convention Reagan would put together at points
Yeah the Sanders people were being ridiculous at the convention, and then they bring out the nationalism flag and wave it around
This article looks very dumb in retrospect, but it gets at what the strategy was. They were very intentionally separating "Trump" from "Republican" to try to tell mainstream Republicans it was OK and even patriotic to vote against him. This isn't even interpretation, this is what they were saying at the time. Go re-read Obama's convention speech, it's all over it.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
But then I dismissed it. Trump surely wouldn't win, right?
Ah, the optimism of a mere two weeks ago.
Michael Moore is a blowhard but he gets something the DNC didn't and it might be worth taking his opinion seriously on what midwest/rustbelt America wants, regardless of how melodramatically he presents it
edit: Don't take from this video with its stupid music that Moore actually thinks voting for Trump is a good idea though
I think the slatestarcodex article is a fairly definitive argument that characterising Trump as racist or sexist is at best a fool's errand. Certainly describing him as openly so doesn't work.
Which isn't to say that racists and sexists and other bigots don't love Trump. But that's an entirely different story.
That guy does not think Trump ran a racist campaign. He operates in a very different reality where there is no such thing as subtext.
This is a) mere assertion and b) doubling down on his point - we're obsessed with decoding subtext is at best unhelpful and likely wrong
It's not quiet subtext.
Trump personally:
Birtherism
Central Park 5
Housing discrimination
Trump's campaign:
Inner cities a disaster, everyone gets shot walking down the street (This is not how black people see Detroit, it's how white suburban people see Detroit.)
"Law and order"
Crime spike that doesn't exist
The racist chart he cited all the time about crime statistics
Basically everything his male kids said online
Writer handwaves all that away and is like "look at this outreach!" Bullshit. Like literally ten seconds top of my head I got that.
EDIT: Kicking dudes out of rallies who were supporters because he assumed black people would only show up as protesters.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think the slatestarcodex article is a fairly definitive argument that characterising Trump as racist or sexist is at best a fool's errand. Certainly describing him as openly so doesn't work.
Which isn't to say that racists and sexists and other bigots don't love Trump. But that's an entirely different story.
That guy does not think Trump ran a racist campaign. He operates in a very different reality where there is no such thing as subtext.
This is a) mere assertion and b) doubling down on his point - we're obsessed with decoding subtext is at best unhelpful and likely wrong
It's not quiet subtext.
Trump personally:
Birtherism
Central Park 5
Housing discrimination
Trump's campaign:
Inner cities a disaster, everyone gets shot walking down the street (This is not how black people see Detroit, it's how white suburban people see Detroit.)
"Law and order"
Crime spike that doesn't exist
The racist chart he cited all the time about crime statistics
Basically everything his male kids said online
Writer handwaves all that away and is like "look at this outreach!" Bullshit. Like literally ten seconds top of my head I got that.
EDIT: Kicking dudes out of rallies who were supporters because he assumed black people would only show up as protesters.
Also worth noting that the racist charts that Trump shared via social media came directly from Neo-Nazi sources.
EDIT: Also worth noting that Trump worked directly with Buchannan & Duke for his independent run. He did later throw a tantrum when that run went pear-shaped and disavow each of those people, referring (correctly) to Buchannan as a Neo-Nazi & Duke as a KKK member... but one might wonder why he got entangled with them in the first place, and why that run was only abandoned after it became clear it wasn't going to go anywhere. It's not as if Buchannan & Duke keep their identities close to their chests.
Posts
They explicitly tried to get GOP voters this election to create a blowout and prove that this kind of candidate was unacceptable. In so doing, they ignored their own base. Oops.
The argument that I personally shouldn't say Trump supporters are either racist, fine with racism, or profoundly misinformed is on significantly shakier ground.
http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/15/13595508/racism-trump-research-study
No one is saying we need to turn a blind eye to racism. They're saying, "Hey, maybe our current methods aren't working right."
Michael Moore is one of the few members of the far left who can legitimately say "I told you so."
I feel like Trump tried to hit all of the potential strong emotional notes of his voters. Many people vote for a candidate because they feel that candidate best represents them for a topic that is important to them now.
Are you a racist? Trump promised things against minority groups, which appealed to you.
Are you a misogynist who was punished for slapping a waitress on her ass? Trump appealed to your desire to get away with that.
Do you think you pay too much in taxes? Trump promised to lower them.
Do you feel America is turning into a shithole? No worries, we'll make America great again!
Hillary, on the other hand, focused on things like incremental change and policy. Hillary's own experience as a politician worked against her in the campaign, because she knows how the system works and she proposed to improve things within that system. This feels bureaucratic, and doesn't hit those emotional keys.
This, and Trump's dominance of both traditional and social medias won him the election. Trump's entire campaign was and is a sham; designed only to tell you what you want to hear so you'll vote for him with no compunction to follow through on those promises.
I feel like Trump learned the lessons from the Obama campaign better than Hillary did. In 2008 he fired up the populace in a way that an insider won't. Which is why he managed to win the nomination over Hillary despite being relatively unknown.
In the end, I don't think that many Trump supporters endorse all of the things he espoused, or even most of them. But I think Trump was able to resonate on a key issue important to that voter, where Hillary failed to connect.
If the Democratic party treats all Trump supporters like they were Trump himself then we will continue to lose elections.
We are losing a war of attrition. We cannot win without capturing some of the people who voted for Obama once, and voted for Trump now.
Ask yourself whether or not vulnerable populations are safer by paying lip service to some racists and getting their vote and then getting a Dem in power, or whether they're safer by taking a principled stand and then playing Making America Great Again a second time in 2020.
I don't see it this way, Bum. I think this was trying to get our base to turn out. "Deplorables" certainly wasn't for them, it was red meat for us.
Fucking improvements in medical science.
(I'm kidding)
Appealing to racists is a great way to lose the dem base. So your first option doesn't follow.
Miss him?
Foreshadowing.
We ran the ball straight up the middle four times and couldn't get a first down. Maybe we switch to passing?
Who the fuck are we going to lose them to? Republicans?
If they defect to the Greens, or Independent if Johnson hasn't had enough of his grifting operation, then we deserve what we get. There's always going to be a certain number of special snowflakes, and the data I've seen says it's a wash between Dems and Republicans defecting to third parties.
We lost the election because millions of Dem voters stayed home. There's no wash here--minorities will be reluctant to vote for a party that explicitly throws them under the bus to appeal to a handful of Trump voters. They won't go third, they'll just stay home.
When Trump fails to make the changes he promised, then Republicans in congress are going to get primaried by Trump backers.
How many times did Obama have to call the Romney voters racist in order to win?
I in no way feel inclined to mock you, that's entirely not my purpose here and never has been. Thank you very much for the kind words
Now, I must apologise - my question about what you thought my politics would be was a dirty trick. I knew my question would be interpreted in the fashion of American identity politics when there are many other axes upon which one might situate themselves - I hold very strong classical liberal and far left socialist/pro-worker views (a somewhat uncomfortable mix given that they can be in conflict so I end up triangulating between the two depending on the issue), and in that I am am not a progressive per se (though, obviously progressive overlaps with some of that). But this has been one of my points - we don't know how to talk or listen to each other allies in almost complete lockstep - the mad work of tribalism and the escalations it engenders means we quickly allow any disagreement to become "us vs them" as if everything were binary.
There's also a whole thing to unpack about what 'radical' means in the context of radical progressive/feminist - I suggest it's best understood regard to their philosophical pedigree, but I don't think that is a fruitful discussion to have. It doesn't matter - our political goals at the same - we want healthcare for all, education to be ubiquitous and exceptional, everyone to be empowered, LBGTQ people to feel safe and be safe, equality of opportunity regardless of race or gender, abortion, misogyny and racism gone, an accountable police force, and so on and so forth. All of us here think the state has a significant role to play in the precision of those things, we think planned parenthood ought be funded while paper thin excuses for abortion bans should be never passed in the first place. I could go on - the point I wish to make is that our goals almost exactly align and the specifics of the policies to achieve those goals as pursued by the DNC would be amenable to any of us.
All of which leads to me to further harp upon my thesis, we can't the position of our explicit allies straight - consider one of the current areas of dispute, about the productivity of our approach to racism and sexism:
Now, given it is their position (and to an extent, my own position) I think that the first group's characterisation of the prescription is authoritative and so the latter group is attacking a strawman of sorts, whether intentionally or not. Never the less, tempers have flared and discussions haven't progressed all that much toward actually addressing the recommendations - i.e. perhaps they are a bad idea because the groups to which this change would appeal do not exist, perhaps it is a bad idea because it shifts the range of acceptable discourse. The disagreement ought be on the premises, logic and conclusions of the position not about what the position actually entails (or against positions that the proponents do not hold). We, a bunch of people interested in careful discussion, truth and justice are having a hard time - it's only going to get worse, much worse, as we add in more people and more explicitly opposed identities that groups have consrtucted for themselves and no end of other things.
I just hope he's also right about Trump not finishing his term.
I don't get where this idea of a massive number of Obama supporters that voted Trump is coming from. Do they exist? Statistically, yes. But it looks like that number is eclipsed by the number of Obama supporters that either didn't show up, or were turned away at the polls. I think those are the people we should be targeting.
Edit: Also, if the GOP over the last decade has taught us anything, is that when you pay lip service to a group of people, and they don't get what they want, they'll run for office themselves.
Steam: pazython
For even worse Republicans? This is not exactly ideal unless the new guys (yes, guys, the Trump backers won't be backing female candidates) are so repulsive that it makes it easier for Dems to win in the general.
But that's what we thought would happen with Trump and Clinton in this election, so... Maybe we pick up a few seats against weaker candidates than the incumbents, or maybe we get a more extreme Congress that backs everything Trump wants instead of trading votes for some pork while killing the worst ideas, or allowing the Dems to filibuster them.
no, "fragility" is a condescending and goosey term that intends to insult and belittle.
What I've been agreeing to is not calling people racists when they aren't, because it's both awful and counterproductive. We don't have the golden edict because of Forumer Fragility. People aren't deserving of being called fragile because they get pissed off at being called racists, and it's certainly not a character of White People.
I mean seriously, what the fuck even is that.
Romney's racism was mostly generic Republican racism and mostly by implication. Trump's racism was loud and out front and very clear and not hidden behind any form of substantive policy. Voting for Trump was not just a racist act but a really obvious racist act, and as a result a lot of emboldened people are committing hate crimes and a lot of minorities are freaking the fuck out right now. Minorities are not going to get any more comfortable over time as Trump's administration pushes to register, encamp, deport, or otherwise oppress them. They're going to want a candidate who stands up for them. I don't know if that means the candidate has to call out Trump voters as deplorables or what, but if you don't find a way to address minority concerns they're going to stay home--and not in apathy but in despair.
I think there is an interesting question to be asked in where the votes came from though.
I do wonder if Clinton overperforming the downballot in certain areas (saw WI) and carrying others she normally doesn't (say Orange county) does actually indicate the appeal to cross-over vote did work. It's just Trump turned out even more and we turned out less of the base.
Clinton outperforming the downballot can be explained by people voting Clinton for Pres since she was obviously better than Trump, but didn't like/trust her so they wanted a R congress to keep her in check. This is an opinion I've heard/read several times during this election.
I'm not sure that "that's racist" is really that much of a conversation starter. I mean, people don't generally find the logic of "I'm not saying you're a bad person, just that you do bad things" to be a particularly relatable distinction.
At some point, that's sort of a difficult thing to avoid, but then we're back at scheck's distinctions in 'racism'. And we see another factor at work - academic definitions are useful precisely never when there is a common usage that contradicts it. It might be right, but when it has moral content attached to it, all bets are off.
Let's be clear, the fact that when people feel judged, or personally attacked and consequently become at best stubborn or at worst obstinately spiteful isn't a psychological condition specific to white people. Even if "fragility" weren't laden with condescension it'd be a terrible term because it ascribes a universal property to white people alone.
Sorry; I'm not interested in being the battered spouse trying to find ways to appease the unstable SO.
I'm more interested in finding a way out of this situation.
Which isn't to say that racists and sexists and other bigots don't love Trump. But that's an entirely different story.
That much is apparent simply from the loss.
but then, there's so many post-mortems to go over. Will Dems actually learn from their mistakes? Who knows.
No, it isn't. It has a few decent points but misses the mark heavily in a lot of areas.
That guy does not think Trump ran a racist campaign. He operates in a very different reality where there is no such thing as subtext.
It's got precisely nothing to do with whiteness and everything to do with the way that the majority and normalisation of the status quo distorts our ability to assess things accurately - our ability for absolute assessments is terrible, we tend to consider everything in relative terms even when we feel like we're not (brains are stupid and I am against them). If we're wedded to this then it's majority fragility.
White Fragility is the name of the term. Look it up, it's the actual name in the literature. It's not intended to insult or belittle, unless you think a bunch of academics are just out to stick it to whiter for some weird reason. I don't know why this is getting you so worked up.
White Fragility is about the reaction of white people in North America (that's the specific place the original paper coining the term was about anyway) to people bringing up racial issues. Essentially they become very defensive and angry and stressed out about the whole situation. It is a character of white people in america in that white people are the dominant racial group and so are not used to dealing with the issue because they are insulated from it by virtue of them being the privileged "default" in society.
When you talk about people getting defensive or angry over racism being brought up, this is what you are talking about. When people are saying "we shouldn't drop social justice, but we should be more careful about how we message it because we don't want to alienate those white voters we need to win" this is an explicit call for coddling them to get around white fragility.
This is a) mere assertion and b) doubling down on his point - we're obsessed with decoding subtext is at best unhelpful and likely wrong
Right?
Dear god it felt like I was watching a convention Reagan would put together at points
Yeah the Sanders people were being ridiculous at the convention, and then they bring out the nationalism flag and wave it around
who's vote were you trying to get with that shit
http://prospect.org/article/hillary-clinton’s-alt-right-strategy-act-genius
This article looks very dumb in retrospect, but it gets at what the strategy was. They were very intentionally separating "Trump" from "Republican" to try to tell mainstream Republicans it was OK and even patriotic to vote against him. This isn't even interpretation, this is what they were saying at the time. Go re-read Obama's convention speech, it's all over it.
Michael Moore is a blowhard but he gets something the DNC didn't and it might be worth taking his opinion seriously on what midwest/rustbelt America wants, regardless of how melodramatically he presents it
edit: Don't take from this video with its stupid music that Moore actually thinks voting for Trump is a good idea though
It's not quiet subtext.
Trump personally:
Birtherism
Central Park 5
Housing discrimination
Trump's campaign:
Inner cities a disaster, everyone gets shot walking down the street (This is not how black people see Detroit, it's how white suburban people see Detroit.)
"Law and order"
Crime spike that doesn't exist
The racist chart he cited all the time about crime statistics
Basically everything his male kids said online
Writer handwaves all that away and is like "look at this outreach!" Bullshit. Like literally ten seconds top of my head I got that.
EDIT: Kicking dudes out of rallies who were supporters because he assumed black people would only show up as protesters.
Also worth noting that the racist charts that Trump shared via social media came directly from Neo-Nazi sources.
EDIT: Also worth noting that Trump worked directly with Buchannan & Duke for his independent run. He did later throw a tantrum when that run went pear-shaped and disavow each of those people, referring (correctly) to Buchannan as a Neo-Nazi & Duke as a KKK member... but one might wonder why he got entangled with them in the first place, and why that run was only abandoned after it became clear it wasn't going to go anywhere. It's not as if Buchannan & Duke keep their identities close to their chests.