So what I'm reading there is that after talking to people for 90 minutes about how a specific party's platform aligns with a decent number of things that are important to them they ... have no idea why they won't vote for that party's candidate?
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
He wasn't trying to talk them into voting for the Democrats or anyone, he's not canvasser, I think he was trying to understand what they think and maybe relate their story. Journalist, not Democratic activist.
Also, if you polled 100% of people who decide not to vote, maybe 0.1% of their answers will be better. Do you remember talking to someone who's not voting, but could probably find ground with a mainstream party, and coming away thinking coming away convinced that they have a great reason not to vote? All non-voters sound like that.
Cornell West gets a lot of shit in these parts, but I think his central criticism of Obama is sound - if eight years of a black Democratic president ends with the overall black community worse off than before, what is the overall message that the party is sending about voting? Yes, the other party is worse and will make conditions deteriorate, but there is plenty of research that shows that negative messaging in any field is only useful to reduce enthusiasm/turnout.
It is Advertising 101. You can't sell a product by convincing people your competitor sucks. That just drives people out of the market. You need to convince them your product will improve their lives.
Except that the black community wasn't worse off than before, which is why his critique fails. And that's not getting into the stew of toxic blackness that West's arguments sit in.
The problem is that sooner or later there's going to be an evaluation that says: If the Obama Presidency ended with the Dems having less power than ever, what does that says about the Obama Presidency? I mean, there's a lot of dancing around the subject.
(I have my very critical opinion of Obama, but is not particulary on topic).
So what I'm reading there is that after talking to people for 90 minutes about how a specific party's platform aligns with a decent number of things that are important to them they ... have no idea why they won't vote for that party's candidate?
So "talk to them" seems to be out now, since that won't help.
Also, I'm pretty sure that "I dont partake in this government system. I wish I could just secede from America" should've quickly led to "OK, cool, so you're what, a Freeman? A Soverign Citizen?" Just... what?
He wasn't trying to talk them into voting for the Democrats or anyone, he's not canvasser, I think he was trying to understand what they think and maybe relate their story. Journalist, not Democratic activist.
Also, if you polled 100% of people who decide not to vote, maybe 0.1% of their answers will be better. Do you remember talking to someone who's not voting, but could probably find ground with a mainstream party, and coming away thinking coming away convinced that they have a great reason not to vote? All non-voters sound like that.
Cornell West gets a lot of shit in these parts, but I think his central criticism of Obama is sound - if eight years of a black Democratic president ends with the overall black community worse off than before, what is the overall message that the party is sending about voting? Yes, the other party is worse and will make conditions deteriorate, but there is plenty of research that shows that negative messaging in any field is only useful to reduce enthusiasm/turnout.
It is Advertising 101. You can't sell a product by convincing people your competitor sucks. That just drives people out of the market. You need to convince them your product will improve their lives.
Except that the black community wasn't worse off than before, which is why his critique fails. And that's not getting into the stew of toxic blackness that West's arguments sit in.
The problem is that sooner or later there's going to be an evaluation that says: If the Obama Presidency ended with the Dems having less power than ever, what does that says about the Obama Presidency? I mean, there's a lot of dancing around the subject.
(I have my very critical opinion of Obama, but is not particulary on topic).
What it says is that white supremacy isn't going to die without a fight.
Posts
The problem is that sooner or later there's going to be an evaluation that says: If the Obama Presidency ended with the Dems having less power than ever, what does that says about the Obama Presidency? I mean, there's a lot of dancing around the subject.
(I have my very critical opinion of Obama, but is not particulary on topic).
What it says is that white supremacy isn't going to die without a fight.