But the Dems used identity politics to get people to vote for Clinton. The Clinton emails revealed a list of female newspaper columnist and bloggers who went after their fellow peers who supported Sanders (calling them misogynists, whores, etc.). Heck even Samantha Bee went after Sanders during the election cycle and ridiculed women who wanted to vote for the guy. Then there’s John Lewis who kept making declarations about Sanders not being a part of the civil rights movement, all while giving praise to Clinton for her work in the struggle despite her support for Berry Goldwater and his anti-civil rights campaign. And let’s not forget Dolores Huerta (hispanic female) who claimed that she was being harassed by Bernie supporters during the Nevada caucus and was called out on it by Susan Sarandon (she provided footage of the event and nothing happened).
So whenever you hear that the Dems have an inclusive tent, just remember that once you’re inside the seats are sectioned off by race, gender, and immigration status.
Most Democrats are not the upper echelon Neo-Liberals that run them and turned the Party away from their constituency in the 1980’s. The Liberals and Progressives need to take it back so we can have 2 distinct parties again not just two right wings of a single party.
This seems like a good place to post this recent study from PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science):
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Abstract
This study evaluates evidence pertaining to popular narratives explaining the American public’s support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election. First, using unique representative probability samples of the American public, tracking the same individuals from 2012 to 2016, I examine the “left behind” thesis (that is, the theory that those who lost jobs or experienced stagnant wages due to the loss of manufacturing jobs punished the incumbent party for their economic misfortunes). Second, I consider the possibility that status threat felt by the dwindling proportion of traditionally high-status Americans (i.e., whites, Christians, and men) as well as by those who perceive America’s global dominance as threatened combined to increase support for the candidate who emphasized reestablishing status hierarchies of the past. Results do not support an interpretation of the election based on pocketbook economic concerns. Instead, the shorter relative distance of people’s own views from the Republican candidate on trade and China corresponded to greater mass support for Trump in 2016 relative to Mitt Romney in 2012. Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.
Defending the rights of people who aren’t white or men on college campuses is destroying self-reliance.
Civil rights makes people feel better about themselves at the expense of productive discourse. No rights are more correct because they have been exercised by a lived experience. In a time of such polarization, civil rights makes us close ranks with the like-minded when we need to reach out.
Liberals think they are for all people’s freedom through antisexist, antiracist, socialist political strategy. But they undermine the strategy by co-opting the language, which only dilutes the impact of women and minorities knowing their place and not complaining and the ability to challenge systems of power. the Democrats are at fault for embracing brave women and minorities who dare to speak out to power.
A few thoughts:I understand that some 80%+ of those who voted for the President* were of a rare voting bloc known as “Republicans.”The DNC-types had to emphasize identity groups to have something to claim after they abandoned championing the rights of labor and courted Wall St. money.The Republicans have their on-going identity politics, originating with the Nixon-era “Southern Strategy”, which is White Identity Politics.Definitely, Dems / Libs / Indies trash-talking conservatives / Trump voters in no way helps political discourse. Vice-versa equally applies.
More Wisconsin voters backed Mitt Romney in 2012, than backed Trump in 2016. Clinton didn’t lose because millions of Obama voters voted for Trump. She lost because just enough people stayed home or voted third party to let Trump eke out the wins in a few key states.
The Democrats have made Civil Rights a centerpiece of their platform for decades. That’s not changing. If you want to hand another term to Trump, keep dragging down any Democrat who doesn’t meet your purity test. Say goodbye to any chance at regaining the Supreme Court for a generation, along with any hope of campaign finance reform, ending gerrymandering or stopping vote suppression.
2016 is over. If you support Sanders for 2020, good luck to you. I’ll vote for him, if he manages to win the nomination, even though he isn’t likely to be my first choice in the primaries.
NeedaChuckle Premium Member about 6 years ago
Republicans relabel evil to make it sound good to people. I think they use the same PR firm as Satan.
WestNYC Premium Member about 6 years ago
The party needs to win back rural white voters in the upper Midwest in 2020. Does Ms. Sorenson have any helpful suggestions to make this happen ?
d_legendary1 about 6 years ago
But the Dems used identity politics to get people to vote for Clinton. The Clinton emails revealed a list of female newspaper columnist and bloggers who went after their fellow peers who supported Sanders (calling them misogynists, whores, etc.). Heck even Samantha Bee went after Sanders during the election cycle and ridiculed women who wanted to vote for the guy. Then there’s John Lewis who kept making declarations about Sanders not being a part of the civil rights movement, all while giving praise to Clinton for her work in the struggle despite her support for Berry Goldwater and his anti-civil rights campaign. And let’s not forget Dolores Huerta (hispanic female) who claimed that she was being harassed by Bernie supporters during the Nevada caucus and was called out on it by Susan Sarandon (she provided footage of the event and nothing happened).
So whenever you hear that the Dems have an inclusive tent, just remember that once you’re inside the seats are sectioned off by race, gender, and immigration status.
Night-Gaunt49[Bozo is Boffo] about 6 years ago
Most Democrats are not the upper echelon Neo-Liberals that run them and turned the Party away from their constituency in the 1980’s. The Liberals and Progressives need to take it back so we can have 2 distinct parties again not just two right wings of a single party.
martens about 6 years ago
This seems like a good place to post this recent study from PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science):
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Abstract
This study evaluates evidence pertaining to popular narratives explaining the American public’s support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 presidential election. First, using unique representative probability samples of the American public, tracking the same individuals from 2012 to 2016, I examine the “left behind” thesis (that is, the theory that those who lost jobs or experienced stagnant wages due to the loss of manufacturing jobs punished the incumbent party for their economic misfortunes). Second, I consider the possibility that status threat felt by the dwindling proportion of traditionally high-status Americans (i.e., whites, Christians, and men) as well as by those who perceive America’s global dominance as threatened combined to increase support for the candidate who emphasized reestablishing status hierarchies of the past. Results do not support an interpretation of the election based on pocketbook economic concerns. Instead, the shorter relative distance of people’s own views from the Republican candidate on trade and China corresponded to greater mass support for Trump in 2016 relative to Mitt Romney in 2012. Candidate preferences in 2016 reflected increasing anxiety among high-status groups rather than complaints about past treatment among low-status groups. Both growing domestic racial diversity and globalization contributed to a sense that white Americans are under siege by these engines of change.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115
It’s open source, so anyone can download it.
Radish the wordsmith about 6 years ago
Don’t Trump voters identify as white?
Mr. Blawt about 6 years ago
Defending the rights of people who aren’t white or men on college campuses is destroying self-reliance.
Civil rights makes people feel better about themselves at the expense of productive discourse. No rights are more correct because they have been exercised by a lived experience. In a time of such polarization, civil rights makes us close ranks with the like-minded when we need to reach out.
Liberals think they are for all people’s freedom through antisexist, antiracist, socialist political strategy. But they undermine the strategy by co-opting the language, which only dilutes the impact of women and minorities knowing their place and not complaining and the ability to challenge systems of power. the Democrats are at fault for embracing brave women and minorities who dare to speak out to power.
RShalmanezer about 6 years ago
A few thoughts:I understand that some 80%+ of those who voted for the President* were of a rare voting bloc known as “Republicans.”The DNC-types had to emphasize identity groups to have something to claim after they abandoned championing the rights of labor and courted Wall St. money.The Republicans have their on-going identity politics, originating with the Nixon-era “Southern Strategy”, which is White Identity Politics.Definitely, Dems / Libs / Indies trash-talking conservatives / Trump voters in no way helps political discourse. Vice-versa equally applies.
Uncle Joe Premium Member about 6 years ago
More Wisconsin voters backed Mitt Romney in 2012, than backed Trump in 2016. Clinton didn’t lose because millions of Obama voters voted for Trump. She lost because just enough people stayed home or voted third party to let Trump eke out the wins in a few key states.
The Democrats have made Civil Rights a centerpiece of their platform for decades. That’s not changing. If you want to hand another term to Trump, keep dragging down any Democrat who doesn’t meet your purity test. Say goodbye to any chance at regaining the Supreme Court for a generation, along with any hope of campaign finance reform, ending gerrymandering or stopping vote suppression.
2016 is over. If you support Sanders for 2020, good luck to you. I’ll vote for him, if he manages to win the nomination, even though he isn’t likely to be my first choice in the primaries.