The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

You forget that one of the biggest reasons Bush was voted in twice was because we rallied behind him after 9/11 (and his popularity plummeted later down the line anyway). And that was during a era that was far less charged than it was prior to Obama getting elected, and when domestic tensions weren't as high as they are now even despite the whole Florida incident back before Bush was sworn in. For all of Bush's problems, things were a lot more stable for us back then than they have been now and white supremacy back then was no where near the level of attention it's been getting now to be anything comparable between Bush and Trump. So don't put this so one-sided -- we're also the same country that elected Obama twice (and for ironically similar reasons such as him giving the greenlight for Osama bin Laden's death) despite the same backlash that resulted in Trump's ascension.

Heck, it's usually foreign events that really determine a president's success in office over whether they'd get a second term, if Jimmy Carter's one-term presidency thanks to the Iranian Hostage Crisis isn't another example of how that can spell a presidents end. Not that these single events are guarantees, but that's something worth keeping note of. If Trump makes a huge blunder akin to something like Watergate, that's a pretty big blow to his presidency that might get him booted out of office but the opposite rings true as well if something happens that he takes advantage of to boost his approval. And that's without getting into the demographic shift that'll happen down the line or whether or not the democrats manage to take Congress in 2018 to render the worst effects of his administration a moot issue anyway.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Conquering Storm's Servant

[Nepenthe]

Bush getting elected in a climate that was less socially and domestically divided than now after we elected the first black President wherein the gloves came off makes sense. Apathetic "progressives" and white women voting overwhelmingly against/not for the progressive woman candidate after coming off a relatively scandal-free and also-historic presidency does not make sense, at all. Subsequently, it is impossible to say in the aftermath of a blowout absolutely no one saw coming (but now everyone in their grandma is saying they did due to hindsight) how much Trump voters or people at least marginally okay with his existence as President-elect actually give a flying fuck about foreign policy scandals when they were fine with him talking about not upholding treaties for our allies and getting chummy with Russia. Nothing about this election is particularly "typical," and considering the anti-progressive consequences already happening in places like Ohio, I'm not giving the public the benefit of the doubt until they simply straighten the fuck up and stop electing these shits. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, no one's telling you to give the public any benefit of the doubt here. I'm just pointing out that Bush being elected twice is no where near comparable to any possibility of Trump being re-elected bar something that manages to boost his approval like it's done for many presidents in the past. And like-wise, a blunder would just as easily hurt him - "white power" can only carry someone so far before they realize they fucked up, and even if those on the fringe refuse to see that the rest of the country can wisen up and take advantage of that. It's happened before many times in the past, it bizarre to think that such a thing can't happen again despite the aftermath of this election.

And it's arguable whether Hillary came off scandal free considering the shit that was going on in the DNC that made even other democrats distrustful of her. That doesn't excuse those who didn't vote for her despite her being obviously a better suit for office than Trump, but the picture is not so squeeky-clean either way it goes.

[Nepenthe]

The comparison to Bush wasn't concerning whether or not the political climates were the same. It was the fact that a good deal of the public is still okay with electing the modern form of the GOP at all regardless. Also, "relatively scandal-free" describes Obama's presidency, not Hillary's campaign.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

29 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

The comparison to Bush wasn't concerning whether or not the political climates were the same. It was the fact that a good deal of the public is still okay with electing the modern form of the GOP at all regardless. 

Which, again, is one-sidedly disregarding the point of why Bush was even elected twice and the differences back then. That political climate throws a huge wrench against the comparison between him and Trump regardless of whether the public is okay with electing the modern form of the GOP, by that very fact in itself because reasons for the people electing the GOP for Trump today wasn't entirely the same or is far more charged than the reasons for public electing the past GOP for Bush.

[Tani Coyote]

Let's also not forget the fact Bin Laden's tapes mocking Bush leaked a few days before Election Day; Bush gained several points in the polls. This isn't even considering the power of the gay marriage bans on the ballot increasing conservative turnout.

15 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

those fucking Dems keep calling out white supremacy so I'll just vote against them again,"

Why yes, and it's a stupid tactic to use. Democrats can't communicate to save their lives. That's why they lose so much.

Never mind the fact making identity politics front and center is a good way to make your campaign, quite frankly, boring. Hearing about how racist, sexist, whatever America is over and over isn't fixing the problem, and all it does increasingly is just piss people off. We can talk about privilege or supremacy all day long (continuing to alienate the people who have it), or make an actual policy that brings them onboard and doesn't make them feel demonized.

I know, you've said before you don't believe in catering to white people's delicate sensibilities but... you have to. It's the same reason people shouldn't vote third party even if they like the third party most. Victory is what matters in politics, and that means frequently swallowing something that isn't particularly appetizing. Assume the rank and file to be emotional, irrational creatures with delicate egos, and you will be served well. White people have the numbers and turnout. Calling them whatever insult isn't going to do any favors in the long run.

The Democrats can keep up their echo chamber that demonizes everyone who isn't going nuts over social justice, or they can craft a platform that both serves social justice and appeals to those without a particularly strong taste in it. FDR did it, and he ushered in decades of Democratic dominance. And he had to work with ardent KKK types of people in a period where whites were the clearly dominant group in terms of demographics. We've got a much better situation to work with.

Plus it's been proven that identity politics is likely better served by dropping -ist terminology. By Berkeley, the paragon of liberal intellectualism (to a point my father gives me a glare every time I mention it as an option for graduate school). This was regarding attitudes towards the transgender, which likely aren't as strong as those on race, but it does go to show that being amicable towards enemies isn't all feel-good nonsense.

14 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

The comparison to Bush wasn't concerning whether or not the political climates were the same. It was the fact that a good deal of the public is still okay with electing the modern form of the GOP at all regardless. Also, "relatively scandal-free" describes Obama's presidency, not Hillary's campaign.

That's because a lot of people don't trust the Democrats completely and so regularly want to rotate power between them. It's the same principle as as a split-ticket vote; it mitigates the damage.

This of course requires the frankly nonsensical assumption both parties are equally or otherwise close in terms of being bad, but there you go.

But as CSS was saying, a lot of it is inherently tied to the situation and not the Party. The folk wisdom goes "if things are bad, the other guy could do better." Trump's re-election will lean heavily on what the economy and foreign affairs look like 4 years from now. Economic situations eclipse what the Party actually stands for. A lot of the people who voted for Obama voted for Trump this time around. The masses are most interested in the economy in spite of whatever else a candidate says. Trump's platform was frankly insane (and even he's acknowledging this based on his rollback of key policies), but it ultimately sent a stronger message to voters. Voters were most interested in what the candidate would strive for as opposed to what they would realistically achieve.

We can call minority Trump voters victims of internalized hate, or consider the possibility that maybe Trump was on to something.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

10 hours ago, Noelgilvie said:

I know, you've said before you don't believe in catering to white people's delicate sensibilities but... you have to. It's the same reason people shouldn't vote third party even if they like the third party most. Victory is what matters in politics, and that means frequently swallowing something that isn't particularly appetizing. Assume the rank and file to be emotional, irrational creatures with delicate egos, and you will be served well. White people have the numbers and turnout. Calling them whatever insult isn't going to do any favors in the long run.

And it's also partially why Trump won the election given Clintons remarks about the "deplorables."

If anything, that should be a big red sign that tactics need to change for democrats because calling out racism, however justified it is (and yes it is very justified), is not going to work as well and might even bite you in the ass. If one can't adapt to the situation, then they're going to be stuck in disappointment in a reality that is constantly changing.

[ImPantsAtThis]

Here's an interesting article on the tactical ineptitude of the Clinton campaign:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

It only describes the loss of MI, but you can guess that at least WI was a similar situation -- it explains quite well (in terms of ground game) how the Democrats lost in the rust belt. A few choice excerpts:

Quote

SEIU — which had wanted to go to Michigan from the beginning, but been ordered not to — dialed Clinton’s top campaign aides to tell them about the new plan. According to several people familiar with the call, Brooklyn was furious.

Turn that bus around, the Clinton team ordered SEIU. Those volunteers needed to stay in Iowa to fool Donald Trump into competing there, not drive to Michigan, where the Democrat’s models projected a 5-point win through the morning of Election Day.

Quote

The anecdotes are different but the narrative is the same across battlegrounds, where Democratic operatives lament a one-size-fits-all approach drawn entirely from pre-selected data — operatives spit out “the model, the model,” as they complain about it — guiding Mook’s decisions on field, television, everything else. That’s the same data operation, of course, that predicted Clinton would win the Iowa caucuses by 6 percentage points (she scraped by with two-tenths of a point), and that predicted she’d beat Bernie Sanders in Michigan (he won by 1.5 points).

Quote

“It was very surgical and corporate. They had their model, this is how they’re going to do it. Their thing was, ‘We don’t have to leave [literature] at the doors, everyone knows who Hillary Clinton is,’” said one person involved in the Michigan campaign. “But in terms of activists, it seems different, it’s maybe they don’t care about us.”

Michigan operatives relay stories like one about an older woman in Flint who showed up at a Clinton campaign office, asking for a lawn sign and offering to canvass, being told these were not “scientifically” significant ways of increasing the vote, and leaving, never to return. A crew of building trade workers showed up at another office looking to canvass, but, confused after being told there was no literature to hand out like in most campaigns, also left and never looked back.

“There’s this illusion that the Clinton campaign had a ground game. The deal is that the Clinton campaign could have had a ground game,” said a former Obama operative in Michigan. “They had people in the states who were willing to do stuff. But they didn’t provide people anything to do until GOTV.”

Quote

But there also were millions approved for transfer from Clinton’s campaign for use by the DNC — which, under a plan devised by Brazile to drum up urban turnout out of fear that Trump would win the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, got dumped into Chicago and New Orleans, far from anywhere that would have made a difference in the election.

Quote

On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said.

Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so.

In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Moral of the story: Pride cometh before a fall. (as if that weren't obvious already)

Next time, the Dems should avoid arrogance.

[Patticus]

The real lesson is that holding the moral high ground is no guarantee of victory, nor is it an excuse to appear arrogant or be dismissive of any part of the electorate.

TL;DR: Don't take any voter for granted.

[Tani Coyote]

6 hours ago, ImPantsAtThis said:

Here's an interesting article on the tactical ineptitude of the Clinton campaign:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547

It only describes the loss of MI, but you can guess that at least WI was a similar situation -- it explains quite well (in terms of ground game) how the Democrats lost in the rust belt. A few choice excerpts:

The fact Sanders beat her in several of the states Trump ended up carrying should have been a warning sign. Sanders and Trump are different on a lot of things, but they both had working class appeal. Clinton was too hung up on safe votes and "not Trump" to actually build a positive campaign message.

While this really was a "lesser evil" election, this is like racism in that it shouldn't be the basis of one's message. Clinton should have spent more time stressing the good she'd do for America, rather than "I'm not the Donald, so you should pick me!"

There's a shitload of economic policies the Democrats could have run home. Obama's not super unpopular, so it wouldn't have been too hard to expand on his promises, while also saying obstacles like Joe Lieberman (who sunk the public option and thus gave rise to the eyesore that is the ACA) are no longer there. There was room to move America leftward this election, and the majority of Americans backing Clinton is evidence enough of that. There just needs to be more aggressive campaigning in any state that isn't a lost cause for the GOP (CA, NY, etc.).

8 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

And it's also partially why Trump won the election given Clintons remarks about the "deplorables."

If anything, that should be a big red sign that tactics need to change for democrats because calling out racism, however justified it is (and yes it is very justified), is not going to work as well and might even bite you in the ass. If one can't adapt to the situation, then they're going to be stuck in disappointment in a reality that is constantly changing.

There's an irony in the Democratic approach to stratification. Many Democrats appreciate political correctness for the sake of not offending people, reinforcing attitudes, etc. But when it comes to the opposition, this idea goes out the window. They become like Trump, "telling it how it is," and in the process alienate God knows how many people. All for the sake of claiming the moral high ground.

You don't go into politics to be a saint. You go into it to win. I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to be ethical, but there comes a point where moral superiority just isn't worth the loss in political capital.

It's absolutely right to call a good chunk of Americans enablers of racism even if they aren't KKK types. But it's in insanely bad taste if your goal is to win their support and votes. People who are just coasting through life? They can say whatever they want. But people actually interested in changing minds, gathering votes, etc.? They need to be diplomatic. They need to love thy enemy as thyself.

Yes, white people, men, etc. all have less issues than marginalized groups. But it's bad practice to belittle them given their resources and numbers. Never mind it's rather cold to dismiss any problems they have on the basis of being lesser. By that metric, we can freely dismiss any issues any American has on the basis their life is probably better than someone in another country. After a certain point, you have to stop keeping score, and find a way for everyone to win instead.

We can easily come up with an ideal, equitable distribution of resources per person. And we can just as easily see the vast majority - regardless of whether they are privileged or not - fall short of this distribution. We have common cause in changing the status quo.

[KHCast]

If people are blatantly being racist, homophobic, sexist, telling those being oppressed to not call that shit out to seems a bit much. Calling it out is interval to getting change. You can call someone out and still be respectful to them. Calling someone racist =/= belittling or hating them. It can be out of love you do this. But if that's how they feel about us calling it out, that's their issue, but I'm not gonna hold my tongue because white straight men have the power.  This idea that calling out hate or hate enablers will only result in pushing away doesn't always hold water. Especially when you educate those on why these views are harmful to others or why supporting or allowing certain things aren't beneficial or helpful to anyone but those already privileged on top of the accusation. I'm not talking politics btw, I'm talking basic conversation regarding equal rights and other social discussion where even pointing out racism specifically and not keeping it this faceless enemy seems to be something people are afraid to do.

Also I'd argue while those problems privileged people have are legit, prioritizing them constantly over people with worse issues seems to indicate a lack of knowing where priorities should be set.

I'll leave this post I made earlier here.

Quote

 

Remember when identify politics weren't things people on both sides now try to snuff out of discussion because of fear of upsetting white straight people?

Hypothetic example of this: law passed in a state that allows homophobic discrimination on many levels.

"Person: God, people in (insert state that the law was made) are homophobic fucks"

"Other person: well hey, hold on, not everyone voted for it, and those that did may have voted for it for non-homophobic reasons and more self gaining ones. Don't just assume everyone that voted yes on the law was some gay hating redneck. That gets us nowhere. It's not black and white. Calling them homophobes only pushes them away"  

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

If people are blatantly being racist, homophobic, sexist, telling those being oppressed to not call that shit out to seems a bit much. Calling it out is interval to getting change. You can call someone out and still be respectful to them. Calling someone racist =/= belittling or hating them. It can be out of love you do this.

Those are typically a lost cause that you're not going to win over no matter what. If you're trying to win over those more misguided than those who know they're being bigoted and don't care, there's a degree of tact you have to go about it without finger-pointing and shaming them as such, because otherwise you're going to make an enemy out of someone who could have just as easily been an ally.

Basically, unless they're precisely the KKK types who desires are seeking racial superiority, calling them out directly as racists and sexists or what not shouldn't be your first response to their prejudice when they feel their is something else worthwhile to them, so appeal to that instead. There's a good chance it has more to do with something tangential than skin color, like economics.

Quote

 But if that's how they feel about us calling it out, that's their issue, but I'm not gonna hold my tongue because white straight men have the power.  This idea that calling out hate or hate enablers will only result in pushing away doesn't always hold water. Especially when you educate those on why these views are harmful to others or why supporting or allowing certain things aren't beneficial or helpful to anyone but those already privileged on top of the accusation. I'm not talking politics btw, I'm talking basic conversation regarding equal rights and other social discussion where even pointing out racism specifically and not keeping it this faceless enemy seems to be something people are afraid to do.

That's likely to just reinforce their view against yours. You may not be talking politics, but ironically enough doing just that is partially how Clinton lost her chance at the presidency among other things.

I think it would be better to take a page out of the covert elements of racism and be covert ourselves it fighting against it. Not that we should disregard being overt entirely when you have full blown evidence of it, in which case milk the hell out that evidence for all you can to get your support. But when  someone tries to deflect the less obvious elements, be less obvious when you try to make your case.

Quote

Also I'd argue while those problems privileged people have are legit, prioritizing them constantly over people with worse issues seems to indicate a lack of knowing where priorities should be set.

I'll leave this post I made earlier here.

Unfortunately, those privileged people have more of the resources and power that you seek in order to change the system. One thing I've learned is that if you want to change someone's mind or bringing them to your cause, you'll have a better chance show them what would be in it for their interests, otherwise why should they care if they're living life? Now if you can work your way into forcing them to prioritize things in dire need of attention regardless, go for it --but beware that they will fight back and make things difficult for you in return.

It's really a matter of using both the carrot and the stick based on the case rather than just using one because they both have pros and cons...and mind you, I'm one who sees a bit too much value in the stick (most of the time, I believe people know better, but sometimes it's not that clear cut to others) that I'm trying to learn to better see more in the carrot. Don't argue for the stick when the carrot is more effective, and vices versa if someone wants the carrot but is better off with the stick when they won't cooperate even if you show them the benefit.

Or a simple way to state this would be to learn to sway folks to your side as much as you would want to fight those that never want to join you.

[KHCast]

Unfortunately, with the atmosphere currently in republicans favor, I feel as if even if we aren't being "oh youre just racist" about these issues, and are trying other methods, repubs and the government now can easily sway people to think they aren't being racist, and that "it's just SJW's and evil liberals that are crying about loosing and not having their way. Look at all the good that's happened to you people!" :/ So to me, if this ends up being a loose loose, I don't see a loss in me being a bit on the nose at times about if someone is fighting against me unknowingly. I'll bring it up respectfully and give my thoughts on how, while not their intention, it is hurtful and a racist mindset they are supporting.  But hey, I live in Portland, so maybe I'm in a progressive bubble.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Well this is a time when we have to fight a bit dirty and use some (but not all) of the tactics that were used against democrats. It worked for them, it can definitely work against them if they're too arrogant to see it. This is one of the reasons why you shouldn't try to be a saint and hold a moral superiority, because if you're at a disadvantage, being the morally superior one isn't always going to help you.

That atmosphere won't always benefit the republicans, and they'll have to put their money where their mouth is and not prove their opposition right. Still as far as those who demean the opposition as SJW and all that, if there's no reasoning to them then don't bother.

[KHCast]

Idk, this "no reasoning" idea I personally don't entirely believe in. I mean for gods sake known Nazi's that were totally for hating Jews, and openly redneck racists back during the civil rights ended up changing their thoughts and morals, so I don't see why we're in this age where we just suddenly give up on those people as if they'll never change. 

So let's say you meet a supporter of police frisking minorities like blacks more than whites? Or someone for work discrimination against LGBT? Or against same sexy marriage? Or someone that treats women like lessers? How do you approach those situations in a fashion where you DONT call out the obvious hate?

[Volphied]

To everyone crying about how "identity politics" cost the Dems the elections, I'll leave this:

http://www.vox.com/2016/12/13/13936226/samantha-bee-identity-politics-democrats

Quote

The phrase “identity politics” has been thrown around so haphazardly in the wake of the election that it’s lost more of its meaning with every casually derisive mention. As Democrats grapple with what they can do to gain traction after Donald Trump’s victory, arguments have raged on over whether highlighting “identity politics” — now largely understood to mean any issues specific to women, minorities, and LGBTQ people — cost Democrats the election.

Samantha Bee, for one, thinks that’s basically bullshit.

“Identity politics is the dismissive term for what we used to call ‘civil rights’ and ‘equality,’” Bee said on her December 12 show. Also, she made sure to add, white and male is an identity, as is being Christian — the two fronts Steve Doocy’s Fox News roundtable and other like-minded media outlets feel are most under attack.

Basically, as Vox’s Matt Yglesias put it: “There is no other way to do politics than to do identity politics.”

What’s more, Bee said, standing up for civil rights can, and did, win Democrats elections. “You know what happens when Democrats stand up for transgender rights? They win,” she said, pointing to North Carolina’s gubernatorial race, which was recently called for Democrat Roy Cooper over Republican incumbent Pat McCrory, a staunch supporter of the state’s discriminatory anti-LGBTQ laws.

Bee did acknowledge that Hillary Clinton’s messaging on jobs, while far more present than most coverage gave her credit for, could’ve used some work beyond “trumped-up trickle-down economics.” But the real shame, she insisted, would be losing the people who did vote for Democrats over those who might someday.

“If your panic over a loss makes you abandon both your principles and the people who actually vote for you,” Bee pleaded to Democrats, “you’ll be in the wilderness for a decade — or until Trump’s Cabinet sells the wilderness to oil companies, so really, like a month.”

Moving on:

On 14. 12. 2016 at 0:40 PM, Noelgilvie said:

The Democrats can keep up their echo chamber that demonizes everyone who isn't going nuts over social justice, or they can craft a platform that both serves social justice and appeals to those without a particularly strong taste in it. FDR did it, and he ushered in decades of Democratic dominance. And he had to work with ardent KKK types of people in a period where whites were the clearly dominant group in terms of demographics. We've got a much better situation to work with. Economic situations eclipse what the Party actually stands for. A lot of the people who voted for Obama voted for Trump this time around. The masses are most interested in the economy in spite of whatever else a candidate says. Trump's platform was frankly insane (and even he's acknowledging this based on his rollback of key policies), but it ultimately sent a stronger message to voters. Voters were most interested in what the candidate would strive for as opposed to what they would realistically achieve.

Yeah, FDR's New Deal policies largely excluded black people, because he was afraid of losing the white vote. On the other hand, LBJ said 'fuck it' and pushed the Civil Rights Act, even if it meant losing the Solid South to the Republicans. And guess what, not only was he not the last Democratic President, but the American people were later willing to elect a black Democrat who's middle name was 'Hussein'.

Regarding your second point... you're contradicting yourself right now. If the masses are indeed mostly interested in the economy no matter what the candidate says, then preaching "identity politics" won't have a negative effect on them, as long as the candidate remembers Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid!" motto. Hillary didn't fail because of calling racists racists (and her massive popular vote victory is proof of that). She failed because of not talking also about the economy in the Rust Belt.

Bottom line. All democrats have to do is slam Trump for the next few years on his disastrous economic policies, and It would be awesome if during that we don't throw racial and sexual minorities under the bus like the people crying about "identity politics" suggest. The 2008 and 2012 elections are proof enough that the racist will always vote Republican, so there's no point in pandering to them, but it IS possible to outvote them.

[Tani Coyote]

4 hours ago, Volphied said:

Yeah, FDR's New Deal policies largely excluded black people, because he was afraid of losing the white vote. On the other hand, LBJ said 'fuck it' and pushed the Civil Rights Act, even if it meant losing the Solid South to the Republicans.

I've discussed this at length multiple times in this thread.

Quote

And guess what, not only was he not the last Democratic President, but the American people were later willing to elect a black Democrat who's middle name was 'Hussein'.

But the modern Democratic Party doesn't resemble the New Deal coalition in the slightest. It's taken decades to get a platform that remotely resembles the New Deal era's.

This is like the GOP claiming being the Party of Lincoln to encourage blacks to vote for them.

That same black man with the middle name Hussein, furthermore, had his metaphorical ship torpedoed by members of his own Party. The Democrats have shifted enormously to the right after white supremacy took precedence over liberalism.

Quote

Regarding your second point... you're contradicting yourself right now. If the masses are indeed mostly interested in the economy no matter what the candidate says, then preaching "identity politics" won't have a negative effect on them, as long as the candidate remembers Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid!" motto.

It's the primary factor but not the only one. There's no contradiction here. Plurality vs. majority in terms of odds.

You can have the most solid economic proposal in the world but it won't help if you make someone feel unwelcome in your camp.

Quote

Hillary didn't fail because of calling racists racists (and her massive popular vote victory is proof of that).

No, that's proof most voters preferred her for one reason or another. If not for Trump throwing out the usual decorum Republicans have to cover up their bigotry, it's a strong possibility a lot of her voters could have swung the other way.

Presentation is everything.

Quote

She failed because of not talking also about the economy in the Rust Belt.

And probably pissing off a good deal of people there by not only taking them for granted but also going "if you like Trump you have a good chance of being a deplorable."

These are states decided by narrow margins. The fact 9% of Democrats voted for Trump raises the strong possibility she alienated them. Never mind the actions of the DNC alienating younger voters.

Quote

Bottom line. All democrats have to do is slam Trump for the next few years on his disastrous economic policies, and It would be awesome if during that we don't throw racial and sexual minorities under the bus like the people crying about "identity politics" suggest.

There's a big difference between throwing minorities under the bus and saying "we need to be careful how we address the issue."

There's a difference between say, proposing police reform (which can easily be spun as benefiting all racial groups) and going "if you don't support this you're a racist shitlord."

Gay people didn't win any favors by calling people on the fence about gay marriage homophobes. Calling people names is a great way to send them fleeing to the opposition.

We've developed this idea that we should "tell it how it is" towards people who aren't devoting every second to social justice, but it's ultimately counterproductive. If one wants to raise support for social justice causes, it needs to be done in a positive manner that doesn't demonize the person.

Quote

The 2008 and 2012 elections are proof enough that the racist will always vote Republican, so there's no point in pandering to them, but it IS possible to outvote them.

They're also proof that if you don't build a strong supermajority, you're not going to accomplish much.

Avoiding divisive "-ist" terms is a great start.

I don't know about you, but I don't want another pen and phone President. As discussed though, we have a much better situation than FDR. He had to enable segregation to get his agenda done. Modern leaders just need to avoid provoking cries of "Tumblr!" whenever they talk. LBJ was able to embrace Civil Rights because the power of the South had shrunken considerably by the time he was in office, and while the South still has plenty of race problems, it is not as bad as it was before.

[KHCast]

On December 14, 2016 at 3:40 AM, Noelgilvie said:

Never mind the fact making identity politics front and center is a good way to make your campaign, quite frankly, boring. Hearing about how racist, sexist, whatever America is over and over isn't fixing the problem, and al

Couple things. Social issues being boring to people that it doesn't effect? Surprised. Seriously, some things need to be discussed even if they come off boring. If that's a genuine criticism and reason for why people complained, well boo hoo, that's kinda politics as a whole. It's not some constant barrage of trump shit. And second,  identity politics often also discuss ways to fix certain issues, and encourage going out and finding ways to do something. Like Samantha said, identity politics is literally just a "safe space" version of the terms equality and civil rights. So unless you wanna tell me those terms are also just people complaining and doing nothing, I'm gonna have to disagree there. So seems like you're assuming what identity politics even entails. It's not just spouting "everything is racist and you're bad for doing this."

Discussing rights of others isn't going to ostracize whites, there are plenty of opportunities for white straight men to join in and help and build these communities up, and I'd argue questioning the reason for someone being on the fence or against same sex marriage, and calling their reason itself homophobic or their desires shitty is fair. Seriously, appeasing the powerful at the cost of reality is never going to sit well with people. Someone against my rights IS homophobic more often than not, or their reason IS homophobic ignorant bullshit, and I shouldn't have to sugar coat that to keep the oppressors from crying to mommy. 

 

Also no ones telling you you're racist or homophobic of you don't devout every second to our rights. Hell, I don't devout every second to black issues or gay ones.  But marriage rights and work rights are big deals, and shouldn't be ignored. There are important priorities within these groups that need to be addressed if you want those communities not to be against you. If you're not going to help raise your voice, fine, I'm not forcing you, but if you're against these, or demonizing those fighting for rights, well, giving the bully a sucker while the beat up kid gets chastised isn't going to do shit.

[Tani Coyote]

1 minute ago, KHCast said:

It's not just spouting "everything is racist and you're bad for doing this."

I know.

Unfortunately, a lot of people gradually begin to segue into that tactic, which doesn't work very well outside an echo chamber.

Samantha's also insanely overly optimistic about the NC election. It was narrowly won, and I'm willing to wager it had more to do with the boycott of the state over the bill than the goodness of North Carolina voters' hearts.

This isn't too surprising, given this is how MLK was able to get the buses desegregated and why Black Lives Matter is onto something with blocking intersections. Politics going back to economics... what a surprise.

5 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Couple things. Social issues being boring to people that it doesn't effect? Surprised. Seriously, some things need to be discussed even if they come off boring. If that's a genuine criticism and reason for why people complained, well boo hoo, that's kinda politics as a whole.

I never said they can't be discussed at all. They just shouldn't be front and center if your goal is to win. Democrats can have gay marriage on the platform, for example, but they shouldn't be making gay marriage their primary sales pitch.

Clinton's ads seem more focused on demonizing Trump for his bigotry than "hey I'd be better for the economy."

Her campaign was quite frankly stupid in this regard. A negative message only gets you so far.

[KHCast]

Except doing the opposite of pro rights seemed to work for republicans. Anti-Muslim propaganda was one of their hugest sellers next to jobs and Mexicans need to go. So again, I find it a double standard that  identity politics can't be big platforms of your campaign unless you're shitting on those minorities and taking away rights. Having LGBT rights, women's rights, etc all be small little subcategories while white issues are the constant big title sellers, seems completely offputting to minorities that will feel your under representing their problems.

 

im not saying make gay and black rights the flag ship titles, but I also don't see why having them on a equal level to creating jobs and border control can't work either.

 

Samantha's also insanely overly optimistic about the NC election. It was narrowly won, and I'm willing to wager it had more to do with the boycott of the state over the bill than the goodness of North Carolina voters' hearts.

 If NC if not for the boycott would have gone with the homophobic shit piece, I feel like that'd just be more fuel for progressives to call the state out on its blatant homophobia. Seriously I don't think we're ever gonna get to a point where we just ignore that.

[Dizcrybe]

Honestly, the reality of whether or not calling out white people's* racist beliefs/behaviors is actually an attack on them personally doesn't matter; as long as they feel like they're being attacked, they're gonna retreat further into their own corner 99% of the time. Unfortunately, most of these people don't have the heart to go, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize. Could you tell me what to do in the future so I can avoid potentially hurting someone?" or something, and until they nut up, calling their behavior what it is is, through no fault of our own, largely ineffective.

*Before anyone gets upset, nobody's talking about you. I shouldn't have to explain this, but apparently needs explaining, so...

[Lucid Dream]

50 minutes ago, KHCast said:

im not saying make gay and black rights the flag ship titles, but I also don't see why having them on a equal level to creating jobs and border control can't work either.

Because creating jobs doesn't just benefit a small group of people, it benefits absolutely everyone. It is what so many people want and need. Border control heavily falls into that (get rid of all the asians and watch how all those high paying jobs open) and that's why they're prominant everywhere and all the time. Creating jobs is a huge and highly important objective today, and people want more jobs no matter what immoral methods may be employed. 

Discrimination isn't actually that damaging to the economy. Look at Japan, it's a perfect example of a country that is economically flourishing despite having banners like "no foreigners allowed". Granted, it's a different country with a completely different economy, and putting aside some of the smartest, most beneficial populations in favor of making more jobs for your own people is definitely a pretty stupid move, but it's something that can be done without the most severe of economic repercussions. Or at least, that's how it seems. 

Making gay and Black rights equal to making more jobs is essentially making it like a flag ship title. There's a good reason why a lot of people are desperate for jobs, and people will accept any solution for it, even if it is just hardcore disrimination. There just isn't that kind of desperation for equal rights, because it's just not as necessary outside a moral obligation. And that's, well, difficult to define. 

[KHCast]

Except time and time again there's been proof that equality and the like CAN better things like the economy. It can create new and unique work opportunities, motivate people to better work which drives up profit, collaborations between groups, act as a way to better market and trade between certain other countries, create more value within our culture, make the country look better to others enticing more deals between outside companies and countries, etc. possibly can even slightly fix the issue of poverty in the US, as many of those in it are in one of those groups usually. there are more "why should's" than "why shouldn't" outside "morality". It also stands to benefit everyone having a society where inequality isnt prevalent. Less resources and time is spent oppressing and dealing with things like court cases, protests, etc. Not to mention these minorities are growing in size so constantly writing off these problems as "small" and "not necessary to better the country" is quite a ridiculous assumption and claim.(I mean those "small" groups alone still account for large profits in many industries that would die off without them.)

Creating jobs doesn't help everyone if said jobs still are allowed to discriminate, and continue the trend of white superiority that they've been doing for ages. Even when America's economy prospered, really only the white middle class and upper class genuinely benefited. Seriously, if we're still giving focus to these issues of jobs and borders, and also throwing in other shit and that makes people whine, well grow up? The world isn't for you only and if you'll only be happy if civil rights and equality is some super small side issue that no one actually pays attention to because you don't want to share, to bad? You're still getting your better jobs, you're still getting your border control, but at the same time helping these growing industries and markets.

 

Also, Japan's economy flourished because of the partnership with the US after WW2. (Well, more like the US took control of the ship for a while) US relations I'd say are still partially why it's still this booming industry. I guarantee you without us intervention there, Japan would be a much different place.

[Lucid Dream]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

so constantly writing off these problems as "small" and "not necessary to better the country" is quite a ridiculous assumption and claim.(I mean those "small" groups alone still account for large profits in many industries that would die off without them.)

Creating jobs doesn't help everyone if said jobs still are allowed to discriminate, and continue the trend of white superiority that they've been doing for ages. Even when America's economy prospered, really only the white middle class and upper class genuinely benefited. Seriously, if we're still giving focus to these issues of jobs and borders, and also throwing in other shit and that makes people whine, well grow up? The world isn't for you only and if you'll only be happy if civil rights and equality is some super small side issue that no one actually pays attention to because you don't want to share, to bad? You're still getting your better jobs, you're still getting your border control, but at the same time helping these growing industries and markets.

 

Also, Japan's economy flourished because of the partnership with the US after WW2. (Well, more like the US took control of the ship for a while) US relations I'd say are still partially why it's still this booming industry. I guarantee you without us intervention there, Japan would be a much different place.

Man do you even read what I write? Are you just arguing with yourself? Is that why you aren't quoting me? I can assume this is a reply to me right? 

It's a pretty well known fact that Japan is pretty Xenophobic and very sexist. It doesn't matter what the US did to Japan 80 years ago, when japan is still putting them down and putting up "no foreigners allowed" banners. Japan (and many other highly developed nations) can be pretty freely sexist and xenophobic and there really doesn't seem to be any collapsing economy. Holding up foreign relations does not justify their discrimination at all. If I tell you that they discriminate against gay men, would you understand me better? 

Also, since when does saying "having jobs is increadibly important" mean "equality is some small side issue"? Are you only satisfied if your rights are treated as the most important thing that affects everything and everyone? Jobs are solid, and affect everything and everyone, the rights of gay people only affect 10% of the population, and not all of that 10% may have any problems. You cannot expect something that affects a fairly small minority to be as present and shown off as something that affects the vast majority. That majority also including black and gay people (which is really all you seem to be talking about when you say minorities). It's just the greater good taking higher precedence. 

Since when was talking about jobs specifically talking about white supremecy anyway? Equality within jobs is a subcatogory in that, and is pretty much one of the most important aspects of equality. I'd honestly prefer to put equality within jobs above social justice. Also, is it just me or are you actually supportive of Trumps border control? You certainly sound like it.