General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMinority voters, not Trump voters, are key to Dem victory. Why else is GOP suppressing their votes?
Republicans are pulling out all the stops, enacting laws, changing rules, reducing voting hours and locations, making it difficult and impossible to get voter IDs, etc. to keep minority voters from casting ballots and getting their votes counted. You think theyre doing this because they think they dont matter?
Duh - theyre doing it because they KNOW that black and brown Democrats, if mobilized and protected and gotten to the polls will turn this mother out for us. And focusing on these voters is a hell of a lot easier and more effective than chasing around after Trump voters begging them to vote for Democrats and hoping they actually do it.
Republicans know that the minority vote is absolutely essential to a blue wave election. The question is why dont the Be nice to Trump voters Dems seem to get it?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Given the run of the last several elections, it's bleedingly obvious. The majority of white men have gotten it wrong in more than the most recent election, so it's not some sort of news that the majority of white male voters gets it wrong consistently.
The majority of white men is not an electoral majority. That's the skinny of it. But there is an implicit belief that a candidate who does not attract majority white male support is somehow not a "valid" candidate.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Given that I'm an outer white guy, too, but it goes something like this...
(note to jury: this is intentionally written in the voice of a "normal white guy". It is not intended as an expression of opinion which I hold or endorse and is intended to demonstrate what I believe are implicit assumptions of a lot of white guys. )
------------
Women and minorities really can't be objective about things, because they have axes to grind. You see, they are understandably upset at historically having been oppressed or disenfranchised, and they just can't let it go. Women, because they just get emotional about stuff and don't think clearly, and minorities because they are "hot blooded", as is common among people of generally tropical origins.
Take things like making them judges, or putting them in positions of responsibility. Yes, yes, I know that the smart ones are as smart as any normal white guy, but they are still biased because of their desire to "get even" with all those awful things that were done in the past and which don't happen anymore.
You saw this in, for example, one of the same sex marriage cases. One of the judges involved was said to be gay. Well, how can a gay judge be "objective" or "unbiased" in a case involving gay rights? That's just silly. To ensure that the judge isn't biased, you need a straight married judge.
And, don't get me wrong... discrimination is a really bad thing. That's why white guys don't do it any more. But women and minorities carry around this chip on their shoulder about it - and justifiably so. They have every right to be angry and upset about the bad things we used to do that we don't do anymore, and they have every right to be suspicious about the few remaining holdout racists and sexists. But it is that desire for revenge or evening the score which, even though perfectly understandable, interferes with their ability to make objective and fair decisions the way that white guys do.
I'm sure at some time in the future, but not really sure when, they'll settle down enough to the point that they can be trusted to be as objective and fairminded as white guys are.
---------
I did that spiel one time with the family, and one my sons mock-agreed with me by saying "Yeah, you're right!"
So, I looked at him and said, "Oh, excuse me, I meant OLD white guys" much to the amusement of everyone else.
But my sneaking suspicion is that the sort of thinking above might not be far off the mark. The point is that coming from a position of privilege, one is not "biased" by the desire to obtain it. Therefore, persons in a privileged position in the first place are naturally more "fairminded" since they are not self-interested in the outcome.
It's totally f-d up, but I think it's how most other white guys think, based on my thorough inability to understand why the majority of white men seem to express their opinions through what the polls suggest by the way white men vote.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Have you thought of publishing it?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is that I can see people reading along, nodding their heads, and agreeing with it.
ismnotwasm
(41,921 posts)dalton99a
(81,068 posts)That's all they've got.
Well, and an army of concerned American patriots from Russia
mcar
(42,210 posts)We should have a dozen OPs here talking about voter suppression and how to combat it so people can vote!
HipChick
(25,485 posts)Instead, we have Dems - or people who say theyre Dems - flooding the board with demands that we focus most of our efforts on kissing up to white Trump voters.
Despite the claims, the base is NOT those who say they will not vote if the candidate is Tom corporatist or whatever is the word of the day.
Mister Ed
(5,896 posts)...if their voting rights are protected and preserved.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)That's rhetorical - I'm not expecting you to know
It's just creepy thinking about the implications of what you've said. Makes me wonder if the "focus on white male voters" is admitting that minority votes are and will be suppressed - and no one gives a shit
DURec
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)For example in Texas the Texas voter id law has been largely gutted with voters now allowed to vote with most forms of id if they sign an affidavit. Democrats are fighting voter suppression in the courts and are dong okay
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)I was in the local county party voter protection war room on primary day and will be there on run off day. We had 200+ poll watchers out in 2016 and may need more for 2018.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Care and have been working on it for a long time, and efforts have stepped up dramatically in the past couple of years. You owe these people an apology, and think twice how you phrase things becasue youre really discrediting many decent hard working people when you say shit like that.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)I meant the 'nobody' who could actually DO anything about stopping voter suppression
And yes, I think it's fair to question whether or not the officials who COULD do something to stop the suppressing of votes actually give a shit
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Any of the officials stuff- they cant unfuck these problems- becasue there are multiple sources and methods of voter suppression.
Why do you think Korbach has been on trial these past weeks? How many other court cases and registration drives are you unaware of? There have been loads of them over the years, and more coming.
Your ignorance- that some officials can snap their fingers and fix this is absolutely astounding. No wonder you blame Dems for doing nothing- you dont even learn the first thing about an issue before posting about it.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)That certainly wasn't my intention
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)We owe it to ourselves to do a little research before posting such facile garbage. Its alienating to Dems who might actually belive this stuff. There is an unprecedented effort by at least 5 groups to restore voter rights and expand them where possible. Its being fought state by state. Trumps henchman Korbach is making himself a fool in court the past two weeks- so rejoice, spread the news and join the effort!
And thanks for the apology. Voters rights are huge in my book.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Show me where I suggested the fault lies with Democrats
Many 'officials' are from both parties...some aren't even affiliated with political parties
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Id say anyone should realize its on us Dems to fix it. The GOP has long tried to suppress voter participation. Crosscheck is their baby, and this latest crap about voter fraud is theirs too. Its up to us to fix it. I assumed Dems would know that much.
crazycatlady
(4,492 posts)It is possible to be civil to Trump voters without becoming their BFF. We can turn out/register minority voters, young voters, unmarried women (known as the Rising American Electorate) as well as flip 5-10% of Trump voters. My response at the doors to Trump voters is "sorry to bother you, have a good day" and I move on (and mark them in the system as supporting GOP).
5-10% of Trump voters are flippable. I can count on two hands the number of family members I have who voted for Trump and regret it.
I hope every March for our lives event next week has people registering these students (who are/will be of age) to vote. I know Emma is already 18, but I hope David, Cameron, Sarah, etc are registering their classmates to vote and will preregister if they come of age before November.
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)Or West Virginia, or North Dakota or western Pennsylvania or the many other places where Democrats win but where there are very few people of color?
I assunme you are aware that control of state legislatures and governships and control of Congress requires majorities and that that control is more importnat than winning the presidency? Legislative agendas, judgeships, many, many other crucial aspects of government are set by Congress and state government.
I'm sorry but you can mobilize all the black and brown people you want and it's not enough to win control of state and national governments. And if you don't win elections all the things you hate about repubs like voter suppression will just increase. There are millions of drumpf voters who had voted for Obama. That's a fact that some on hear don't like to hear but it's factually true. If you want to win control of governments you have to appeal to more than POC. That's how you win control of government. What do you not get about that?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)He won, not by focusing all of his efforts on Trump supporters but by staying on message and directing it to people who were already receptive to it. This included former Trump voters but he didn't bother with Trump supporters since anyone still supporting Trump right now is NOT going to vote for any Democrat and it's a waste of time - not to mention insulting and off-putting to other members of the base - to expend any effort trying to win them over.
But, FYI - there are often a lot more people of color in those pockets than many people realize. They just tend to be ignored.
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)I talked about people who voted for Obama. Nor did I say anything about concentrating all eforts on trump supporters. So that was a defelction which ignored the fact that there are many places Dems can win where there aren't significant numbers of POC, despite your claim that they are there and ignored.
Some facts:
Montana Hispanic and Blacks- 3.4 percent.
ND Hispanic and Blacks - 6.5 percent
West Virginia Hispanics and Blacks - 5.1 percent
All of those states have Democratic senators and all those senators would lose if they followed your advice to concentrate on POC. That's what I responded to in your post. You can have all the visions you want about a wave of POC taking over the country but it is unrealistic from a demographic and electroral perspective. That is if you want to win control of government for Democratslike I do. If you are offended by winning strategies for Dems than I must conclude that you are more concerned with hurt feelings rather than with taking control of the government away from people who are doing far more to hurt POC.
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)which is for the Democratic party to quit throwing POC under the bus and ignoring them to focus on Drumpf voters. The fact that Doug Jones got elected in Alabama was due to POC. There ARE states where the population of POC are significant - i.e., that southeastern and Gulf Coast belt of Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia. These states have from 25% - 40% state-wide black populations, where fighting suppression could significantly change the outcomes at both the state and federal levels there.
Two of the 3 states that you list have state-wide populations that are 1/2 - 3/4 the population of my home city and the 3rd is only slightly bigger than the population of my city (Philadelphia).
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)The Democratic Party has not thrown POC under the bus for drumpf voters. There is absolutley no proof of that, nor has anyone on this forum suggested it.
Also never said Dems shouldn't fight voter suppression nor that they shouldn't appeal to POC. Your examples of southern states, however, as battlegrounds is misguided. The states I listed already have shown they will elect Democratic sentors whereas, even with increased voting of POC in the south, it is still unlikley for Dems to win there (Jones was a fluke because of having a child predator as opponenent - any normal GOP candidate would have won).
Your final sentence totally misses the bigger point of what I wrote. I would hate to think you don't know that each state has two senators, regardless of population. You get control of the senate by getting 51 seats - those three senators are crucial to doing that which makes them much more important than congressmen from Philadelphia.
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)And for you to write-off the southern states, which IS throwing POC under the bus with this remark -
...given what I just wrote regarding the TOTAL population of black voters in those states, is exactly the issue that needs to be underlined.
We're not talking about the "3.4%" in Montana, a state with a population just over 1 million. We're talking states like Mississippi, with a black population of 38% and hispanic population of just over 3%. So for Mississippi with a population of 3 million, 41% POC = ~1.2 million, which is larger the entire population of Montana.
If the DNC doesn't even TRY to mobilize in places like Mississippi (and as you may or may not be aware, the whole "Freedom Riders" movement focused there), or Georgia, then they will forever cede the south to the RW GOP when that need not have to happen just based on history. Add to this the fact that some states, like Georgia, actually have a very politically astute northern black component that has moved there (for cheaper housing, a vibrant black community in and around the urban areas, a good number of HBCUs), and with enough effort, the state can be flipped or at least made more reflective of the population there.
And my pointing out the size of my city has nothing to do with "congressmen from Philadelphia". Not sure where you got that from. It has to do with comparing populations of the rural states that you used in your examples that push come to shove, could be replaced with the southern states with higher populations (including higher precentages of POC). And yes that means the Senators as well.
I.e., those states (and one might add Tennessee to that) at one time DID have Democrats as Senators - people like Al Gore, Sam Nunn, Max Clelland, Jim Sasser, Mary Landrieu. Remember them?
It seems continuing any discussion with you being so dismissive will be useless at this point.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)I have read through your posts and think they point to a strategy that has Democrats appealing to the "disaffected white guys" in Montana, WV and western PA. That's just not going to work because it does alienate our party's real base which is WOMEN and POC.
Somehow, we always forget that women vote for Dems in larger percentages than men and many of them don't vote.
GOTV with women and POC.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But our priority strategy should be focused on minorities - which includes the women likely to vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)the poster got all concerned about Montana, WV and western PA. WE know there are plenty of women there that we can appeal to and they were implied in your post, even if the minority populations in those regions are small, but the poster didn't seem to know that.
jcmaine72
(1,773 posts)Latin America, Africa and the Middle East to settle in states like Montana (also Wyoming, West Virginia, Idaho, etc). All asylum seekers from those regions should also be settled in such states whenever possible as well, receiving whatever help and assistance that they need from the federal government to help them get settled in their new homes. I feel we need to make diversifying these wastelands of bigotry and ignorance a top priority when we return to power. It's the only way to absolutely ensure unassailable congressional majorities for Democrats across the board indefinitely.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)I support every effort to protect and mobilize minority voters, and all of those efforts should be doubled. I see no reason why Democrats running for office shouldn't also offer information to prior Trump voters that illustrates how Republicans are screwing them, if that can help us get over the top in any given election with some additional votes. That information in virtually every case happens to be relevant to minority voters also. But the need to fight disenfranchisement of minority voters, and how that will advance the Democratic Party vision for America, far outstrips any advantage sought in bending over backwoods to specifically appeal to white voters.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)who are not hard core racists, who can still be persuaded to vote Democratic in key elections. If they get angry because we take a principled stand, like defending DACA youth - well that's just the breaks. But self initiating insults against them all serves no practical goal. While Hillary Clinton did NOT literally say that Trump voters come from "the worst places in America" - an OP here on DU said she was correct to say Trump voters came from "the worst places in America" - and it got at least several dozen Recs. Saying that residents of some states live in the "worst places in America" is not that far removed in broad brush insulting strokes than Trump talking about immigrants coming from"Shit Hole Countries". It is counter productive to important goals to needlessly be denigrating toward voters whose votes matter to us, and no leading Democrat, not DNC Chair Tom Perez or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, nor a potential next President like Senator Cory Booker or Kamala Harris, would throw around language like that or condone just saying "Fuck Em" to all former Trump Voters. We can still do the right things without having to make it harder on ourselves than necessary to win
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)When they attached themselves to Trump and his racist supporters, they made it nearly impossible to tell them apart.
If they don't want to be lumped in with the racists, they need to extricate themselves from the racists. It's not my job to do it for them.
And just saying, "I'm not a racist" doesn't cut it.
It's on them, not me.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)But how many might advocate not spending money on campaign ads and literature etc. to promote that message in blue collar white districts that voted for Trump (to save money for better uses etc.)? Not in all cases but in some I think we should do so.
Ten to twenty percent of the white vote that went for Trump could be relatively low hanging fruit for picking up votes for a Democratic agenda. Sure 50% or more may be a lost cause, but the margin in many elections tends to be tight.
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)How about spending that money on "blue collar black districts" that didn't vote at all?
I.e., between 2012 and 2016, there was a drop of over 3/4 of a million (765,000) black votes.
1 The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (Its also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)How where and when to allocate resources is one of them. Campaign strategists tend to be pretty hard nosed when it comes to winning vs losing. But yes they too start out with some inherent biases. For too long the Democratic Party has had a bias of taking minority voters more or less for granted. You get no argument from me there - that has to change. But every election represents a maze of unique variables that must be weighed. Let's uproot racial biases that undervalue minority communities, absolutely, but then get back to hard nose decision making. There will be instances when campaign outreach in white blue collar districts that Trump won will be warranted to greater and lesser extents. Democratic Party money spent to elect Lamb last week is an example of that.
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)since the election of southerners Bill Clinton and Al Gore, to cede the south to the RW. That is the very area of the country that has the highest percentages of POC, a significant segment (blacks) of which, have been dedicated voters for the Democratic Party - literally in the 90+% range... unwaivering (for the "modern" Democratic Party, where it took some time post-FDR to make that shift happen and that is when the suppression went whole hog as white racists fled to the GOP).
This is completely untapped potential.
I think the drama of the '60s Civil Rights movement and the beatings and assassinations surrounding the franchise for blacks in the south, have made some weary and leery and that has to change.
There has been much discussion about "outreach" to people who are fickle. But little about addressing those who HAVE BEEN dedicated and would continue to be if only they had the hurdles removed from their ability to participate at all. The hurdles are numerous but they need to be worked on right away to be ready for 2020.
And as a resident of PA myself - note that what happened in PA-18, which will be upended due to redistricting, happened in an area that actually has a MAJORITY Democratic registration (XLS file) advantage. The problem is those "fickle" people and reduced turnout from places like Pittsburgh (and just outside) to bring the margins up. I.e., Lamb won because he got a significant uptick from the largest county in the district - Allegheny County (the county which includes Pittsburgh but where the district itself does not but includes the southern suburbs of it), and that level of voting was such that Saccone couldn't overcome it.
If you look at the vote totals from the 4 counties that make up that district, you will see he "lost" in 3 of them and "won" in the 4th (Allegheny).
Allegheny County
Greene County
Washington County
Westmoreland County
If you look at the demographics, Allegheny County (in total) is 19% POC, Greene County is 5% POC, Washington County is 6% POC, and Westmoreland County is 5% POC.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You should make it an OP
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)but have no problem including in yours!
(am trying to distract myself from the cold I have too)
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)but it would require a bit more "maintenance" on my part for my cold-addled brain.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,911 posts)Everything you wrote rings fully true. That's one of the reasons why I was so supportive of Dean when he was DNC Chair because he firmly believed in a 50 state strategy that did not, for example, write off the South. And of course for a non segregationist Democratic Party to win in the South it must build on its African American Base there and never pander to white racism. I see nothing contradictory in what you wrote and what I said. Jones did win in Alabama with massive black support though he polled almost as many white votes as black votes (but he only won a distinct minority of white voters). With more Democratic Party outreach to African Americans in Alabama he would have needed less white votes than he did to win this time. But he still would need some white votes (beyond an unfortunately small dedicated core of strongly ant-racist progressive whites) in Alabama to defeat a "normal" Republican there.
In regards to PA 18 overall much the same holds true, although in the case of that entire district POC make up a smaller percentage of the population there than they do in Alabama, even in Allegheny County alone. Lamb only won by several hundred votes against a lackluster Republican opponent. Yes African American voter turnout in Allegheny was critical, but ultimately ballots have no race. He needed virtually every voter he could persuade to vote Democratic in order for him to win that race.
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)it is not what is being promoted.
I.e., I just posted this, which includes some stats to think about. In particular -
Even moreso you have this phenomena about "rural America" -
Most live in the East, not the West or Midwest
Sixty percent of the rural population lives east of the Mississippi, and almost half lives in the South. The most rural states arent lonely and lightly populated Alaska or Wyoming but two New England states: Vermont and Maine.
The map below shows the concentration of rural residents in each state:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2016/12/a-complex-portrait-of-rural-america/509828/
I.e., the vote that Lamb got that pushed him over the finish line was SUBURBAN which per the above, accounts for about 53% of the U.S. population. He "lost" the most rural areas in that district (although he did rack up good chunks of those voters).
And so in the argument about "urban" vs "rural", we "miss" the "suburbs", which is where Democrats have made some amazing strides (and often because you have a more progressive urban-descended component living there now, including POC, who have (after some struggles) been able to MOVE into "suburban" areas for the first time in larger numbers over the past 20 or so years.
So IMHO, there is this myth that has been bolstered about a "white rural Drumpf voter" that ignores the more diverse suburban areas filled with non-voters and Democrats.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,039 posts)I can't add to this excellent discussion so I'm just 'kicking' it in the hope to read more.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)There is no reason to choose between opposing voter ID laws, reduced evening/weekend voting, etc AND opposing broadbrush attacks that paint everyone who voted for Trump as a racist. We can do both.
We need all the votes - and there are two (or more) sources for votes - ensuring full access to voting, and avoiding alienating Trump voters so much that they can't stomach voting for a Democrat.
(And the subtle trump supporter/voter distinction that you (and others) are making is not a distinction that most people making the broadbrush attacks are making. Just search on DU for Trump voter racist and you'll find a number of posts that declare all Trump voters are racist.)
JI7
(89,179 posts)Would think they are racist based on their voting for an openly bigoted candidate.
They would not get angry. After all they had no problem with trump referring to mexicans as criminals, rapists.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)I've been repeatedly told that no one is claiming Trump voters are racist - they are claiming Trump supporters are. I've been contending that people painting Trump supporters/voters are not making a distinction based on whether they are talking about a voter v. a supporter. Thank you for proving my point.
As to the substance of your post - I find it hard to imagine that you wouldn't be angry if someone falsely accused you of being a racist - there's no reason to expect a different reaction from anyone else. There's no reason to paint all Trump voters or supporters as racists. It alienates potential voters we need to vote for Democratic candidates. Absolutely call out racism when you see it (and no one should be worried about alienating either Trump voters - in general - or these specific voters by accurately calling out what is going on). But calling out racism in a specific person or group when you see it is different from making a blanket accusation - which is (1) unnecessary and (2) alienating to people in the broad category who might be the vote we need to put us over the top.
JI7
(89,179 posts)Of course one is going too think they are racist.
They should explain why they think it's ok for trump to do that but it's not ok to call them out on it.
Afromania
(2,767 posts)but that still never takes away from the fact they voted for such an obvious piece of garbage. To make that vote both variations of trump voter had to walk over minority and female bodies to get there. They employed some serious cognitive dissonance to justify doing exactly that by voting for trump, and the republican party by large.
It doesn't matter if they regret their vote and apologize at this point. They can not be trusted to not turn on a dime to vote straight republican for everything else the minute it's safe to do so. They can't be trusted, can. not. be. trusted., to not walk over those same bodies again. They always do this and will probably continue to do so in the future
The differences between the two types of voters being so minimal at this point. That if they want to vote Democratic they should do so on their own and continue to do so. The proof that they're regretful now has to be shown. We can't keep awarding them points for their words alone. This isn't a game here, this is real life and we shouldn't have to go around patting people on the hand to get them to vote for people that aren't insane.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)you how dangerous to them it would be and BEGGED you not to but you did it anyway, thereby helping a racist become president of the United States, youre not really in a good position to complain that people might think YOURE a racist, too.
Its the risk they took when they jumped into bed with a bunch of obvious, outright racists.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)and intentionally alienate them because it makes us feel good.
If there are people who recognize the error of their ways, I want them coming to the polls and voting for Democrats - not sitting home to spite the people who are calling them racists.
I'm not worried about their feelings - I just don't think it is politically smart to antagonize and alienate people who might see the error of their ways and vote for the Democratic candidate by slapping inflammatory labels on them as a group. No matter how personally satisfying that might be
JI7
(89,179 posts)Than the bigotry itself
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Bigotry should always be called out.
What I said was that it was political suicide to intentionally alienate potential voters for Democratic candidates by labeling all Trump voters racism just because it makes us feel good.
JI7
(89,179 posts)Based on their voting for a candidate that ran on bigotry.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)would vote Democratic the next election?
Being told repeatedly that, "You're all alike, you're all racist, etc." or not being told that?
That's my only point. Stop boxing people in a corner - and they might come out voting for Democratic candidates rather than swinging at us and our candidates.
JI7
(89,179 posts)Considering they had no problem with what trump has said about minorities and then to be offended at people thinking those who vote for an openly racist candidate shows where they stand on bigotry.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)I don't care about how they feel.
I care that if they are inclined to vote Democratic (as some obviously did in PA-18), that we not go out of our way to sabotage those potential votes by name calling or otherwise intentionally alienating them.
FWIW, you don't know that they had "no problem" with what Trump said. All you know is that, as between Trump and Hillary, they chose Trump. If you want your vote to matter, there are two presidential candidates. I have voted for people who have publicly stated that they found my marriage an abomination. As between the only two realistic candidates, the candidate I voted for had more views that aligned with mine - despite the reality that they were homophobic. That certainly doesn't mean I had "no problem" with what that candidate said about my marriage. Nor does it mean I was homophobic myself just because I voted for a homophobic candidate. It means that I had no good choice and voted for the candidate who might be good as to other issues - or who was least offensive.
I'm pretty sure there are Trump voters/supporters in that category. They chose the flawed candidate that best matched their world views in spite of, not because of, his racism. If they are now coming to realize, the error of their ways, it is cutting of our nose to spite our faces to insist on calling them racist - absent a specific reason to believe that voter (or groups of voters) actually is racist. Just as it would have been offensive to call me homophobic because I voted for the candidate with a moral/philosophy close to mine who was, unfortunately, a flawed homophobe.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If you voted for him because you agree with his world view, you can't claim that you didn't endorse and co-sign his racism, without which, his world view would be very different.
I often vote for candidates that I disagree with. But certain things that go to the very essence of humanity - mine or others - are non-negotiable. I would never vote for someone I believed to be racist. I'm not gay, but would never vote for someone who was anti-gay or thought your marriage was an abomination. I'm not Muslim or Jewish or an immigrant but would never vote for someone that people who are fear poses an existential threat to them. I don't care how much I agreed with anything else they claimed to stand for or how much economic benefit I thought they'd confer upon me.
It sounds like you would be fine voting for Donald Trump, notwithstanding his racism and bigotry, if he had other views or policies that you agreed with that would bring his philosophy closer to yours. That's a pretty startling and troubling revelation.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Have been sitting out elections, or not paying attention to candidate's views on homosexuality, then. It is only within the last decade or so that there was a better than 50-50 chance that the Democratic candidate was not personally opposed to my marriage.
That included Obama in 2008. Although the public expression of his views was muted, he did publicly and repeatedly insist that marriage was between a man and a woman. One of his first official acts was to invite a raging homophobe to share the inaugural stage with him -an act that cut so deeply that I, and many others were unable to watch the inauguration of the first black president - for whom we had worked, voted, and donated money-despite his views on our marriages.
Just as you know when polite words mask underlying discomfort with your race, I recognize when words politely opposing my marriage are not just political caution - and in 2008 Obama's words were far more a reflection of his feelings than they were political restraint.
And, as often happens when the core shifts, he has become one of our strongest allies. I felt that internal shift well before he shifted politically.
But that doesn't change that he was homophobic in 2008, and I voted for him.
I am not saying he was as bad as many, including many democrats, but inviting a raging homophobe to share your inaugural stage with you is at least a similar act to refusing to renounce the support of David Duke, and other prominent racists.
I am surprised you are not aware of how recently it is that LGBT individuals have had the luxury of being able to vote for a candidate who did not find them personally disgusting.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)In fact, I'm probably one of the most politically experienced and savvy contributors you'll find on this board.
And I have seen this society evolve over time. Ten years ago, Obama's view that marriage was between a man and a woman was a common view, not out of the mainstream. But he also never claimed that gay marriage was an abomination. Had he done so, I would never have supported him, even then, regardless how charismatic he was or how great his other ideas might have been.
But 10 years later, we have evolved so much and revulsion against people who think homosexuality is an abomination is a mainstream view, as are many others. One of those is an assumption that racism is not, is never ok and can never be absolved by any other feature, no matter how appealing that other feature may seem.
That said, a president allowing a homophobe - or racist or sexist - to share the stage with him is NOT the same as voting for one or politically aligning yourself with one.
You have every right to vote against your own interests for someone who, if given the opportunity, will take away your basic civil rights. But don't expect - or get pissed off - if other people aren't as willing to undermine their own or other's rights.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)was only between a white man and white woman or a black man and a black woman - as long as that candidate didn't publicly say it is an abomination? That overt racism would have been acceptable in a Democratic candidate back them because it was mainstream?
Pardon me if I'm skeptical at your contention that, had he said out loud what it was very clear to me he was feeling, that you would have voted differently. (I am not saying he feels that way now - I am just as clear that he no longer feels that way, thanks to a friend of mine, his daughter's friends' parents, and I'm sure countless others with whom his interactions transformed his heart.)
As for "allowing" a homophobe to share the inauguration stage - he didn't "allow" him to share the stage - he invited him, and endorsed him by giving him a national audience. It was a kick in the teeth to the many LGBT individuals who dedicated countless hours and dollars to help elect him. In my book that is not only not the same as, but worse than an average person - without a national platform - making a hard choice between imperfect candidates. I may not agree with their politics, but I certainly understand hard political choices.
So a little thought exercise. Remove the racism (and only the racism) from Trump and implant it in Clinton. Knowing what is at stake (multiple supreme court openings, access to health care, nuclear war) - you are really telling me that you would sit out - or vote for Trump?
As to your last paragraph, you know that is not even close to what I've been saying. I'll just leave it at that.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I'm saying that Democrats shouldn't waste their limited resources chasing around after them.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And then told that my thinking is too complicated for them to understand.
And somehow, it always ends up with them being victims who must be understood and never offended while those who criticize them are insensitive bad guys.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Nor did I suggest you needed to understand them.
All I'm saying is that it not politically smart to intentionally alienate potential Democratic voters by making broadbrush attacks that lump all Trump voters/supporters in one racist barrel.
Call out racism when you see it in a specific person or identifiable group. - but that is not what the comments I'm responding to are doing. The comments I'm responding to are slapping the racist label on all trump voters/supporters - and that is just political suicide - as it would also be to turn a blind eye to voter suppression efforts.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)or don't mind aligning with them.
And anyone who knowingly makes such a choice knowingly risks being assumed to be a racist or an enabler. Period. It's not "political suicide" to be honest about it.
It's interesting that you're so concerned about my committing "political suicide" by being honest about racists and their allies and enablers, but don't seem to care about the damage a party does to itself when it signals - hell, not signal, but blades - to its minority base that it's willing to make nice with bigots and people who've chosen to align with bigots.
Why doesn't the insult the Trump Supporter Outreach Strategy throws in loyal minority Democrats' faces provoke at least the same degree of concern to you that the possibility of insulting people who, heretofore, have turned their backs on minorities?
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Intentionally alienating potential voters by calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist is political suicide.
I am not saying don't call out racist behavior.
I am not advocating Trump Supporters Outreach.
I am merely saying stop going out of our way to insult potential voters by making blanket statements that all of them are racist.
The momentary rush we get from name-calling is not worth the potential downside in places like PA-18, where every vote counts.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)LBM20
(1,580 posts)Squinch
(50,774 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I don't see much of a difference. If they aren't "racist," they sure didn't care that he would implement racist policies.
If they see the light, welcome. Otherwise, fuck'em. We don't need them.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Should go to the base. For us, it is crucial. Much more so than messaging and the like.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)The only thing I am saying is that it is politically stupid to continue to make blanket statements labeling all Trump voters/supporters racists.
emulatorloo
(43,982 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)hence all the super weird and creepy "white working class" nonsense from people like Bernie Sanders--who, you can tell, when he says "working class" means "white people".
tblue37
(64,980 posts)TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)Demographics are on our side.
Response to EffieBlack (Original post)
backtoblue This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,039 posts)Just thought that ought to be remembered in this thread. If black women had stayed home, Roy Moore would be a senator.
LBM20
(1,580 posts)The voter suppression attempts are also about suppressing elderly progressive voters and young voters who move a lot as well as minority voters.
We must remember that we have to be a big and diverse party that can win everywhere including in middle America, and on the economic issues there is much common ground between rural Dems and more urban Dems. ALL Dems want good jobs, education, healthcare, a union, etc. The difference is on some of the social issues, such as hunting, abortion, etc. where we need more centrist to conservative positions to win in these purple and red areas.
We can't just be a coastal urban party. We also have to be middle America party, and the two groups agree on about 80% of policies. So why not bring ALL Dems together around the bread and butter economic issues instead of fighting about the 20% or so where there is disagreement, agree to disagree, and WIN back control of the government at all levels?
Better to have moderate Dems in the heartland who will stop voter suppression than right wing Repubs who are FOR voter suppression. All this voter suppression is going on because we got gutted between 2010 and 2016 with a Dem Party that went too corporate and disconnected from smalltown and rural America. Again, we must be a national party that can win everywhere, not just in the larger cities.
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)by utilizing the term "Middle America", that suggests "Midwest", and leaves out whole untapped swaths of potential to the south of "Middle America".
The south has large populations of POC who if courted and embraced, can join with white Democrats in those southern tier states from Atlantic to Pacific, to start shifting those states to purple which is really what they SHOULD be. If voter suppression (due to seemingly intractable cultural issues related to the multi-generational post-Civil War dysfunction) can start to be neutralized, then perhaps some sort of healing/closure can happen. You cannot assume that 100% of whites in those "red" states are GOP.
The below states are purported "deep red" states but the demographics show the potential could be otherwise -
GA = 46% POC
FL = 45% POC
AZ = 45% POC
MS = 43% POC
LA = 41% POC
NC = 36% POC
SC = 35% POC
AL = 33% POC
OK = 30% POC
AR = 26% POC
TN = 25% POC
*(POC = Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander)
In the above, 2 of the states have Democratic Senators (FL, AL). And as a note, OK was a state that had not one county with a majority vote for Obama in either 2008 or 2012, despite the 30% (uncourted) POC population state-wide.
During the period since the Dean "50 state strategy" recognized the above potential, Democrats were able to target states like New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada to bring about gains in additional states beyond the 16 or 17 "coastal" and north-central tier (e.g, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, etc). The irony here being that most of those "traditional" Democratic states also have some of the smallest minority populations as well. What offsets it is that those states also have the largest populations in general.
The above demographics is PRECISELY why we have all the "MAGA" bullshit going on right now. It's a complete freak-out.
But there is also a phenomena of "go along to get along" in a number of these "red" states. I.e., something similar to what happened right here in PA in one of the counties just outside of Philadelphia (Montgomery) as it transitioned from "red" to "purple" (and is now just about "blue" ) some 25 years ago. There were GOP machine politics going on whereby if you wanted to get "services" (volunteer fire, police response when needed, etc), then you BETTER be a registered Republican. That type of "threat" (voter intimidation) - whether overt or implied - often resulted in Democrats not wanting to rock a boat so they can try to enjoy living where they wanted, but being pretty much forced to register (and even vote) as a Republican or not vote at all. I expect there is similar going on in "Middle America" and in red states in general, and particularly in small towns and rural areas. Thus the average person doesn't want to deal with that hassle, so they "pass" when it comes to voting.
radius777
(3,624 posts)i.e. white conservative populists who dislike PoC, gays, women, etc.
Fuck'em, let them go to the GOP, we'll replace them with anti-Trump Repubs in the suburbs.
Dems are a metropolitan (cities and suburbs) party - not just a coastal party - metro areas are everywhere across the country. Milwaukee and Cleveland are almost as liberal as NY and LA.
To the extent that Dems do well in rural areas, it is PoC voters that we pull.
If we turn these voters out we flip some of those states. We do it not by abandoning our base but by fighting for them against Trumpism and Trump apologists.
Dems should reach out more to whites who are struggling, but not at the expense of our true base, which is the Obama coalition.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)All some people are saying on this board is that enough Trump voters are persuadable to potentially make a difference in certain local races and in swing states that we lost in 2016. Obviously, if werent doing everything in our power to mobilize and enable our base vote, we could win back this narrow slice of the pie and it wouldnt matter. No one with half a brain disputes this.
Heres an example:
But Johnson also expressed concerns about Trumps record on health care, noted that the president hasnt yet accomplished much, and said he often seemed to let his ego get the best of him. And although she hasnt given a great deal of thought yet to the midterm elections, shes more than open to the idea of supporting a Democrat.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59afea06e4b0354e440e24a9/amp
52 percent of voters in PA-18 said health care was their top issue. Lamb ran on strengthening Obamacare, Saccone ran on free market claptrap. The analysis is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/03/15/the-health-202-democrats-argue-health-care-was-stealth-winning-issue-in-pennsylvania-special/5aa96b7430fb047655a06c73/?utm_term=.4072d58887af
Its not illogical to think that the Trump voter profiled above resembled voters in PA-18 who helped us win that seat. The smart thing to do is keep winning their votes. Does drawing a distinction between Democratic and Republican approaches to healthcare depress the minority vote? Does continually painting all Trump voters as deplorable and backwards potentially cost us some persuadable voters who could help us win elections? Thats the discussion, not the false choice in your OP.
JI7
(89,179 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And, I hate to break this to you, but Ella Johnson probably ain't gonna vote for a Democrat no matter what she said back in September 2017. But if she changes her mind about him because she doesn't like his stand on health care and thinks he's too full of himself, that's great - Welcome back to the party, Miss Johnson. But voters like Miss Johnson are too unreliable for the party to expend much effort trying to persuade since, as any experienced outreach person would know, she would be too easily snapped back into the Trump camp at the last minute.
That doesn't mean we should ignore people like hers - just don't make the "I still have hope he'll be fine so I'm not giving up on him yet" crowd a priority in our outreach strategy. There are too many untapped voters who don't have to be convinced to give up on Donald Trump and aren't just "open to the idea of voting Democratic," but are a sure thing.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)Thats a straw man.
And now, per you, we shouldnt ignore these voters? So we agree; youd like their votes too. Thats good.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)policy differences. If people know borderline cases in real life, they can try to talk sense to them. But people trolling online- waste of time. And not as a strategy. For sucks sake the majority of activists are women and people of color! Were not respected anyway! Of more white men were in the frontlines with us, some of those assholes might let their guard down. But thats not the case, and we cant fix this stupid for other white men. Nope.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)Demsrule86
(68,352 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)voting ID's....and quit whining about it..The rules are clear so lets abide by the rules, the more they change the goal lines, the more we go after it. Sooner or later we take back state and local entites and make the rule fair. Until then, lets spend the time and money to be sure we have the credentials in hand to vote, sue the local election boards AND OFFICIALS who remove polling places and voting machines, we can still win those battles in court.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)if you point out the asshattery of Trump supporters and the futility of courting them.
Is that any kind of logical outreach program? Insult our own as too corporate, out of touch, too establishment, too x or y and not enough z. Insist our messaging sucks. Pretend we didnt win the popular vote. Insist that we must reach out to the deplorables and capitulate in the middle of a BLUE WAVE. A blue wave accelerating at the speed of anti-Trump sentiment.
The absurdity of all of this is seriously getting to me.
Squinch
(50,774 posts)MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)dalton99a
(81,068 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)when it came to trying to vote to keep the government running.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Of our two largest minority groups, black people were and are angry, and determined enough to overcome at least most vote suppression though still a serious problem.
Hispanics have their own special cultures, though, and as a whole weren't angry enough in 2016. when their turnouts were disappointingly low; and, of course, many voted for Republicans.
But, the so-not-grateful Republicans have been tripling down ever since then, seeming to be trying to drive more minorities to the polls, especially Hispanic. On November 6 we'll get to see if they've succeeded better than in 2016.
COUNTDOWN TO ENDING THE KICKS TO THE TEETH: 232 days
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But we are supposed to ignore the republican attacks against our bedrock base voters, the spine and will of the party, and go chasing after the elusive Trump white racist voter who will NEVER be on our side EVER!
Its BS brought by stealth republicans and Russian trolls to send the democrats on a wild goose chase, wasting time, money and effort on an unachievable goal while they destroy our base!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)ck4829
(34,977 posts)lark
(23,003 posts)All 3 are critical to winning in 2018 and beyond and all are targeted to stop their voting in many red states.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,147 posts)njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Both strategies need to be employed.
Gothmog
(143,999 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)We should hit worrying about messaging and Deplorables and get the minority voters registered and to the polls. And countering any hopeless feelings which for once are justified. (As opposed to those claimed by the white ch cynics)
bdamomma
(63,657 posts)that is why ICE is going after minorities, but how about all those Puerto Ricans who were screwed by this regime wait till they move to Florida, they won't forget what this POS didn't do to help them.....throwing out paper towels????? WTF.
A blue wave is coming..