HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » radius777 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 09:37 PM
Number of posts: 2,670

Journal Archives

I've never believed that stat, imo flawed exit polling

that doesn't jibe with reality. HRC's and Obama's bases had no real ideological or cultural differences - whereas HRC and Bernie are night and day.

The larger issue in nomination contests is how much the losing camp(s) help the nominee to get out the vote.

HRC (and Bill) were very strong behind Obama once they got through with that long campaign.

Sanders was mathematically eliminated by early March, yet stuck around and his campaign allowed many of his young supporters to think the DNC/HRC was 'stealing' it from him. It bred alot of bad will, conspiracy theories, etc that persist to this day.

Jeff Weaver and Nina Turner in particular are terrible, foment an attack culture that may 'work' amongst the online left - but a culture that is highly repulsive to the 75% of Dems who are not part of Sanders base.

Joy Reid talked about this more today, how even journalists have to 'walk on eggshells' around any critique, no matter how mild, of Sanders for fear of getting pummelled by Berners - many of whom do have a militant and entitled attitude that is far out of proportion (many of them are white and middle class) to what their true status in America is.

Exactly. Right wingers reject civil rights and the idea

of non-whites having citizenship, voting, etc. To them PoC will always be external to America, not 'true citizens' like the white man. Obama being elected president was the ultimate insult to their ego.

They know Trump stole the election and was plotting to steal the next, but they don't care, see it as 'reclaiming the real (white) democracy of our founders.' ... basically white nationalism that has long been at the core of the GOP even before Trump.

Disease of both-siderism

and the myth that democracy and justice are the same thing. History shows us that injustice (slavery, Jim Crow, oppression of women/gays/etc) often received popular support.

Just because about half the country voted for Trump doesn't mean he's legitimate or virtuous, especially considering the findings of the Mueller Report and the impeachment hearings.

The media's job should be to tell the truth and highlight injustice - not pretend that both sides are morally equal.

Exactly, the whole gun rights thing

is mainly just for rightwingers and Red America to maintain the threat of violence against liberalism and Blue America that embraces diversity and modern values.

We are engaged fundamentally in a culture war, and it's time our side showed up, instead of pretending it's all about economics and class struggle.

Sanders is a social libertarian

who supports civil/gay/women's rights from that perspective, but isn't going to draw a line in the sand the way a social liberal would. Warren for example has the same/similar economic platform as Sanders, yet is disliked intensely (just as much as Hillary was) by the white heartland, because she is a fierce social liberal and a woman.

Basically Sanders would prefer that his voters support civil rights, but if they don't, as long as they support economic leftism - then he thinks that's good enough, as to him economics/class are the 'true oppression', where social issues are merely a side concern at best, and at worst only work to 'divide' the working class. He has given numerous speeches to this effect, about 'identity politics', about reaching out to Trump voters (and downplaying their racism/sexism), about not scaring away the white working class, etc.

Again, a social liberal, or 'social justice warrior' as some of his supporters would characterize it - does not view social justice as a choice but a mandate - the 'long march' of civil rights through the institutions of society, to correct historical inequities. Even a moderate social liberal like Bill Clinton or Obama viewed it this way, merely choosing incrementalism towards this end and making compromises along the way, while still believing in the ultimate goal in the long run.

And Sanders' supporters (who are mainly white) understand all of this on an intuitive level - that he isn't forcing them to accept social justice (in the short or long run), as long as they support his economic leftism and his populist narratives, which (surprise surprise) tend to center the white working class at its struggles and resentments, its small town sensibilities, its aesthetic - just like the old FDR/Dixiecrat Dem party used to.

Ugh, Moore is the biggest pusher of the 'poor widdle white working class'

narrative, conveniently ignoring it was they who ditched Dems over the issue of social justice (civil rights, women's rights, etc), into the arms of Nixon and then Reagan.

Moore likely dreams of the days when the Dem party looked more like him, a white guy in a hat, than like Joy Reid, an urban black professional. That isn't 'centrism vs leftism' but metropolitan diversity (current base of the Dem party) vs heartland whiteness (base of the old FDR/Dixiecrat Dem party).

Alt-left narrative which Sanders has since backed off of, but

that narrative that the Dems 'sold out the (white) working class' is alive and well amongst both the alt-right/Trumpers and alt-left/DSA/Greens whose ideology is not at all liberal or Democratic, but a fusion of extremist populist ideologies, which they pound 24/7 on social media to slime Democrats.

Basically the alt-left are hard left on economics and foreign policy, libertarian or conservative on social values (and hostile towards social liberalism and civil rights which they see as 'dividing' the working class ie offending whites), and hold a conspiratorial worldview that is hostile towards the Dem party and its modern day icons such as the Clintons and Obama.

None of the candidates of color are at the top,

so it's not just about Kamala, but a system failure. Beto is a white guy best known for fighting for non-whites, and he also failed to gain traction.

Iowa/NH, two small white states, help to set the narrative - no suprise that the top 4 candidates are whites who suit the tastes of middle America.

When Iowa picked Obama alot of that was hatred/sexism against Hillary, also about the Iraq war (that Obama was against), also in a time way before Birtherism and Trumpism. Obama would not get elected in this climate, where whites in both parties have moved more towards a racially conservative direction.

A cartogram is a more accurate representation:


The population-centric perspective of this map shows that Trump’s success has largely been in the more rural areas, while Clinton won more of the votes in the urban areas that stand out in the cartogram. An analysis by the Economist showed that “80% of voters who have over one square mile (2.6 square km) of land to enjoy to themselves backed Mr Trump.” As also reflected in the geographic voting patterns in the cartogram, the more densely populated areas become (shown as the larger grid cells which are proportional to their total population), the more likely was Clinton’s success.

However, despite having received more votes from the electorate, Clinton is not the winner of this election. Since the president is not directly elected, but by an electoral college of electors that the voters technically vote for, the presidential election is an indirect one and the outcome of the popular vote does not always reflect the outcome of the election. In the electoral college Hillary Clinton received 228 electoral votes, while Donald Trump secured 290 of the electoral votes. This means that Donald Trump will become the next president of the USA, officially taking over office from Barack Obama on January 20, 2017.

Dems have a duty to history and the constitution.

Impeaching Trump and getting all the facts on the table is what we should've done against Bush and his illegal wars. By not doing anything we would be complicit with Trumpism - impeachment is the best thing Dems have done in years.

People are talking about some polls favoring Trump - but you can't look at one here or there, but the trendlines. Trump has maintained a very underwater rating of 40% or so that is historically low for an incumbent president with a good (at least on paper) economy. Trump backed candidates have lost in red states recently.

Once we get the facts on the table and the impeachment is over, we need to put it all together and drive a simple and effective narrative.

Everyone is focusing on the Rustbelt/Midwest, but I have feeling the Sunbelt (AZ,GA) may surprise us, as those areas are looking more and more like the Obama coalition and the 2018 blue wave coalition. Realignment is occuring, where white working class in the heartland moving away from Dems, and suburbs/metros/college towns moving more strongly towards us. People of color and women are becoming a stronger force in American politics, as every year passes. The GOP will pay for Trump, in the long run.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »