HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » radius777 » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

radius777

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 09:37 PM
Number of posts: 2,559

Journal Archives

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:

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=5003

The population-centric perspective of this map shows that Trumpís 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 ď80% of voters who have over one square mile (2.6 square km) of land to enjoy to themselves backed Mr Trump.Ē 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 Clintonís 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.

Sanders can't hold onto the Obama/Clinton coalition.

He won't do well with PoC and women once his "identity politics" comments and fixation with the white working class over other voting blocs becomes widely known.

He won't win Latinos when his 2007 immigration reform vote (and going on Lou Dobbs to talk about it) becomes widely known.

He won't win swing voters and moderates who dislike high taxes and will not vote for someone with a long history of far-left politics and praise for leftwing dictators (Castro, Noriega) and who honeymooned in the USSR and spoke glowingly of the country during the height of the cold war.

He also won't win over enough white working class votes to offset underperformance with the aforementioned groups. Trump solidly has these voters, who will simply vote for "the real thing" ie a populism that more strongly appeals to their racial resentments, instead of the generic class populism pitched by Sanders.

Capitalism is the engine of growth

and technological advancement. It's the reason why we can live in an advanced first world nation with all of the things we take for granted.

Of course any powerful system can have issues, why a properly regulated mixed capitalist system is best, one that exists for the needs of the middle class, with a progressive tax system and safety nets.

The Malthusian argument against capitalism is mostly bunk, because capitalism is at its core a technological system which seeks efficiency, ie to do more w/less... why a car today uses far less gas than just 40 years ago.. why computers are tiny when they used to take up an entire room and use tons of electric... why the internet has replaced entire industries and virtualized our experience so we don't require physical locations (like stores) or items (like paper) all of which save the enviroment enormously.

The existence of rich people per se doesn't bug me, status hierarchies exist in all areas of life.

Bryce Harper or Manny Machado getting obscene amounts of money to hit a baseball is unfair, but it's also "unfair" that they're better looking and more muscular than I'll ever be - that's life.

All people can hope for is a fair shake and to have a decent middle class life.

I agree with the superdelegate changes, caucuses should also be banned.

The goal for any political party should be to (a) maximize voter participation while preventing vote meddling/ratfucking, thus closed primaries w/early voting are best (b) prevent party leaders (superdelegates) from publicly stating how they intend to vote (c) prevent supers from voting on the first ballot (d) but in the case of deadlock, then the supers should decide the nominee on the second and subsequent ballots instead of unknown party hacks and backroom dealers. (e) the supers should take into account how the first ballot went ie how the voters voted and the overall feel of how the primaries went.

Sanders does have valid beefs against the 2016 nominating process, but he clearly benefited from the highly undemocratic caucus system which has low turnout and is dominated by activists.

He also clearly benefitted from the fact that the media loves to hate Hillary, loves a horserace, and was just aching to build someone up like Sanders.. who did excite an element of the base (the left and youth) but not most of the base which heavily includes party loyalists, moderates, women, PoC, etc.

The issue is that Sanders is not a Democrat, and has always branded himself an Independent, and railed against Dems well before the Clintons came onto the scene and moved the party to the center (saving the party from itself, which had suffered numerous landslides due to the perception of being out of touch w/mainstream voters).

It is not just that Sanders is to the left - he is alt (independent) left, and not a left-liberal in the Dem tradition. Thus, he saw no need to build strong ties within the party, raise money for the party etc over his many years in politics. This means he had no support from party leaders when he needed it. ALL parties (including far left ones that Sanders may be more sympathetic to) work this way, by you know, politicking and building relationships.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »