Not sure if this is okay for DU... someone let me know? Before your alert, and I'll remove.

[MerryBlooms]

https://youtube.com/shorts/Edys3ENRKy0?is=r5kVRMwbaHTC7M08

[MerryBlooms]

1. And Platner...

[AZJonnie]

2. Even if I don't agree with everything said, it's just a political take, seems fine to me

But I've been wrong before about how people will react to things like this

[MerryBlooms]

3. Thanks. 🤗

[Bluetus]

4. I agree. I hope there are not people here who feel the need to suppress that view

but maybe there are.

I found the take interesting. Basically, his argument is that Talarico and Crockett are essentially the same candidate, other than pigment. And he goes from there to argue that Tararico can't win without bringing in a bunch of MAGA people, but Crockett somehow could win without that? That doesn't really connect.

But I'm not sure he is completely wrong. If we change the argument a little to say that Talarico doesn't need to win any drop-dead racist MAGA votes, and isn't trying. But Talarico is trying to appeal to thinking non-racist Christians, who tend to be Repuiblican, especially in the plantation states. Indeed, Talarico might be able to get 2% more votes from "Christians who aren't racists but don't want to vote for a black person or woman because, well, you know, Christianity."

I can give that argument the benefit of the doubt. But his punch line is, (my paraphrase) "If Talarico wins some of this white Christian vote, he will lose more black votes than he gains." That had better not be the case. If so, then either of them would lose the Texas Senate race once again.

I have always been a big admirer of Crockett, even to the point that I think I have a crush on her. But trying to be objective (And I should mention I am an atheist), I believe Talarico is just about as optimal a candidate as we will find to get past the 45-48% barrier we always seem to face in Texas.

[AZJonnie]

9. I can give the argument the benefit of the doubt, but I still think it's incorrect

I disagree with the fundamental premise in his particular case. And the biggest reason I reject it is based on simple math/statistics. African Americans are statistically MORE likely than Caucasian Americans to self-identify as Christian, claim the religion is VERY important in their lives, and to report their church attendance at the 'at least 1 time a month' level. On top of that, his messaging is closer to what one would hear in a predominantly black-attended church versus a white-attended one.

To me this math suggests it's unlikely that for every white vote he gets, he's going to LOSE more black votes than he gains, as the guy in the video seems to be arguing. JT is in no way, shape, or form, conveying that he is a himself racist, nor does he seem to be pandering to 'the racist vote' in any way.

Thus, whatever white votes JT picks up by being his honest, good self, I don't think they'll come at the expense of losing MORE Black votes. I think the poster is annoyed that Talarico beat out Crockett, and is extrapolating that frustration out into directions I don't think necessarily logically follow.

[MerryBlooms]

10. White Male Christian vs Black Female Christian...

Yep.
Same platform.
Yep.
I'm not going to fool myself with my white experience. Mine was minimal. My brother called my dad the N word because he got so dark in summer fighting fires. One brother who baby sat me said, If you don't stop crying, I'll wet your lips and stick you to the wall, Ner! Then pin me at the shoulders and drip spit until it almost hit my face. If I tried to get away, he'd let the spit go and laugh. Sadistic.

Yes, I always cried when I was left with my brother.

[PJMcK]

5. Still there (n/t)

[malaise]

6. Nailed it

Rec

[DoBW]

7. your link

this part you can remove when you post > ?is=r5kVRMwbaHTC7M08
si means source identifier, it's a tracking ID

[msongs]

8. hint? clue? what is it about?