When minority voters don't flock to a candidate, we're told we just don't know enough about them and

[EffieBlack]

then we're told again and again the same thing, only louder. And if we STILL don't support them, it's OUR fault for not "getting it.""

But when white voters don't support a candidate, it's because the candidate is "out of touch with average Americans."

I'm sick and tired of being treated as an afterthought by people in my own party. Minority voters aren't a "nice to do" while white voters are a "must do." And I'm really sick of hearing people on our side tell me over and over that addressing the interests of minority voters - you know, the most loyal and reliable members of the party - is "identity politics" while chasing around after fickle white voters is the only way we can win.

For example, countless Democrats - minority and otherwise - revere Barack Obama, largely because we feel very connected to him in many ways and feel that he reached and touched us in many more. Calling him "out of touch" is not only insulting, it's grossly inaccurate. And it certainly doesn't help build the party - you don't build a party by spitting on a hero of its base in hopes of attracting people who will only join you if you spit on the hero of its base.

Whether it's coming from party leaders, allies or from rank and file members, it's insulting and off-putting. And it's counter-productive since it runs the risk of losing solid supporters in hopes of attracting people who will turn on you on a dime.

[brush]

1. Yep. Those so called-Obama/Trump voters made it clear who they support, and still support...

It's the orange, delusional one in the White House.

And I'm not at all sure they are as huge a block of voters that certain senators, alleged to be on our side, think.

I'd call their courting of these voters Quixotic.

[LexVegas]

2. Yep. nt

[Cha]

3. Ain't it so, Effie... I'm disgusted by it, too.

they have no idea what they're doing.. I mean.. they must think they do but it's divisive and wrong headed.

[QC]

4. LGBT voters were treated that way for years.

The party wanted our votes and money, of course, but we were told not to talk about our "little pet issues" too much lest we scare off Real Americans, and when we wanted to marry we were told that "God is in the mix."

But please keep the checks coming, OK?

It really does such. No one deserves to be treated that way.

[cannabis_flower]

17. Hey..

The pro-marijuana people get it even worse. I remember trying to get the medical marijuana plank on the Texas Democratic Party platform in 2004 and being told that if Democrats supported medical marijuana the Republicans would portray John Kerry with a joint hanging out of his mouth.

We actually won after losing in committee. Filing a minority report to get it to a floor vote.

[Amimnoch]

18. Our "pony"

That's the one that would piss me off to no end.

[IronLionZion]

31. LGBT people do better when Dems are in charge

You have to admit lots of important LGBT reforms came about during 8 years of Obama/Biden not caring what religious rednecks think about them. They didn't campaign on gay marriage or trans rights or repealing don't ask don't tell in the military, they just did it anyway.

Sometimes politicians lie to win elections. Jimmy Carter ran a segregationist campaign for governor of Georgia. LBJ promised America would remain mostly of European ancestry if we allow a few immigrants from other regions of the world. W Bush was against using our military for nation building in foreign countries. And of course every single word that has ever come out of Trump's mouth.

[calimary]

41. Women are STILL treated that way.

[delisen]

5. Great observation

[exboyfil]

6. My feeling all along during Clinton's campaign

was that African Americans where given absolutely no reason to vote for her (other than the negative reason of keeping a madman out of office). I remember election night many urban centers in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin wondering about the low voter turn out.

[BainsBane]

11. Is that based on personal experience?

or what you think African Americans should care about?

[ehrnst]

25. What leads you to feel that? (nt)

[BumRushDaShow]

39. Being in the biggest "urban center" in PA - Philly

there wasn't a concern about "low voter turnout" here. In fact there were reports of people in line for hours past past poll closing hours.

The vote result was 10,000 less for our Democratic candidate here in 2016 versus 2008 (our high mark), where Obama himself got about 7,000 less in 2012 than 2008. And this is out of over 600,000 votes cast in this city alone. What DID happen was that Drumpf got well more votes here than Rmoney AND Jill Stein + Gary Johnson actually got almost 14,000 votes combined, where in the past, 3rd parties had a combined total of no more than about 5000 votes in the city. You can pull up the results by year and election here -

https://www.philadelphiavotes.com/en/resources-a-data/ballot-box-app

All you have to do is look at what the vote was for previous GOP Presidential candidates vs Drumpf in these areas and you see the difference. The problem is attributing the differences to some ridiculous amount of "Obama voters" going for Drumpf, and IMHO, that's just bullshit. You had a whole bunch of protest votes going on for Stein or write-ins that might have made a difference.

[radius777]

94. false, PoC were the main reason Hillary won the nomination,

AA women in both the primaries and general were her strongest supporters.

It would've been unrealistic to expect the same level of turnout amongst PoC that Obama - the first black president - got, but Hillary's turnout was in line with what a Democrat should get.

I really think the left doesn't get this, that PoC are far more center-left than lefty, and have no issue with go-getters like the Clintons and Obamas, who are actually admired for their ambition and success.

Hillary spoke extensively about race, policing, criminal justice reform, etc - she ran the most socially liberal campaign in history, with her slogan 'Stronger Together' being all about the embracing of a diverse, modern America.

[Lee-Lee]

7. Many in the party treat minority voters like they do organized labor

That is they take for granted that they have their votes and support so will throw some lip service at what matters to them, but won't put any real effort into doing anything substantive for them.

Not everyone in the party, of course, but these days it seems more common than not.

The only real thing they offer is "we are not the other side, look how bad they are" instead of offering up anything that the groups they are trying to appeal really want or need past talking about it.

Because they assume that their votes are a given.

And that assumption is only so true. Sure they may never cast a ballot for the other side, but if they see voting for you has not delivered anything they may not be bothered to go down and cast a ballot for you either.

I don't know what it will take to change this. Condescending attitudes that are almost colonial in attitude telling minorities they just don't understand the facts of the candidates enough and need white folks to guide them (because that is the unspoken part of that attitude) are certainly not going to help at all.

[EffieBlack]

9. They may want to start by not treating Barack Obama like a failed politician

who needs lectures from them on how to "connect" with people...

[BainsBane]

13. How about the lectures about the "working class"?

How do you feel about that?

[Cha]

14. Yes! They sound really bizarre doing this.

And, extremely self-centered.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Minority voters are by far the most loyal to the Democratic Party

People with clearly progressive politics are the second most loyal group. The Democratic Party stands for nothing if it doesn't stand for full equality and social justice for all. The Democratic Party is locked up in some ivory tower if it doesn't acknowledge that minorities of every sort are systematically denied that. We can't exist as a party professing what we believe without frontally attacking that evil. Slavery is America's original sin. It offered economic "incentives" for racists to employ it, but it existed due to Racism.

Nowadays we do hear talk of former Democrats, usually white, walking away from the Democratic Party because it hasn't delivered fast enough on past promises. Good grief, if African Americans reacted that way Democrats would be lucky to hold onto 35 seats in the Senate. So no, the interests of minority Americas can not be sold out for a host of moral reasons, but also for hard nosed political ones also. People don't stay loyal forever if their interests are not being advanced.

But we can not effectively advance any interests (via government) if we lose key elections. So, yes, I do approve of efforts to persuade enough of those disgruntled white voters needed for victory that their over all interests too will best be served by voting Democratic. But NEVER by our compromising on issues of social and racial justice. That is a red line - no retreat.

It is the lesson learned by the early labor movement in this country. Sometimes shared economic concerns can overcome perceived social differences, creating the basis for victorious solidarity and advancement on all fronts. However we exist in a time when social and racial justice, "identity Politics" if you will, can no longer ever take a back seat to any other concerns. They must always be at the forefront.

[BainsBane]

12. I don't know how you measure "clearly progressive"

It's a pretty nebulous concept.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. It is a little vague, but it is not meaningless

To use in this context it has to be a little fuzzy around the edges. As with any polling, labels mostly are self defined. So I mean people who self define as "very liberal" for example.

[BainsBane]

19. Do you have polling data is support your point?

Also I find it odd that you conflate "minority voters" as a single demographic. That is not a category pollsters use.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I have seen and noted it in the past. You don't need to take my word for it

This is a discussion board not a formal debate. You can agree, disagree, or do research yourself. I have no problem with your discounting my statement because I don't have a group of links ready at hand to give you on short notice. If you prefer, consider it just an opinion - that's fine with me.

I do not conflate minorities as a single demographic. I believe that in a democracy where laws are passed based on the will of a majority, that special protections are always needed to protect the rights of any and all minorities.

[BainsBane]

32. I have seen polling on specific issues

and I have seen polls in which respondnants identify themselves as liberal, very liberal, etc..., but not as you described.

You indicated minorities were one demographic and progressives were the second-most reliable Democratic voters. I have never seen any polls that tried to measure "minority" vs. "progressive." Pollsters break down findings according to race, gender, religion, income, and political self-identification, but I have yet to see a poll that categorized some people by race and gender and others by ideology or issue positions.

I try to base my views on evidence rather than the other way around. Therefore if I saw polling indicating what you suggest, my views on the subject wold change.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Yss without that specific sort there clearly would be overlap between ideology and racial catagories

That does not make it without any merit to consider though. Not all members of racial minorities, or in some instances not even a majority of them, identify as being "Very Liberal".

[ehrnst]

23. How does "clearly progressive" get to be "fuzzy" around the edges?

What makes a policy "clearly progressive" as opposed to not so much progressive?

And in your definition of "minorities" do you include women?

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. Women are oppressed in many ways despite being in the majority

I'm sorry if I did not have time to write a full treatise covering each and every nuance of social justice and any implicit contradictions inherent in majority and minority population groups and the oppression they may undergo.

Same goes for political leanings. I wasn't writing a PhD dissertation. But polling results are sometimes broken down on various issues based on political leanings. I have frequently seen the terms: Very Conservative, Somewhat Conservative, Moderate, Somewhat Liberal, and Very Liberal used. Those who self identify as "Very Liberal"tend to be most loyal to Democratic Candidates in general. Take it for what it is or is not worth to you.

[ehrnst]

37. I understand that you didn't mean 'numerical' minority. I hope you didn't think I thought you did...

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 11:54 AM - Edit history (1)

And I wasn't asking for a full treatise.

Just an answer as to what "clearly progressive" is as defined by you.

[ehrnst]

29. From Pew Research on who consider themselves Liberal

Today, white Democrats are far more likely to describe their political views as liberal (50%) rather than as moderate (36%) or conservative (12%). In 2000, moderates constituted the largest share of white Democratic voters (46%), while just 28% described their views as liberal and 21% as conservative.

By contrast, more black and Hispanic Democratic voters characterized their views as moderate than liberal in 2015, and the self-described political views of both groups have remained stable in recent years. Last year, 42% of black Democrats called themselves moderates, 29% said they were conservatives and 27% called themselves liberals. Among Hispanic Democrats, 39% described their political views as moderate, 35% as liberal and 24% as conservative.

While the share of Democratic voters identifying as liberals has increased across all age cohorts, Millennial Democratic voters continue to be more likely than older generations to call themselves liberals. In 2015, liberals (49%) outnumbered moderates (38%) or conservatives (11%) among Millennial Democratic voters. Among Generation X, Baby Boomer and Silent Generation Democrats, there were about as many self-described liberals as moderates.

Democratic voters with higher levels of education are more likely to call themselves liberals than are those with less education. Last year, a majority of Democratic voters with postgraduate experience (58%) described their political views as liberal, up 14 points since 2000. Among Democratic college graduates with no postgraduate experience, 53% described their views as liberal, an increase of 16 points since 2000. Fewer Democratic voters with some college experience but no degree (37%) and those with no college experience (33%) characterized their political views as liberal.

It’s important to note that how people describe their views and their actual political attitudes and values are different things, though clearly they are strongly related. While most Americans continue to express at least some mix of liberal and conservative attitudes, the shares who hold both uniformly liberal or conservative values is growing.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/09/democratic-voters-increasingly-embrace-liberal-label/

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Gotta run to work, but

...if the choices are limited to Conservative Moderate and Liberal, without including Very Conservative or Very Liberal among the options, the categories are too broad to break out the population I had in mind by "clearly progressive".

[ehrnst]

36. But you're going to when you get back, right? (nt)

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. I didn't backtrack or duck your question.

I said those who self define as Very Liberal is a good working definition of what I meant by "clearly progressive". That is a specific subset of those who define as liberal. Just like Methodists are a subset of Christians. But if you focus on Methodists instead of Christians as a whole you tend to weed out those Christians who are fundamentalists.

When I originally made my point I almost said "progressive" rather than "clearly progressive" because I realized that progressive is a vague term widely used and abused nowadays. I don't mind being asked what I meant by that but I tried to explain. People who describe themselves as "Very Liberal" IMO based on what I've read and seen tend to be very loyal Democratic voters. Not as loyal as African American voters, but more loyal than women in general, or Catholics in general. That's all.

[ehrnst]

54. But what defines "clearly progressive" for you?

That was the question.

[Tom Rinaldo]

68. Honestly I meant it as a general usage label in my original post

Seriously, it is like asking Gallup how they define "liberal" or "conservative". They don't. Responders define it for themselves. I think you are asking a fair question because I was not clear enough in my original post what I was attempting to communicate. But I literally meant people who describe themselves in terms like "Very Liberal" - in the back of my mind I was thinking of polling type data when I wrote it. Most terms generally break down when probed deeply for individual definitions. Take "deficit hawks". OK, we have a sense of what that means I guess, but individually some want to raise taxes to fight deficits and others want to cut spending. And some make exceptions for "national security" whatever that means to them, or "public health emergencies", what ever that means to them etc.

Speaking personally now I know people who I call genuine progressives who strongly believe in working inside the system, and others who strongly believe in working from outside the system. Some loved Bernie Sander and disliked Hillary Clinton AND VICE VERSA. I don't think you can be progressive without believing in economic fairness, social justice, and the equality of all people regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I find progressives whose strong point it is to be a strong witness for truth, who provide a clear vision of the world we all deserve to live in. I find progressives whose strong point it is to develop a strategic game plan to move the ball forward in a progressive direction who therefor can embrace a compromise if it sets the stage for positive changes. People can be clearly progressive and still have some clear disagreements.

But mostly the word progressive at its root means to strive for progress, because the current situation is not the ideal, it can and should be improved on. Conservative at its root means hang on to what we got because the chances are changes will only make things worse - there must be a good reason why things are the way they are. Some people clearly lean one way or the other in that broader sense. The ones who truly belief that society should evolve to become a better place for all generally (there are exceptions) are "clearly progressive". That is about as clear as I can be without trying to make myself a dictator in regards to who is and is not a genuine progressive. And I have no interest in pretending I could do so even if I tried.

[lexington filly]

87. You've been so patient and measured as a couple of people

tried to turn a good discussion into a waste of time fight over a rather trivial word usage. Don't understand why some people work to highjack worthy discussions, far afield from the original poster's topic.

[BainsBane]

10. Well said

We might speculate as to reasons for the double standard, but regardless of the reason, it's glaring.

[ehrnst]

24. Indeed. (nt)

[BumRushDaShow]

16. Big K&R

In the '60s, POC and their white allies marched in protest, sat in, got beat and maimed, and some were ultimately assassinated, in order to get the disenfranchised the right to vote. And once that happened thanks to the Democratic Party of the time (with passage of the VRA & 24th Amendment), whole swaths of racists and bigoted fucks eventually fled the Democratic party to join what would eventually become the KKK-humping GOP - most notably when folks like Lee Atwater showed them how to code talk in order to appear legitimate -

And now some allegedly in or "aligned with" the current Democratic Party are seeking to bring that scum back under the Democratic tent. It's is breathtakingly absurd.

[Quayblue]

20. K&R

[ehrnst]

21. +1000 (nt)

[betsuni]

22. K&R

[aikoaiko]

26. I think you're right that minority Democratic voters have been taken for granted.

HRC's campaign was probably one of the best Democratic campaigns to put minority issues front and center.

I'm conflicted over your statements of how deeply impacted you are (and others as I have seen from other posts) from what I perceived as minor criticism of former President Obama. I believe you that you are impacted and perceive it as "spitting on a hero", but on the other hand, I can't imagine thinking that former President Obama is beyond any criticism.

I'm sure President Obama is like:

[wildeyed]

27. And it's not a zero/sum game.

You can treat your base with respect AND speak to the interests of rural white voters without sacrificing your base. You will not get ALL of the rural voters that way, or even most. But you might get enough to win an election. Not all of them are foaming-at-the-mouth racists. It's just really hard to get through the Fox News noise machine to actually speak to their values.

I also object to the message that rural white culture is the only real America. I meditated on the fact that I didn't feel like a patriotic American most of the time, and then I realized it was because I accepted the idea that pick-up trucks, large portions of bland food and commercial country music were 'real' America. I am white, but I really don't feel a part of that. I drive a small car that I can park in a crowded city, eat more salsa than ketchup and listen mainly to rap and R&B. But the music I love is true American music, just as much as country. I am inspired by the very American paintings of Rothko and de Kooning (both immigrants!). I am in awe of the entrepreneurialism and the texture that diverse immigrant cultures bring to this country. All of these things are deeply American, but somehow, according to the press and many in our own party, they are not 'real' America because they are not white America (except maybe the little car, but they make fun of that anyway).

I don't allow them to dictate the frame of true Americanism for me anymore, and now I feel VERY patriotic. Because America is the things I love too.

I do think it is out of touch to look down on rural white voters just because they value different ASPECTS of our shared culture. And I think we need to accept that having a Democratic Party presence in these areas will involve empowering local representatives who might not fully represent our urban cultural values. But I think we can do these things without disrespecting black or progressive voters.

In a two party system, it's not really a party, it's a COALITION. There is no single Democratic Party. We would do well to listen even if we disagree with our coalition members. I do this all the time at work. Someone on my team wants to do something in a slightly different way than I would choose, but it is easier to go along than argue. Anyone who is married does this ALL THE TIME too. So why is it so hard in politics? We don't have to agree 100%. We just need to treat each other with respect and keep it together enough to win some elections.

[The Polack MSgt]

38. K&R. Let me put down my hymnal and shake your hand.

Because I am definitely in your choir

[bigtree]

40. sad to see Warren chime in this week

...but Sanders began his campaign with the same misdirected focus on appeasing white males, so it's no surprise to find him trying to rally his losing 'movement' to embrace that elitist garbage today.

It's up to us to speak plainly about these issues, because there's really no genuine experiential basis which the overwhelmingly white political majority in Congress can rely on when they formulate policy and law affecting our increasingly more diverse society.

[bigtree]

48. debated to death in the election

...frankly, not an opinion/viewpoint of mine I'm going to allow anyone to debate with me right now.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters

[NurseJackie]

42. Yes... an "afterthought"... that's the perfect way to describe it.

[sheshe2]

43. Us "afterthoughts"

are the Democratic base, no doubt about it. Yet here we are told to step aside while our party focuses on white males and they assure us that they will come back for us later. Riiiight?!?

Thank you Effie. K&R~

[Blue_Tires]

45. k+r

[ismnotwasm]

46. K&R

[JCanete]

49. It isn't that white voters are a "must" do because they are more important in any way.

Last edited Tue May 2, 2017, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

white rural voters are a must do because they are hurting us all horribly, including themselves and we need to get them to stop.

Your issues are clearly not about policy here. There is nothing about the policies that Sanders promotes, for instance, that wouldn't directly start to benefit people of color, who are disproportionally relegated to minimum wage jobs in this country, and disproportionately dis-enfranchised and abused by our criminal justice system, which Sanders speaks to very critically, and by our predatory institutions that make it harder for people of color to pass down a legacy of financial stability and opportunity to their children, so free college would also be a huge boon. These are things that give some actual practical redress. Put more money and access to education in the hands of people of color and people of color will have more power to influence messaging and policy.

But there's no question, if the language loses you, then we're back where we started, and we haven't galvanized shit, which is a bummer, because then we all continue to lose. And Sanders may be failing on that front, in-spite of the fact that his policies go, in my opinion, towards evening the playing field, and despite the most important fact in my opinion, that he is trying to turn these rural white people against the very messaging agents that are using racism and sexism and homophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, etc. etc. to divide us even though we have common cause. He is trying to make the villain in the tale, the actual fucking villain. If we can get people to distance themselves from those messengers, we can start to undercut the messaging itself with facts and slowly building empathy.

And Sanders, to his credit, is trying to get these people to sign on to a platform that is supporting immigrant rights, and the poor and middle class alike, and the interests of people of color and whites alike. You think some of his messaging has been undermining of that support for people of color, and perhaps Sanders deserves criticism there for doing it wrong, or even thinking about it wrong.

As to me thinking that you have it wrong, I do, because of the reasons laid out. That doesn't mean I'm right. You think I have it wrong for reasons you could certainly lay out. You don't simply think we're both right. I do appreciate that white-splaining is a thing. I assume that it means talking to rather than with, and certainly implies not listening. For my part, I don't think I'm not listening. You might still say I'm not hearing, but I'm trying to. That said, i can listen, and I can even hear, and still come to a different conclusion at the end of the day.

Clearly I think white rural America has it wrong too. This isn't about saying they have it right, this is about breaking through their logic on the only grounds we can...their short term, immediate, self-interest.

I agree with you that calling Obama out of touch is a gross oversimplification. As the first black president he had a hell of a needle to thread. I will also say though, that as far as policy goes, he and Clinton were not my first choices for the White House in 2008, because they did just seem too comfortable with the status quo.

Both of them were attempting to shatter ceilings that are absolutely constricting to the kind of radicalism you can push on other fronts, so I sympathize with that, and think that Sanders, etc. should remember that when talking about what Obama did in office. I'm proud to have had Obama as our President because he made us, for those short years, a more compassionate and thoughtful nation, and for all the things that did not get done, and the miscalculations(I get thinking they could shame the GOP into bipartisanship by going that extra mile past the center, but that sure as hell did not work out), he did attempt to use his executive powers towards good purposes, and he was the first sitting President to advocate FOR Gay Marriage...etc.

None of that suggests that he should be above criticism, but as I already said, that criticism needs to be tempered with political realities that were unique to him, and as you've said such criticism runs the risk of alienating a large chunk of the base.

[bettyellen]

55. Some policies perpetuate existing inequities- favoring free college while leaving lower levels of

Education subject to the status quo. I think that is a lesson worth taking to heart. To me the "free college for all" was a giveaway to the middle and upper classes at the expense of the lower class.

[JCanete]

56. I don't think that Sanders is leaving the lower end schools to fend for themselves, and when you

put more money in a district via fair wages, etc. that will actually improve schools as well. I don't see how you could see it the way you see it, especially given that it was going to be paid for BY the wealthy, not by people who have no money to pay for it. If you think that it is not enough, I agree. If you think it is actually bad somehow, I'm struggling to see that.

[bettyellen]

57. At some point he revised his platform to include it, so he evolved on this.

It's not actualky radical to think the very wealthy should pay for their kids educations, it's pretty mainstream.
I'd rather have the money go to fund health programs and day care. We don't all have the same exact priorities.

[JCanete]

64. That is not what I said, nor what such legislation would do. It would make the rich

pay more for everybody's college. Look, you'll have to explain this to me, because I assume you are a Clinton fan. When she adopted this policy and simply put a cap on who benefits, which both of them seemed to be happy with, was she simply pandering, or did she believe in this?

[bettyellen]

73. I'm confused as I put no words in your mouth? I said Sanders revised his platform to

Include some support for early childhood education also. I think that late in the primary he also started discussing child care also. That made him a much more palatable candidate as prior to that the emphasis on help for college and ignoring the inequities in HS that would lead this policy to exclude many in poorer districts was distasteful to me. Hope I explained this better.

I believe Hillary had some cap on income for "free college" and I did think that would be easier to get through congress. I'm glad we're just recapping our understanding of policy positions, not refighting anything.
Just as I respect this is a huge issue for you I ask you understand I have it well behind other health and education needs.

[JCanete]

74. Cool, definitely worth discussing more. The only thing I was saying I did not say was your own

reframing of the college issue, which was, "it's not exactly radical that rich people should pay for THEIR education." I thought that was a suggestion that that is all it was doing.

[bettyellen]

76. No, is love more money to go to education but the inequity at lower grades is astounding....

Lot of kids get much better than would be private education in NYC. While public schools literally do without books, are severely overcrowded and unable to deal with the issues that children in poverty can bring into the classroom. These kids grow up knowing there is no equality in America. Free college isn't going to go to those who's schools aren't teaching them to read. HA kids graduate with fifth grade educations. That is a bigger problem for me.

[JCanete]

79. I agree that's huge. Higher education does not give redress to that, even if, I still believe, it

would help people on tighter budgets get into college, who might otherwise think it an impossibility early and give up on trying. The other thing it is paramount to is us continuing to compete globally for what will be more and more complicated jobs that require that additional education, and less and less jobs in general. We need more and more college educated people.

There is no reason to ignore lower education or higher education. Both can be done, and I'm not even sure this has to be a matter of prioritization. They should be done together. And Sanders seems to get some of the issues with our approach to eduction previously, and got it then, like the No Child Left Behind Bill, understanding that standardized testing was bad, to say nothing of tying funding to it. He may not be pushing us forward fast enough on this front, I don't know, because I'm just now taking a deeper look, but at least he hasn't helped to take us in the wrong direction on it.

[bettyellen]

86. You know the overlap is so huge w Sanders and Hillary it makes me NUTS to hear

People hate on either OR compare Dems to Republicans. You'd have to be really set up AND totally lacking empathy or care for the future to say that's so. Can't wrap my head around that shit at all.

[BainsBane]

61. I have never seen him address it

He has never articulated a policy to address systemic inequality in K-12. Raising the minimum wage doesn't approach a solution to that problem.

What's wrong about it is pretending it is a solution to inequality and racism. What's wrong is using it to dismiss the concerns of the OP and others like him because you don't share his priorities.

[JCanete]

62. again, not dismissing anything. Point to my dismissal, not your broad interpretation of my post as

such. I didn't say that minimum wage increases go all this way, and while I didn't mention that addressing our police state, which unfairly and disproportionately targets people of color and takes wage earners out of the home and puts them behind bars, would also alleviate some suffering, and increase income and stability in homes, I would never say that that would be enough in and of itself either.

I don't know whether Sanders had a specific platform for k-12 and I'll look it up, and I'll also look up his history on this subject. It should certainly be addressed and there is a lot of inequality here. But it is one thing to say something is missing on his platform, and another to say that free-college-for-all is a bad thing. That's just wild. I do not get it.

[BainsBane]

66. While you're at it

Look at his voting record on immigration. https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/40/immigration

Also, if we are to accept the argument that his speeches persuade key voters, does that not extend to his continual recriminations of the Democratic Party? Would anyone come away from those events and think, I really need to vote Democrat? Or is the message that the Democratic party is corrupt, even more corrupt than the GOP?

[JCanete]

71. could you point to the ones you are making a case about here?

I've posted elsewhere that Sanders is selling ideas and a message, that he wants people to demand. The democratic party is most closely situated to those ideas. They can pick them up and run with them. They can disavow corporate money. Some Democrats will do so, and that groundwork will have been laid. Hopefully it ends up being a winning approach and others follow. Our messengers have no credibility if they don't call it how they see it for both parties. That just makes us look like shills.

[BainsBane]

59. Yes, thank you for pointing that out

I wanted to my post was too long already.

[BainsBane]

58. Your post is wrong on so many levels

Not least of which is that you tell the OP his criticisms alienate Sanders base, yet you criticize him for seeing that faction's rhetoric as alienating.

To say the concerns are not about policy may be true, principally because the current efforts to reshape the party exist almost entirely in the realm of rhetoric, with little attention to policy. In fact, in some cases change at the level of policy is undermined in lieu of rhetoric and judgment about individuals.
The OP and many of us see as alienating the continual rhetorical focus on white male conservatives, the odd construction of working class to exclude the majority of low and median wage workers, who are not white and male. That extends to the attacks on "identity politics," which are interpreted by many as an attack on them and their lives, and the willingness to sacrifice the rights of more than half of Americans by endorsing anti-choice candidates--all alienating to many outside of the faction you prioritize.

The mantra about the party moving to the right isn't based on policy either, but that doesn't stop people from buying into it, from accepting it as fact while pointing to no evidence since the 90s that it is true. It is typically based on false constructions of the historical past, a past in which the great majority were subjugated for the benefit of a privileged minority.

The OP doesn't address Sanders but rather a general tendency to orient the party toward the white male bourgeoisie way from the Democratic base. That your response is to tell him he is inadequately reverential or too uninformed to appreciate Sanders greatness is precisely the sort of condescension the OP points to. Although he doesn't even mention Sanders, you've decided that his concerns must be "tempered to avoid alienating Sanders base," yet you express absolutely no concern about alienating him and the rest of us who do not share the view that that Sanders base you refer to matters more than the rest of the population. It is that implicit belief in the superiority or greater importance of one group that makes it impossible to find common ground. That hierarchical ethos runs through virtually every conflict within the party. No one, much less those subject to historical and current marginalization, are going to agree to join forces around the idea that they are less. I imagine you don't seen it that way, but it is nonetheless clear in the political discourse the OP comments on, and your post reinforces it.

[JCanete]

60. no, from the start you totally misread me. I'll read on to see what else you misread, but

what I DID SAY was that if Sanders language is alienating the base in spite of what I think is good policy for middle class and poor alike, that sucks, because we can't come together if that's the case.

[JCanete]

65. Okay, here's one thing that irritates me, and I'm not sure this is the fault of the media or

the fault of people who insist on reading some of Sanders words as cutting people out of the picture.

When the democrats are accused of abandoning the issues of the working class, that accusation includes everybody in the working class. Just because black voters turned out to vote for Clinton does not give any such cover to the democratic party that it has been working for that portion of the working class on class grounds. Yes, they turned out for her, because the other guys are racist as fuck and are literally the enemy of equality across racial, gendered, religious and sexual preference lines, just to name a few. People of color, being clearly in the line of fire, chose Democrats because at the very least democrats are not republicans, and because they are speaking to racial and gender inequality.

That doesn't change the fact that on issues of class, while we have always been better than the republicans, we have often been far from good. White people who think they are losing their shirt because of immigrants or welfare(that some of those doofuses are likely on) are clearly not going to be receptive or even cognizant of that kind of discrimination. They think they can get back something from the people who do not have it, and we aren't bothering to undercut that message by showing them who actually does.

[BainsBane]

67. And why should Sanders know better than those voters themselves?

Why are their own views of the party and him so unimportant in comparison to what he says?

Also, why must the primary focus be on ensuring that the subaltern don't alienate his base rather than understanding their concerns?

I have no idea what Warren and Sanders mean when they talk about working class. Can you tell me? What in their discourse distinguishes working class from middle-class, upper-middle class, or the poor?

[JCanete]

70. what does that even mean? Everybody thinks they know better, especially if they are a politician.

That doesn't mean they aren't listening or evolving as evidence presents itself. I myself have certainly evolved on issues, so what evidence would you like to cite that tells me the things Sanders is advocating for would actually hurt rather than help marginalized communities?

What evidence would you like to cite that the interests of corporations and the way they use money to manufacture public opinion, to say nothing of force through policy, is in our best interests?

Who is telling the "subaltern" not to alienate his base, whoever the subaltern is here? Who is his base? Have you looked at his numbers? He is more popular among women than men, and among people of color than white males. So, that's his base, but everything I've said about this in this thread, is that if HE is alienating part of the democratic base on the grounds of certain rhetoric he is using, that is him failing on some level, because we can't get where he wants us to get if we can't all come together.

[BainsBane]

97. You are telling them to be careful not to alienate Sanders base

Last edited Wed May 3, 2017, 01:07 AM - Edit history (1)

that was preciously what you said to the OP. You preceded to tell him his views were wrong. He didn't understand how Bernie was the answer for uninformed black people like him. Your post demonstrates precisely what he is talking about. The same people who insist that great empathy and concern be directed toward Republican voters refuse to as much as acknowledge that the concerns of the OP are valid.

What it means is not complicated. It means that others have a right to express concerns, that their job is not to tend to the feelings of a faction you have decided is more valuable. It means that the lives and concerns of the OP and others who might disagree with you are not less than your own.

You have constantly argued that we must not alienate Trump voters or the all important anti-Democratic left, yet you show absolutely none of that concern toward the rest of Americans, like the OP. That you respond to the question of why you think a politician knows better about the lives of people he has never met than those citizens themselves is to repeat a mantra about corporations is precisely the sort of thing the OP is talking about.

For some reason, you are unable to consider that others have legitimate concerns. Your response is to tell the OP he is wrong. Even worse, you point to corporate polls about a politician's popularity to justify why you should be able to disregard his concerns. How does a politician's popularity have anything to do with what the OP has said? A politician could be elected by 99 percent of the vote, and it wouldn't nullify a citizens concerns. And of course that is not the situation with the politician you have chosen to make the center of this discussion.

Everyone doesn't think they know better. Many of us understand our experiences are our own, that we are not in a position to determine what others should care about. It wouldn't in a million years occur to me to tell black people what they should care about, or insist that I or a politician knew better about their lives than they do You and I have no idea what it's like to be black in America, yet that doesn't stop you from telling the OP that he is wrong, that polls show Bernie knows best. It's that kind of arrogance and dismissiveness that makes it impossible to come together with anyone. You seek acquiescence, to enforce fealty toward a politician. That is not unity, and it is very far from principled.

[R B Garr]

98. Nailed it! A perfect example of what the OP was referencing.

[JCanete]

101. How can you keep misreading me? I have never ever said that anyone

is alienating the Sanders base, and needs to stop. I said, but I'll say it again, that if Sanders, in spite of the things he's fighting for, is alienating a portion of the democratic base that is unfortunate and doesn't get us where we need to go. If you can find the opposite of that in what I said, then please post it to prove it to me.

And the rest of what you said is also entirely off base. I asked you who the people you were talking about were, not the OP. Who were the people who was Sanders base? That was my question. Who were you calling Sanders base? That's why I gave you a break-down.

You have a particular knack for hearing things that I have never said. Where did I disparage other people's legitimate concerns? While you're not showing me the other things I didn't actually do, you can not show me that too.

I have constantly argued that we need to get through to Trump voters, and that we can't by abusing them. Whether it is justified outrage that causes us to verbally lash out at them is beside the point of the practical value of it.

You have got to be kidding me that you don't think certain things are better for people than other things. You cannot think that. You just cannot think that. So when somebody who is on Obamacare votes to have it repealed, you actually, truly think there must be something that person gets that you don't get? Be honest here. When somebody votes to fuck up the environment you think that that person also just has a particular understanding of what actually is good for him even though he lives on the coast?

When people are trying to make policy, they better fucking think they have a good idea about what should be done for the good of people. They can't be like, well Bob says lets get rid of led in paint, but Terry says he likes the taste of it, so maybe we should keep it for terry. Of course you listen to people and they inform you about things you don't understand, and you evolve, AS I FUCKING SAID. But you still have to take all that and assume a course based on what you think is actually best for people.

Please, for Gods sake, if you want to have a debate, that's great, but lets debate on the grounds of things I've actually said.

[BainsBane]

103. Quotes from you, verbatim

All quotes in excerpt format are taken directly from your posts.

Your issues are clearly not about policy here. There is nothing about the policies that Sanders promotes, for instance, that wouldn't directly start to benefit people of color . . .

None of that suggests that he should be above criticism, but as I already said, that criticism needs to be tempered with political realities that were unique to him, and as you've said such criticism runs the risk of alienating a large chunk of the base.

Question from BainsBane: And why should Sanders know better than those voters themselves?

Your response:

Everybody thinks they know better, especially if they are a politician.

Me: No, they don't. Most people do not believe they know best about the lives of others

What evidence would you like to cite that the interests of corporations and the way they use money to manufacture public opinion, to say nothing of force through policy, is in our best interests?

Me: I said nothing of the sort. I instead asked why you think Sanders knows better than voters of color who supported Clinton in Nov. what their concerns are, the voters who you insisted that Sanders is addressing when he says the Democratic Party abandoned the working class. In response, you resort to a mantra about corporations, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Then you point to poll numbers to claim Sanders knows best. No poll by Fox or any other media conglomerate that you put such faith in invalidates the voices of citizens.

Who is telling the "subaltern" not to alienate his base, whoever the subaltern is here? Who is his base? Have you looked at his numbers? He is more popular among women than men, and among people of color than white males. So, that's his base,

The claim that he is more popular among women and people of color than white men is proven false by election results, his crowds, and who he consistently focuses on in his speeches. No Fox or any other poll is going to convince thinking people that down is up or north is south. If your claims were true, we wouldn't have a situation like the OP describes where African Americans are told their lack of support for Sanders over Democrats is a result of their being uninformed.

[JCanete]

105. First, let me get where you are right out of the way. I way overstated something and didn't realize

what I'd done until I was about to respond here. You are right that what I stated was Sander's base is not his base. I conflated something which I should not have. Those are his favorables, which is an entirely different number. Some of those favorables would absolutely be from people who favored Clinton even more. It says something about who he appeals to, but not about who preferred him or who should be considered his base.

But again, I never pointed to those numbers to suggest that Sanders knows best. Go back and read the context in which it was brought up. That was not my point. That was not my intention. And it was not in my language.

You didn't say anything about priorities, but you were saying that Sanders platform isn't in certain demographics best interests, and I wanted to know on what issues. I just did a couple lists as places where I think Sanders is good, and wanted to know if you thought he was bad on those things.

And one thing I wish you would get through your head is that I can't learn if I can't express my opinion on the subject. You want to relegate my opinion to me telling others what they should think. NO! It's what I think. I want to hear what others think otherwise I wouldn't be posting on a DISCUSSION BOARD. You think that if something is said that is distasteful to your sensibilities, that that automatically means I'm telling others that this is the right way to be or to think, but that is just off the mark. Again, I am expressing where I am on a subject. I am asking somebody who is elsewhere to show me where they disagree, or where they can point out things I missed. Tell you what....why don't you tell me how you would go about discussing a topic when you're in disagreement? I clearly shouldn't use your own posts as examples.

That line you quoted by the way, was me talking about criticism levied at Obama. I said criticism levied at Obama needs to be tempered with the unique challenges he faced as our first black president, and that when they are not, those criticisms run the risk of alienating the base. Hopefully I finally cleared that up for you.

[pnwmom]

72. Sanders DOES support states rights, especially with respect to gun control,

and that doesn't help minority voters, most of whom live in urban areas that need gun control.

He also used a states rights argument to support civil unions over marriage equality in 2006, before he switched his position several years later.

[JCanete]

75. The states rights federal rights issues is almost always in the eye of who is benefiting today.

When Adams was Prez and Jefferson and Madison didn't like what he and I assume other, hamilton etc. were selling, they advocated states rights. Here in california while we're trying to go beyond the federal government's environmental policy, and use our own curriculum we are advocating States rights. When it comes to civil liberties, generally we're advocating for federal jurisdiction. I'd be interested to know if Sanders was on the side of states rights regarding gay marriage because some were pushing the boundaries of what was "acceptable" at that time, but I can't personally answer that at this time. I'll have to look into it.

[pnwmom]

81. No, when you look into it you'll find out Sanders used the states rights argument

to say why he thought (in 2006) that we didn't need a Federal marriage law; that Vermont had chosen to have civil unions instead, and they should be able to make that choice.

He has also used states rights to say that in rural states like Vermont they don't need the gun control laws that are needed in larger, more urban states.

[George II]

88. How do you come to the conclusion that Obama (and Clinton) were...

..."too comfortable with the status quo"? What was/is the "status quo" as you see it?

Unfortunately many of the judges of politicians' performances or motives have never been in elected or appointed office, and know very little about what it takes to get things accomplished.

The numbers may shift from decade to decade, but my father used to say that politicians get roughly 20%-25% of what they want, 50% is compromise, and on the other end 20%-25% are concessions.

Unfortunately for some it's 100% or nothing, and that anything less than 100% (ignoring the middle 50% or even some of the opposite 25%) is being "comfortable with the status quo". Yet no one has ever even attempted to define what the "status quo" really is to them, and for that matter what "Wall Street" or any of the other catch-all phrases for the big bad boogie men are to them.

[JCanete]

89. 100% or nothing is not what I see evidence for. I want us to campaign

on the big technically possible ideas. In the campaigning, I want us to stop limiting what we promote and fight for based on the political realities. I want us to make those political realities by getting people comfortable with good change, by getting them to want it and to see it as something more than a pipe dream. We like to take stuff off the table before we've even scared the shit out of the GOP with it. We are constantly told on this side of the aisle, that if we don't go for some compromise we're going to get something worse from the GOP. Why aren't we making them afraid not to make concessions?

My opinion is that we can't do this because it would put targets on some of our own beloved Senators and congresspeople if we got people excited for them to do something that they have no intention of doing. We need to stop calculating things that way. Either the members of the party move with us or the can fall by the way-side. And yes, at the end of the day, we compromise. There ample evidence that the idealists have compromised over and over and over. Why are we compromising with ourselves though? Why is it we aren't making the GOP compromise with us?

Clinton and Obama were under the not-far-off impression that you can't step too far over the line with special interests and expect to get elected. Too many people, in both parties, are tied to them. They also liked to work from that right of center "political reality," and that gave me the impression, which seems to have been meted out in Obama's case, that they weren't going to use the bully pulpit to push populist policy. That is the status quo.

[George II]

91. Once again, if they were too comfortable with the so-called "status quo", wouldn't it be helpful...

...to provide what you think that status quo is? Your last paragraph doesn't define it at all. And are you really saying that Clinton and Obama were right of center?

[JCanete]

102. No, I'm not saying they were right of center, I'm saying Obama went that extra mile to try to get

Republicans to sign on to any fucking thing, and what we pitched for health care was what was once a Republican "compromise" solution to what democrats wanted earlier.

Clinton and Obama, while good people, and having some great accomplishments under their belt, have sometimes championed or signed onto legislation I don't agree with(moreso in Clinton's case), and have generally not addressed the biggest problems about money in politics, preferring to try to work with those big institutions to affect incremental change together. They have not made big money the boogie man it really is. They have not called out the kind of financing that undercuts the effectiveness of our government to govern, and that would be hard to do, given that the both of them have benefitted politically in campaign support by these same sorts of institutions. If we don't take on big money, we will NEVER get out of this back-and-forth quagmire that we have been in for the last 30 years, always losing two steps and getting one. Financially wages have been stagnant for a long long time, and cost of living has gone up, and the rich have gotten richer, and we are killing the planet. We don't have time to be conciliatory. We need people at the top to start fighting this damn class war with us. Its already being waged against us.

[BainsBane]

104. It's not idealism. It's a particular set of priorities

because when it comes to matters others care about, like gun proliferation and abortion rights, we are told those concerns just aren't practical. So spare me the idealism excuse. It doesn't fly.

I also think it dishonest for politicians to promise what they know they can't achieve. I resent when they perpetuate misinformation and ignorance rather than talking seriously about the challenges we face. I don't trust politicians who promise the moon, any more than I trust people who talk a big game in non-political life. I also don't find a refusal to concern oneself with policy or data to be a positive. I don't respond to emotion over substance. I want political representatives who care about more than rhetoric, who develop policy based on evidence, and who listen to and are responsive to voters concerns.

You want politicians that focus on your concerns, and if others suggest their own you tell them they are wrong, that their concerns aren't based in "policy," when we have seen very little policy discussion from what you call idealists, particularly lately. Bumper sticker slogans about corporations are not policy. They are rhetoric. One could develop policy based on some of those concerns, but that requires a willingness to learn about issues in detail and putting in the time necessary to craft serious, effective legislation rather than vanity bills introduce for political effect.

[JCanete]

107. It is not promising what can't be achieved. Saying "elect me and I will do this," is totally not the

same as saying "elect me and help me fight for this. If we fight for it we can get it." You see the difference right? And promoting these ideas is taking them out of the realm of fantasy and into the realm of reality, because they are technically feasible...its the political will that is lacking. That takes campaigning on them and getting the people to want them. What issue do you have with this?

I want politicians to focus on my concerns, yes. My concerns, I hope, are for others. My concerns, I bet you, are your concerns. I see money in politics as the root of all evil because it is what keeps alive regressive divisive things that as a society we should have evolved past. I see trying to fight the symptom of the problem, the dumb-ass rednecks who have been sold a lie for their whole lives, rather than the people selling the lie, as futile. Totally, completely futile. They're just going to give birth to more, and the people pulling the strings are going to keep laughing their asses off as we fight this proxy war rather than taking it to the source. There is no uniform opinion on this by people of color, but even if there were, or if you want to suggest a preponderance of a certain demographic is in disagreement with me. I promise you, I do and will continue to listen respectfully, and try to broaden my understanding, but I have seen nothing up to this point that has convinced me that we aren't fighting the wrong battle. We should be recruiting on class lines and dismantling the power of the rich and powerful who keep using immigration and welfare and homosexuality, etc. to divide us.

It is a legitimate thing to demand that the Democrats and Sanders do not support pro-life candidates. I think what they promise to do in office is a litmus test, but their record can't be ignored. I think who we have as an alternative is also important, and that a candidate who voted W twice has some interesting baggage with that as well. I think that nobody is being entirely consistent when it comes to this issue, but that's fine...Sanders was my candidate in the primaries, so you know what I care about? Not defending every bone headed decision he makes....I care about getting him to change his mind and make the right one. I actually have criticisms for him, as I had to explain to you ad nauseum in these threads. That's kind of what we all should be doing with our own favorites...

[Kahuna7]

51. IMO, the people calling PBO, Clinton and Dems out of touch are

the ones who are really out of touch.

[EffieBlack]

93. It is pretty rich to have two New England-based members of the country's most exclusive club

call America's first black president "out of touch" with "REAL" Americans...

[LenaBaby61]

106. Well, you know...

It's all about getting those deplorable, angry voters who fell for tRumputin's bull this time around to vote Dem next time around, even at the risk of pissing off other parts of the loyal Dem base.

[Kahuna7]

108. Exactly. Makes no sense at all. She will rue the day.... nt

[JHan]

52. Massive K&R.

[fleabiscuit]

53. K&R

[YoungDemCA]

63. Obama can do no wrong. He can never be criticized.

[Demsrule86]

77. Right...certainly criticizing the optics of the first black president giving a speech as all modern

president have done as if you have the right to even bring it up...because you don't...and it is a slap in the face to all progressives who supported this great man as president and now we just want you all to stop denigrating him and turn your attention to Trump who is looting the White House as we speak.

[NastyRiffraff]

83. Oh, he's been criticized all right

Endlessly, by the right wing AND some of the so-called "progressives" (SCP) But let him make a speech and be paid for it as a PRIVATE CITIZEN and the criticisms come raining down again.

Because of the SCPs here on DU and elsewhere, who trash a wonderful president while elevating a back-bench Senator to a godlike status, I refuse to call myself a progressive. I'm a Liberal. The SCPs have highjacked a perfectly good term.

[Cha]

92. Are you kidding!?! What an ignorant statement..

BS is always insulting President Obama with "distasteful" attacks.. and now EW is attacking him ignorantly on the Economy, too.

And, the attacks are all over the internet.. including here.

[Squinch]

69. Kick, rec!

[JNelson6563]

78. I think much has to do with the same reason for all.

IMO people, not these or those but all sorts, don't really care much about politics and see voting as an inconvenience that is not worth the trouble.

I also believe that this notion has now been universally proven/realized untrue. I would wager many people joining protests and marches did not vote. $10 says they do in 2018.

On edit: I think the "reasons" the media and other clueless give as listed in your post are just as you describe, pretty much just racist bullshit.

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. I! COULD! NOT! AGREE! MORE!

An "afterthought". Try winning nationally without us is my message to those who would eschew "identity politics", as if "white working class" isn't an identity. The disconnect is mind blowing. Thanks for posting this.

[Afromania]

82. The post is more than on the money, it is the money.

As I watch this I'm reminded of how a good number here at DU were cutting Obama off at the knees about 3 months in. I thought it was absurd how angry people were, but I get it now; I really do. I 120% understand where you are coming from. Go ahead along and plead with terrorists.

Beg them and plead to ,oh please ,oh please, oh please vote for us because we won't kill you.You are so, so so important to us. Don't worry that you are WILLING TO LET MOST OF THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT BURN AT THE STAKE. That you are willing to let the REST OF THE DAMN WORLD BURN AS WELL. Your hurt is the hurt of a nation, don't worry about people suffering the same, or worse social and economic indignities here and abroad. Fuck the fickle, cowardly, mean fucking Trump voters and to hell with our alleged leadership for wanting to kow-tow to them.

This, THIS is why the Democratic party can't get the MAJORITY together to flog the republicans into the dustbin of history. They are too busy trying to court those bastards, or out right doing their dirty work for them. Try being left of center, try standing their solidly and collectively rather than sidling around the side. Just saying we aren't the other guy is no longer good enough. Courting the Trump voter makes me sick.

I don't care if aunt Sadie treated you like a saint, but her an something along the lines of 95% of people that voted for Trump are sticking by him as he makes a mess of this country and has quickly turned it into the world laughing stock. I'm still waiting for them to apologize before I give any credence to them or their plight. They need to bring their asses to the table rather than have our alleged leadership carry the table to them.... again.

[NastyRiffraff]

84. K&R

Thanks for posting this. You're going to get some pushback from the usual suspects, but many of us are in full agreement. As a woman, I'm treated as a minority. As a white woman, I was appalled to see that 53% of us voted for the Orange Monster.

But we're told that worrying about minority issues is "identity politics" and therefore bad.

[mcar]

85. K&R

[lexington filly]

90. I too, found it really was inaccurate and off-putting when

Elizabeth Warren (who I support) said Pres Obama was out of touch... Do all politicians believe that to get new voters onto the bus, they have to throw someone else under it?

As a first substantive step: How about Democrats make it a top priority to enable all Black supporters to go out and vote as easily as I can vote? Because I can get in my car, drive about a mile, get in a short line without even wondering if I had somehow been knocked off the voter roles. Since I drove because we have little public transportation, no problem showing my license for ID. Since I'm retired, I can vote on that single day---Tuesday---without missing work and so any wages, or having to stand in long "rush hour" lines.

Republicans have used the same tactics of violating a Black person's voting rights as they've used to violate a woman's reproductive rights---a state at a time. The Dem Party must fight loudly and effectively against the eroding of voting rights and make it far more convenient no matter your lifestyle, to vote. And fight now not just before an election.

[JHan]

96. ++++++++++++++

And Obama and Holder are gonna make gerrymandering an issue over the next couple years.

[athena]

95. I wish I could recommend this a thousand times.

Excellent post.

[R B Garr]

99. K&R

Very well said.

[SunSeeker]

100. K & R