Bannon was right on this...

[Comatose Sphagetti]

“The Democrats,” Bannon told Kuttner, “the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.”

We need a strong economic message as well.

[dawg]

1. That only holds true until demographics overwhelm white identity voters.

And that point is now very, very close. If our core constituencies voted at the same rate as older white people, we'd probably already be there.

[doc03]

4. He is right and most on DU thought we couldn't possibly lose last year

because of the changing demographics. Many of us in the fly over country saw it coming and got shot down last year. No
we have it in the bag, early voting, yada, yada, yada!

[uponit7771]

65. You were RIGHTLY shot down last year, no one here is going to be convinced Russia wasn't a factor

... forget being right, it aint happening after Kushners meeting with the Russian spies.

[doc03]

70. The election was so close any one of dozens of factors could have

caused us to lose including Russia. The turn out, a bitter primary, failure of Obama and Democrats to take credit for
their accomplishments, guns, Hillary running a lousy campaign, the MSN and so on.

[uponit7771]

71. This was true before Kushners meeting was revealed, there's no need to white wash Russias effect

[flibbitygiblets]

5. true except for targeted voter suppression

And election hacking.

[vi5]

26. 30% of latino/hispanic voters went for Trump....

....30% of Jewish voters went for Trump.

....42% of women voted for Trump.

Those 3 groups faced the most blatant and outward hostility and hatred from Trump than they have any other candidate in history, and yet those numbers were virtually unchanged from Obama's numbers 8 years prior.

We can't keep banking on Demographics to carry us to victory because it's just not going to happen. There will always be a proportion of those groups that will still vote conservative and still be swayed by a conservative message.

Plus.....we should have a progressive economic platform because.....you know, it's the correct message and we are the party of progressives and the people.

[white_wolf]

41. Perhaps its an error of perception on our part?

I sometimes wonder if the Democratic Party isn't too optimistic regarding demographics. Conservatism is a human trait. Maybe, for example, 30 percent of Latino/Hispanic people are simply conservative and will tend to support conservative candidates.

[vi5]

58. It is.....

That's exactly it. People are and can be selfish and greedy, and I'm sure a decent chunk of all demographics can be that way.

To be honest I've always found the entire assumption of the "emerging democratic majority" bordering on offensive.

"Oh soon we'll just have more women/latinos/gays/etc. and they'll DEFINITELY have to vote for us, right?"

And the entire premise is basically saying that the Democratic party shouldn't have to worry about economics. Well why the hell not? That's a pretty goddamned big part of everyone's lives regardless of race, creed, or color.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

27. Demographics are moot if they don't show-up in midterm elections

We're going to have a rapid pack of psychopaths in Congress until that dynamic changes. To say nothing of the electoral college.

[haveahart]

38. Actually, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We will not stop talking about ID issues

and we will continue with the economic issues that have helped people since and including the New Deal.
So FOFF Bannon.

[FiveGoodMen]

79. As soon as South Africa was majority black, the black people got the power and respect they deserved

right?

/sarc

[dawg]

80. Not immediately.

But it was inevitable.

[dawg]

81. Besides, I never said we will automatically win elections once the demographic shift is complete.

Just that it will no longer be possible for us to be "crushed" by white backlash.

[FiveGoodMen]

83. I hope you're right

My concern is that, at 57, I've been hearing (reading) about how demographics will save us for decades. And all during that time, things have gotten much worse.

The worst misconception of all is how older people will die off and the young will be better. But look at the current bunch at the neo-Nazi rallies ... mostly guys in the their 20's.

[Ohiya]

2. And Not Or

We can talk about identity politics And have a strong economic message. These ideas are not mutually exclusive.

[LWolf]

13. That's true.

It's too bad establishment Democrats couldn't seem to do that in 2016. It wasn't that the party establishment COULDN'T have a strong economic message; the message so many voters wanted to hear. It's that they didn't want to. That message would piss their big donors off.

[mcar]

18. This is incorrect

HRC had a very strong economic message. I heard it every time she spoke.

The media chose to focus solely on emails. Her detractors chose to focus on emails, speeches and other non-issues.

[LWolf]

20. No, it's correct.

HRC's "message," about the economy and everything else, was so "strong" that many who would have voted for a strong Democratic candidate didn't. Let's not refight the primaries. The party chose, the party lost, and we are moving forward into the new fascist US. Surely we can ALL be against that; we can all unite to fight hate. I worry, though, that uniting the nation isn't ever going to happen while so many can't leave partisanship behind and focus on people.

[mcar]

21. Who's refighting the primary?

I'm taking issue with your claim that HRC did not have a strong economic message. And who are the "many" who would have voted for the Democratic candidate? Certainly not the Trump voters.

Voter suppression, the media, Comey and the Russians took care of the rest. Acknowledging that is the first step toward moving forward - to make sure none of it happens again.

[LWolf]

23. Wow.

Really???

FYI: In 2015, the year before the election, 42% of the voting public identified as independent, compared to 26% Republican and 29% Democratic.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188096/democratic-republican-identification-near-historical-lows.aspx

This month, gallup has that at 41%, 28%, 28%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

Those numbers are a clear indication that either major party has to earn more support from outside the party than the other to win an election. So "who" are the "many?" The 42%. And yes, there are plenty of progressives in that number; 42% of the nation is not further to the right than the Republican Party.

And yes...voter suppression, the media, Comey and the Russians were certainly factors. They aren't factors that outweigh that 42%. And while I am absolutely behind defeating efforts to suppress the vote, I include voter suppression in primaries as well as general elections in that effort.

[emulatorloo]

44. Voters concerned about economy/jobs voted Dem. Voters concerned about terrorism/immigration voted

Trump.

The Dem talked concrete plans for Jobs, economy, retraining for workers in dying industry at rallys.

The Republican talked about evil Muslims and murderous Mexicans and lied to working people about jobs.

You can talk in a big authoritative tone as much as you want. Doesn't make your false assumptions about 2016 true.

[LWolf]

48. That's a gross over-simplification.

And it doesn't make my own analysis any less accurate.

And what is happening right now, the doubling-down on failed talking points and strategies? It's going to lead to failure again. Failure that the nation and the world can't afford.

[emulatorloo]

53. No, those are facts. Your analysis, such that it is, isn't fact based. It is based on a bunch of

since disproven assertions/assumptions authoritatively delivered by the Pundit Classimmediatelly after the election. "Trump won because of Economic Anxiety" "Dems lost because of Identity Politics" Those two assertions went hand in hand, and they are wrong.

If any one is doubling down on failed talking points and strategies it is you and others who cling to these notions.

We all agree the Democratic Party needs to be louder and stronger in fighting for the core values we share on the left. Message of economic and social justice needs to be BLASTED LOUD AND CLEAR over and over.

However Dems have zero use for these false narratives. And we sure as hell shouldn't dump Civil Rights just cuz Bannon said so

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

31. The only message I heard was "Trump Bad"

Which of course is late breaking news from 1977.

[emulatorloo]

45. Then you weren't paying attention, Senator

Dem candidate talked Jobs, economy, retraining for workers in dying industries in every speech.

Had concrete policy proposals

Trump talked murderous Mexicans and your Muslim neighbors who want to blow up your house.

Consequently voters most concerned with jobs/economy voted for the Democrat.


Not entirely your fault though. Media did not cover the Dem' policy, just the melodrama.

[uponit7771]

66. You are correct, most coverage was about Clinton emails 1 week in (link)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/upshot/this-election-was-not-about-the-issues-blame-the-candidates.html?mcubz=3

[mcar]

68. 600 days of covering fricking emails

I went to several of her rallies, watched others on TV, viewed her social media. She had a strong economic message that the media,and some voters, chose to ignore.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

47. Engaging through identity politics is precarious and unwieldy

There are few monolithic groups left and it is a great way to bring people with no philosophical differences worth mentioning into rancorous conflict which usually looks ridiculous to the outside world.

[emulatorloo]

54. Trump did very well running on White Identity Politics

That was the central core of his campaign. Fear of yr evil brown Muslim neighbor, those murderous Mexicans, the winks and nods at David Duke and White Nationalist.

I wish you were able to acknowledge that. It is impossible to have a serious discussion until you do.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

64. Trump owes his victory to the promise of a hard right supreme court for a generation

It kept conservative dissent to a minimum.

For our purposes I don't think liberals disingenuously accusing one another of being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and islamophobic is a sure path to victory.

[emulatorloo]

74. We've got a Nazi-sympathizer President. So we should listen to Bannon and drop Civil Rights?

Last edited Tue Aug 22, 2017, 10:58 AM - Edit history (2)

You're being played by Bannon into accepting a morally bankrupt position. That says nothing about you, it says everything about what a lying propagandist Bannon is.

First I want to address something you wrote in your reply:

-----------------------

"For our purposes I don't think liberals disingenuously accusing one another of being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and islamophobic is a sure path to victory."

Please name Democratic liberal politicians or Democratic spokespersons who are accusing other liberals of racism and islamaphobia. Keith Ellison? Tom Perez? Senator Sanders? Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? Sherrod Brown?

You can't name any because there aren't any. So that would be a strawman argument.

------------------

You are correct Supreme Court another factor in his win. It gave some voters an excuse to ignore his ideological unfitness to be President.

However this is an excellent op-Ed on the core of his campaign from WAPO editorial but NeverTrump Jennifer Rubin. She explodes the false narratives of Trump won on 'economic insecurity' and Dems lost because 'identity politics'. She illustrates the core message of his campaign: White Grievance


This week shows Trump was always about race
By Jennifer Rubin August 18

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/18/this-week-shows-trump-was-always-about-race/

<snip>

Now while Bannon’s demise was inevitable, so was the train-wreck, potentially fatal news conference in which Trump’s true connection to white nationalism came gushing forth. Forget the canard that Trump’s campaign capitalized on economic insecurity. (On average, his voters were richer than Hillary Clinton’s.) Don’t buy the notion that this was all President Barack Obama’s fault and the result of identity politics — a kind of blame-the-victim that posits 21st century white racism is caused by 1960s racial and gender politics.

No, at the heart of Trump’s campaign and the center of the Fox News operation, which incubated a Trump-ready electorate, has always been an appeal to white grievance, which Trump and Bannon were all too happy to gin up with fables about immigrants stealing whites’ jobs, African American killing fields in big cities, murderous illegal immigrants and, quite blatantly, an appeal to Southern infatuation with the Confederate myth of the “lost cause.” Trump’s vilifying all Muslims with a broad brush and his description of Mexicans as murderers were not incidental to his campaign; they were its distinguishing features.

<snip>

There were traditional Republicans in Trump’s coalition who thought the racial rhetoric was “just for the campaign,” and those voters fixated on illegal immigration who saw Trump as a vehicle for their policies. But without the white-grievance mongering — baked into his working-class white, less-educated voters — he would never have won.

And yet, being the president of the United States and simultaneously of a white nationalist movement is entirely untenable. In Charlottesville, white nationalism showed its ugly, hateful face — and so did Trump. And that is something the American people as a whole are never going to buy into. It’s an old, malignant ideology that once exposed is not sustainable as a governing philosophy or acceptable as an administration’s message.

...Much more at link.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

84. No Democrat has said "drop civil rights" in fifty years

See my reference to disingenuous allegations.

[emulatorloo]

87. "Stop talking about identity politics" equals stop talking about Civil Rights

"Identity Politics" is a RW smear term for Civil Rights.

In conversations people are going to rephrase things in different term, which still describe the same phenomena. Maybe you are less literal-minded when yr in the real world, because it makes it easier to actually communicate.

You write: "See my reference to disingenuous allegations." Nope, that was a disingenuous strawman the first time. Not getting any better with repetition.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

88. No it doesn't

"Stop talking about identity politics" means stop importing multi-hyphenated marxist nonsense from the university campuses. All it accomplishes is turning people with no significant philosophical differences into mortal enemies. It's called the narcissism of small differences and it will consume us if we let it.

[emulatorloo]

92. Examples of Democratic politicians or spokespersons "importing multi-hyphenated marxist nonsense"

Schumer? Ellison? Perez? Sherrod Brown? Schiff? Pelosi? Bernie?

Which politicians or Democratic spokespersons are doing this. Please provide names. Thank you.

Also, what are some specific examples of "multi-hyphenated marxist nonsense from the university campuses." that these Democratic politicians or spokespersons are allegedly arguing for.

BTW, There's nothing multi-hyphenated or "marxist" about women and minorities seeking full equality.

Surprised you would go with the Commie-College-Professors-Are-Corrupting-Our-Youth(tm) canard

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

93. Start with the "Bernie Bro" narrative

Do you believe that pitting feminists supporting Hillary Clinton against leftists supporting Bernie Sanders with allegations of misogyny and inexplicably enough racism was a constructive use of energy? Did this bizarre episode strengthen Hillary Clinton or promote unity among the activist base? Could you even plot the differences on matters of race, gender and sexuality between these two camps on a venn diagram?

Or was it wildly destructive and insane with consequences that will drag on us for years to come?

Did it do anything to promote "seeking full equality"?

[emulatorloo]

94. Pelosi and Schumer did that? I asked you about Democratic politicians/Democratic spokespersons

Not folks on messageboards, Twitters, pundits, bloggers etc. They are not representatives of the the Democratic Party.

Thanks for all your replies. Hope you have a great weekend.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

95. Are John Lewis and Bill Clinton not sufficient?

John Lewis quite obnoxiously dismissed Bernie Sanders involvement in civil rights as a student, Bill Clinton led the charge that the "Berniebros" were sexist.

I strongly dislike Bernie Sanders, I think he is a charlatan. I don't think what happened in the primaries should have been allowed to happen or ever happen again. But Team Clinton engaging in vicious character assassination against Sanders and his supporters made it very difficult for them to come home after the nomination and the unadulterated hatred and anger that exists between those groups is going to undermine the efficacy of the activist base for years to come as the feminists and economic leftists, who don't actually disagree on anything even tangentially related to women's issues will meet as enemies. That is the magic of identity politics.

[uponit7771]

67. DING DING DING DING !!!! We can walk and chew gum at the same time !!!

[HopeAgain]

3. Long forgotten by many

Many democrats who have good jobs, own houses and can afford health insurance can't understand why "America is already great" was the wrong message.

[lapfog_1]

6. I don't think you understand

When Bannon and the alt-right (or the KKK/Nazi/White Supremacists) talk about "economic nationalism" what they mean to say is "You don't have a job because some NON-WHITE person came here and took your job, which is why you are now cooking hot-dogs for minimum wage". And it doesn't matter that non-white person might not be here physically because the globalists (Jews) simply moved your job to their country.

Oh, and these non-white non-Christian men are here to get the white girlfriend you should have. (Because this comes with a big dose of misogyny as well as racism, homophobia, religious intolerance, anti-Semitism, etc)

[leftstreet]

9. +1

It's fascinating to hear Bannon say the Democrats were fixed on 'identity politics' when Trump's entire campaign targeted the political identities of white, male, hetero, christian voters.

[LWolf]

14. I understand perfectly.

And yes, that's what Bannon means. What he's doing, though, is tapping into the economic desperation of many who saw the Democratic Party power structure reject their economic needs for neo-liberalism. He's saying he can keep picking up all those people as long as the Democratic Party continues to divorce economic justice from social justice, the neo-liberal playbook that focuses on identity while they rob us blind.

I think he's right. What I see right now is the party establishment putting forth some "centrists" who are suddenly faux-adopting what they think we want to hear. They aren't going to promote anyone who would actually shake up that establishment and make any major changes, though.

[bettyellen]

35. Liberals are robbing us blind? That's RW framing and I agree it's part of he problem.

The biggest increase in minimum wage and expansion of health care is NOT robbing people blind. Nope.

[emulatorloo]

50. Bannon's a liar and a Rovian Rat-Fucker. Now, name the Democrats in favor of "trickle-down"

privatization of the safety net and social services, union busting, deregulation and Laissez-faire, massive tax cuts for the rich.

You can't, as your 'neo-liberal' Dems is just an empty propagandist talking point. No wonder you find Bannon so appealing

[moondust]

22. Agree Bannon's ideas are about bigotry.

Although some people might consider it "economic nationalism" when looking back at the global trade paradigm before "globalization" and multinationals offshoring jobs to cheap labor markets, back when countries typically produced raw materials and finished products internally and shipped them to other countries. "Made in USA," "Made in Japan," "Made in Germany," etc. But I don't think that's what Bannon has in mind.

[Demsrule86]

7. Welcome to DU...thanks for sharing...totally disagree...your 'identity

politics' is our civil rights. And we will never give that up.

[Demsrule86]

8. Oh and for the record right wing Nazi pig Bannon is never right...never.

[standingtall]

10. Economic nationalism code for economic racism

Democrats don't have to stop talking about civil rights. There is an antidote for what their pushing and that would be a militant message of economic populism some might even called it class warfare. If the Bannon's of the world want to trick the white working class into thinking that minorities and the so called liberal elites are to blame for their problems we push back and remind them that the Bannon's of the world are beholden to Wall street billionaire elites who are truly responsible for the economic message of the day.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

11. I'm talking about a strong economy in general...

Not economic nationalism.

[LWolf]

12. Yes.

That's exactly what happened last year, and it will keep happening as long as the Democrats circle the wagons around the establishment and continue to move forward with the same strategies.

[VermontKevin]

16. I like the establishment. People of color, LGBTQ, women, intellectuals, and

frankly, anyone who is not narrow-minded. That's the Dem establishment.

Who else should we be reaching out to?

[LWolf]

19. Those are

demographic groups. The establishment of ANY organization are those that hold power and work to hold ON to that power. Currently, for the Democratic Party, the establishment are the neoliberals.

The group that has divorced social and economic justice, even though the lack of economic justice tends to hurt many in those subgroups the worst; as long as they stick to publicly supporting social justice, at least with their talk, if their walk isn't a bit weak, they can continue stabbing us all in the back economically.

And that's the answer to your question. Those subgroups aren't the establishment. They are just those that the establishment purports to represent, no matter how poorly.

[VermontKevin]

24. "Neoliberals?" Oh lordy. And "subgroups?"

You are arguing that you are smarter than these "subgroups" because you see them as victims of the "neoliberals" agenda that "divorced social and economic justice." Your post suggests that millions of people in these "subgroups" cast their votes incorrectly, against their true interests, which you understand better than they do.

Yeah. Don't think that's a winning strategy.

[LWolf]

30. You are either

a failed psychic, don't comprehend what you read, or you simply attack with falsehood to deflect what you can't defeat with fact or logic.

Yes. Neo-liberals.
https://www.thenation.com/article/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world
https://thebaffler.com/salvos/neoliberalism-the-revolution-in-reverse
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/history-of-neoliberal-meaning/528276/

Yes. Subgroups. You see, a subgroup is a smaller group that falls under a larger umbrella. That's how we know, for example, that a greater percentage of black drivers will be pulled over than white; we analyze the data of those two subgroups of the larger population. I could go on. We are all part of the umbrella group of humans, and fit into multiple subgroups underneath that umbrella. That's the way it works.

I am not arguing that anyone is "smarter" than anyone else; my statements were not about intelligence; at least not previously. I could refer to intelligence in this post, but let's move on. I didn't argue anything about "victims" either. You see, this is where you either failed to read my mind, failed reading comprehension, or just like to throw out false shit to continue to prop up a failed argument. I also didn't say anything at all about millions of votes being cast "incorrectly." I did, at some point, point out that the Democratic Party didn't earn millions of votes that they could have. I don't blame voters for exercising their right to vote for whomever they damned well please. It's up to those who want the votes to earn them.

Regardless, your response is an epic fail, and I don't even know why you bothered.

[VermontKevin]

43. I read your post just fine. I think you didn't realize just how it sounds until it was repeated

back to you.

Tell us which "subgroup" is allowing the "neoliberals" to work against their best interests? You've put forth two posts on this interesting theory. Tell us who you are speaking about specifically. I was specific. Why won't you be specific?

[LWolf]

46. No. Just no.

I can read my own writing just fine, thanks. I'm not the one who mischaracterized it; yo are.

Please post a link to any place in which I said anything about any group allowing neo-liberals to work against their best interests. I didn't. You just need to double-down on the falsities, don't you?

[VermontKevin]

49. Again. You used "subgroup." Tell us who you mean.

You said the "establishment" is "neoliberals." Name them.

Right now, you are talking in labels, not facts.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. He/she will never "name them", but we know who they mean. I appreciate your efforts here.

[VermontKevin]

61. I found the use of the term "subgroup" applied to the majority of Democratic voters

quite interesting.

[emulatorloo]

55. Well said n/t

[workinclasszero]

15. People keep forgetting that Hillary WON the popular vote

by 3 million or so. So there's that.

Besides total republican control of the economy guarantees a terrible outcome for all Americans except the 1% of course.

Orange Hitler is claiming credit for Obama's economy right now and doing jack squat for 99% of the working class voters who fell for his con.

Which will become readily apparent soon no doubt.

[JHB]

17. False choice. While I tend to think we need to improve...

..."kitchen table" economics, calls for "abandoning identity politics" tends to become an exercise in "which of you other people are we going to throw under the bus, or put your concerns on the permanent back burner".

Civil rights and more economic populism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, advancing one without using the inroads to advance the other historically leads to the opposition using a divide-and-conquer strategy to push both back.

[LWolf]

36. YES.

When I think of "identity politics," I think of the neo-liberal talking points I began hearing a few decades ago that went something like this: "I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative." The problem was two-fold, as I see it. First, it divorced social and economic justice, which, as you just pointed out, is counter-productive. Second, the "fiscally conservative" part was simply not correct; unregulated capitalism is economically liberal, not conservative.

Now it could be that my take on "identity politics" is different than others'; it wouldn't surprise me. But it is a simple reality that using "identity" as a focus to distract from bad economic policy may make some feel good while they hear it, but it doesn't move us forward.

I think the solution is to keep social and economic justice together. But that's just me.

[edhopper]

25. White nationalism

is race identity politics.

[marylandblue]

32. That's Bannon's point, horrible as it is

He's counting on Democratic identity politics to promote a backlash among whites.

[emulatorloo]

37. Bannon's a lying rat-fucker. "Identity Politics" is a RW smear term for Civil Rights and equality

White Nationalism, which Trump ran on, is Nazism.

Your post is basically saying Democrats should not support civil rights so we don't offend Nazis.

I know you did not intend to say anything like that at all because you are not that kind of person.

This is the trouble we get ourselves into when we start claiming liar Bannon is "right."

[emulatorloo]

39. Agreed 100% and that was a major theme of Trump's campaign

[50 Shades Of Blue]

28. The only thing that monster Bannon is "right" on is his monstrous politics.

[BeyondGeography]

29. Eh, I'll believe it when we run a candidate better suited to our times and still lose

our standard-bearer last year was tailor-made for Bannon's anti-elitist spiel.

[emulatorloo]

40. Yeah, cuz a racist predatory capitalist who stiffs workers is not at all 'elite'.

So Anti-Establisment!!!!!

Hell of a sales job wasn't it?

[6000eliot]

33. Bullshit.

Hillary Clinton HAD a strong economic message.

Bannon=NEVER right.

[emulatorloo]

34. We have a strong economic message and Bannon is a Rovian Liar. Trump ran on White Identity Politics

[imanamerican63]

42. Racism is a 1/3 of the problem.

Don't get me wrong. But there are bigger issues like Trump who fanned this issues and then the GOP jumped on board. They are trying to take our way of life and our hard earn money to make them richer. That is how they are crushing us. The evil is racism but their lock on us is greed and power. We need a powerful voice to stand up for the people on left, but right now we don't have a real strong or loud voice.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

51. Good summary!

Follow the money.

[JI7]

56. Still work this even after what we saw this past week. "Jews will nor replace us "

These people are fucking bigots and don't like being called on it.

They didn't like when mccain said Obama was a good man.

[Tarheel_Dem]

57. We know which element agrees with Bannon & we also know where he got this particular talking point.

[emulatorloo]

59. ....

BANNON IS RIGHT about nothing.

[emulatorloo]

60. Translation: Democrats should not support civil rights so we don't offend Nazis

Great advice from Bannon!

[Ken Burch]

62. Since at least 1970, there's been no conflict between economic justice and social justice movements.

Last edited Mon Aug 21, 2017, 01:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Nor was there ever any good reason to try to divide economic justice activists and social justice activists-groups very often made up of the same damn people-into opposing camps.

Virtually everybody who supports economic justice is also a committed opponent of all forms of social oppression.
The overwhelming majority of social justice activists also support a strong program of economic justice.

And we as a party don't have to choose between economic justice and social justice...we can easily support BOTH.

It's time to admit those two causes, while distinct, are also clearly related, complimentary to each other, and that the activists in each are natural allies.

[Skittles]

63. so we need to become repukes to beat repukes

BULL FUCKING SHIT

[Azathoth]

69. We did have a strong economic message. Identity politics trump economics, which is why both sides

employ it.

[Ace Rothstein]

72. They did a poor job of conveying that economic message.

85% of Hillary's commercials were about Trump. Unfortunately commercials are the way you're communicating with most of the voters. The majority don't attend rallies or watch them when they are working all day.

[Azathoth]

73. Hillary talked about jobs and infrastructure and all the rest

Yes, I'm one of those people who thought she was a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign. But that doesn't change the fact that people who wanted to hear an economic message from her would have heard it. Conversely, Trump's "economic" talk was juvenile. "It's gonna be the best! All the jobs are coming back, believe me!" No adult, with or without a high school education, is capable of believing such fatuous nonsense unless they want to believe it because they've already picked their team.

People simply weren't interested in hearing Hillary's economic message. Identity politics and emotion close people's ears.

[Willie Pep]

75. Most people are concerned with bread and butter issues not identity issues.

This is true for most whites and non-whites. The reason Democrats lose is not just because of voter suppression and gerrymandering but because our natural constituents, the working class and poor of every race, often stay home. Even without voter suppression and gerrymandering the Republicans have a natural political advantage when it comes to turnout because their base tends to be wealthier and more politically engaged so the GOP doesn't have to do much to get them to the polls, hence the term "broken-glass Republican."

Relying on a coalition of non-whites and white liberals is a recipe for disaster. For one thing, this coalition is heavily concentrated in certain states and metro areas. Given the federal nature of our system this means that huge swathes of the country have been largely abandoned by the Democratic Party with disastrous results at both the state level and the federal level. Another problem with this coalition is the assumption that non-whites will automatically vote for the Democrats. Trump did better than expected with minorities despite running perhaps the most racist major presidential campaign in recent history and it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Republicans can flip ethnic voters in the future. Plenty of white ethnics like the Irish, Italians and Poles are no longer solidly in the "D" column and I can see the same happening with some Asians and Hispanics (although probably not African-Americans).

You don't have to throw minorities and their interests under the bus to win elections but you do have to make a broader appeal and win over some white voters if we are going to get out of the hole that we are in. We cannot win more elections without white voters and the best way to win more of these people is through a stronger economic message since those are the issues these people care about the most. Whites who vote primarily based on identity and racism already vote for the GOP and will probably never vote for the Democrats so I am not talking about catering to those people. I am thinking of Obama-Trump voters and people who don't vote because they feel that neither party cares about their economic interests.

[RandySF]

76. We CAN do both, you know.

It's called walking and chewing gum. I'm not going to let Bannon push us into making a false choice.

[MrsCoffee]

77. Gee that sounds familiar.

Kind of remember the guy who lost the primaries last year spouting the same kind of nonsense.

[Blue_Tires]

82. Has it never occurred to you that this could be a bluff

Or Bannon could just be talking out of his ass?

[RandySF]

85. Before we let Steve Bannon tell us what to do

I suggest we ask Heather Heyer's family whether "identity politics" are important. And please stop calling it that. It's race, and it's important no matter how much money you gave if your

[erpowers]

86. Hillary Clinton Won The Popular Vote

I know many here are tired of people like me stating that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. However, the fact still remains that she won the popular vote by 3 million votes. It is very possible that she would have won the electoral college vote if not for voter suppression. In addition, it is possible that she in fact did have enough votes to win the electoral college vote, but some votes might have been thrown out due to people's votes being disqualified for a multitude of reasons.

In Detroit alone, 70,000 presidential ballots were not counted. How likely do you think it is that Trump won half of those 70,000 votes? So, let us give him 10 percent of those votes, which would add up to 7,000 votes. That would give Hillary Clinton 63,000 votes. Those totals would have allowed Hillary Clinton to win Michigan.

We have no way of knowing whether or not the same thing happened in many other predominately black and/or minority areas. It has been reported that many black and minority areas suffered from broken voting machines.

I will listen to Steve Bannon when the Republican Party can win national elections without preventing minorities from voting. Millions of people were prevented from voting in last year's election. In many states Trump only won by a few thousand votes while hundreds of thousands of people were prevented from voting.

So, it is very possible that voter suppression and not identity politics cost Hillary Clinton last year's election. We have not idea how many ballots were thrown out during last year's election. It is very possible that if all the ballots had been counted, last year, Hillary Clinton would be President of the United States.

[Codeine]

90. Calm down, broseph.

We already had this conversation about 800 billion times.

[alarimer]

91. Those neo-Nazis in Charlottesville were all about identity politics, though.

I mean, I do think you have a point. But I also think the racism on display in Virginia was eye-opening for a lot of people and I think the Democrats can use that. I think Bannon is wrong there. People were truly shocked (never mind that they shouldn't have been).

The real distraction is in emphasizing statue removal instead of the issues behind that.