2018 Democrats thread

[Balta1701]

12 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

This continues to be one of the biggest lies from that election.  It is so frustrating to keep on pointing it out. 

I give up on liberals.  Go vote for Michael Bloomberg or the Starbucks guy or whatever. 

 

 

There's a lot to pay attention to here, this article is from this year.

Quote

In an interview in Mississippi, Sanders brushed back "the myth" that he has little black support, noting 2016 primary exit polls showing he won voters under 30 across racial lines. But he mostly shuns most race-based analysis and casts his post-2016 maneuvering as ideological: He wants to move public policy leftward on everything from health care and college access to criminal justice and labor policy, and he argues the way to do that is increase voter turnout across demographic groups.

"My goal is to bring forth a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of working people, whether they are black, white or Latino, and get people involved in the political process in a way we have not seen in a very long time," he said in an interview before his event with Lumumba.

His mentions of the civil rights movement still don't include his own activism as a white college student in Chicago.

His travel itinerary has been void of state and local party galas where lower-level party players are accustomed to welcoming would-be presidents. Clinton attended such events for decades, and by her presidential campaigns often could call several attendees by name.

"We haven't heard from him at all," said Alabama's Joe Reed, who leads an influential black caucus within his state's party.

Georgia's Nikema Williams, her state party's vice chairwoman and a first-term state senator, said the same. Sanders came to Atlanta last year to campaign for a black mayoral candidate who ultimately lost, but didn't reach beyond Vincent Fort's campaign circle.

As a comparison, Williams said Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a possible 2020 candidate, called to congratulate her after her election. "It struck me that she'd be calling a new state senator in Georgia," Williams said.

Sanders answered that he doesn't need "the establishment," regardless of race, and said most voters are "estranged" from the two-party system anyway.

As with Sanders' comments on Obama, some of the rub is as much about emphasis as substance. Seated with Lumumba, the senator was asked about the marginalization of black LGBTQ citizens. He shifted the question to people "you didn't talk about" like "people working two or three jobs" and "people who spend 50 percent of their limited income on housing." He repeatedly turned discussion of fighting racism to fighting poverty.

"If all I hear about is 'the working class,' and it seems he's talking to just one segment, then it's easy to feel he's not talking to me," said Williams, the Georgia Democrat, explaining that she cannot "separate my blackness" from where she fits in the economy.

Exit polling from the 2008 and 2016 Democratic presidential primaries showed that the eventual nominee — Obama, then Clinton — actually lost the cumulative white vote, but prevailed on the strength of non-whites, particularly black voters.

Those trends may not apply neatly in 2020, when the Democratic field is expected to include well more than two competitive candidates. There could be multiple credible black candidates, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey.

But Clay Middleton, who ran Clinton's South Carolina campaign in 2016, said the takeaway remains: "You want to get elected president, you want to win the nomination, you cannot take the African-American vote for granted."

Reed, the Alabama Democrat, offered a warning both to Sanders and black Democrats.

Black voters, Reed said, must recognize that "we can't elect a president by ourselves" and that any victorious candidate must "appeal to more than just us." But any presidential hopeful, Reed said, must understand that black voters "will look for somebody that looks out for our interests."

 

[Reddy]

39 minutes ago, greg775 said:

You guys mock me, but I am a typical midwest voter. And I loved Bernie. They held a pre-election speech in KC for Hillary. The place was 1/2 full. Bernie spoke in Lawrence. Fans arrived 8 hours early to get in. Packed house. We in the midwest love Bernie.

N=1 is always a strong way to draw a conclusion.

[Reddy]

19 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Other than the fact they are still acting the same way towards none mainstream candidates.

Other than the fact the party lost the last election to the worst candidate in modern history.

Other than the fact that I left the GOP.

Other than the fact that you keep claiming to be Dem insider.

Other than the fact you are still trashing candidates from your own party, just like Trump.

Other than the fact the party is still eating its own candidates publicly.

And on and on...

 

And other than the fact that Democrats are winning elections and turning out voters in record numbers, which you continually argue is not the case.

[Reddy]

17 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

This continues to be one of the biggest lies from that election.  It is so frustrating to keep on pointing it out. 

I give up on liberals.  Go vote for Michael Bloomberg or the Starbucks guy or whatever. 

 

 

I'm so down with Howard Schultz ?

[southsider2k5]

21 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

This continues to be one of the biggest lies from that election.  It is so frustrating to keep on pointing it out. 

I give up on liberals.  Go vote for Michael Bloomberg or the Starbucks guy or whatever. 

 

 

Get back in line or you are next.

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, Reddy said:

And other than the fact that Democrats are winning elections and turning out voters in record numbers, which you continually argue is not the case.

Back to the party line, no matter how true anything else is or is not.

[GoSox05]

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

There's a lot to pay attention to here, this article is from this year.

 

I think Reddy has posted this article before.  It doesn't really say much to be honest. 

Not to say that Sanders was perfect in campaigning in the south, but this idea that Clinton is some how to the left of Sanders on social issues is just crazy.  There has been a million posts about that here.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Instead of fighting about Clinton or Sanders, the real blame should be on the people who voted for Trump.

It turns out there is a certain portion of Americans who will believe whatever is shouted the loudest and most often. 

[GoSox05]

12 minutes ago, Reddy said:

I'm so down with Howard Schultz ?

He embarrassed himself that last time he talked about politics. 

I think it also goes to show that you are a centrist and back centrist policies.  You don't think that people like Ocasio-Cortez can't win in the Midwest because of their politics.  You don't want them to win.

[Dam8610]

49 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

There's a lot to pay attention to here, this article is from this year.

 

So when did fighting poverty stop fighting racism? Remember, kids, it's socioECONOMIC status. If your economic status improves, so does your socioeconomic status.

[Balta1701]

4 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

So when did fighting poverty stop fighting racism? Remember, kids, it's socioECONOMIC status. If your economic status improves, so does your socioeconomic status.

Quote

As with Sanders' comments on Obama, some of the rub is as much about emphasis as substance. Seated with Lumumba, the senator was asked about the marginalization of black LGBTQ citizens. He shifted the question to people "you didn't talk about" like "people working two or three jobs" and "people who spend 50 percent of their limited income on housing." He repeatedly turned discussion of fighting racism to fighting poverty.

If you cannot even conceptualize the issue of people being marginalized because they look different outside of a paycheck, people who have to deal with that issue constantly will not vote for you.

[Jack Parkman]

10 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

So when did fighting poverty stop fighting racism? Remember, kids, it's socioECONOMIC status. If your economic status improves, so does your socioeconomic status.

They are intertwined. Helping a group economically goes farther than helping a group socially. If minorities are employed in higher paying positions, more people are exposed to the fact that most are decent, hardworking people and the negative stereotypes go away more quickly. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Dam8610]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If you cannot even conceptualize the issue of people being marginalized because they look different outside of a paycheck, people who have to deal with that issue constantly will not vote for you.

If the goal is more equality, the means of reaching it shouldn't matter. Millennials get it, so it seems does iGen. We can outwait and outvote the boomers.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Dam8610

[Reddy]

52 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Back to the party line, no matter how true anything else is or is not.

Because it's flippin' accurate. Lol. Look at the data.

Do you think it's not true that Dems are turning out voters at record or near-record numbers? Do you think what I'm saying is false?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-texas-primary-20180306-story.html

https://iowastartingline.com/2018/06/05/what-happened-tonight-in-iowas-democratic-primary/ 

I'm too busy, but there are many more like these.

[Reddy]

42 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

He embarrassed himself that last time he talked about politics. 

I think it also goes to show that you are a centrist and back centrist policies.  You don't think that people like Ocasio-Cortez can't win in the Midwest because of their politics.  You don't want them to win.

I support her policies long-term, and believe they aren't a winning platform in much of the country right now. My priority in 2020 is beating Trump. The end.

[Soxbadger]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They are intertwined. Helping a group economically goes farther than helping a group socially. If minorities are employed in higher paying positions, more people are exposed to the fact that most are decent, hardworking people and the negative stereotypes go away more quickly. 

Perhaps youre not familiar with the arguments against certain minorities who allegedly have disproportionate wealth.

If you dont attack the root cause, money doesnt matter. In fact, money becomes a negative and a reason for disliking the minority. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Dam8610]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

Perhaps your not familiar with the arguments against certain minorities who allegedly have disproportionate wealth.

If you dont attack the root cause, money doesnt matter. In fact, money becomes a negative and a reason for disliking the minority. 

But when you have more minorities by percentage in poverty, combating poverty disproportionately helps minorities without giving the appearance of unfairness on which Republicans love to capitalize.

[Dam8610]

3 minutes ago, Reddy said:

I support her policies long-term, and believe they aren't a winning platform in much of the country right now. My priority in 2020 is beating Trump. The end.

How far out is"long-term"?

[Jack Parkman]

 

8 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Perhaps youre not familiar with the arguments against certain minorities who allegedly have disproportionate wealth.

If you dont attack the root cause, money doesnt matter. In fact, money becomes a negative and a reason for disliking the minority. 

I understand that there are people who don't believe that minorities deserve the opportunity to advance themselves. I do think that if you could eliminate the systemic poverty, that it would go a long way toward helping the social issues. Again, they're intertwined. I deal with social discrimination myself, I get accused of many of the same stereotypes of the AA/Latino communities as well. I deal with a lot of the same issues. There is a systemic bias in the economic system against minorities. I want to eliminate that. You're never going to eliminate hatred of different people. That is so ingrained in our brains. Everyone has biases. I have been accused of being racist against white males by conservatives, which is hilarious because I am one. What is hilarious is that they can't grasp that there are systemic biases against non-white, female, and disabled people. 

I could go on about how the portion of the population that gets screwed the most are disabled people without an intellectual disability, because I don't think any other minority group has an unemployment estimate in the 70-85% range. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Balta1701]

2 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

But when you have more minorities by percentage in poverty, combating poverty disproportionately helps minorities without giving the appearance of unfairness on which Republicans love to capitalize.

But when you have other issues that specifically face minorities, policing/imprisonment, denial of voting rights with an entire party supporting that, unequal access to the economy/education/health care, if all you do is focus on combatting poverty without specifically addressing why that group has been excluded, you continue to exclude them. 

[Soxbadger]

Just now, Dam8610 said:

But when you have more minorities by percentage in poverty, combating poverty disproportionately helps minorities without giving the appearance of unfairness on which Republicans love to capitalize.

 

 

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

 

I understand that there are people who don't believe that minorities deserve the opportunity to advance themselves. I do think that if you could eliminate the systemic poverty, that it would go a long way toward helping the social issues. Again, they're intertwined. I deal with social discrimination myself, I get accused of many of the same stereotypes of the AA/Latino communities as well. I deal with a lot of the same issues. There is a systemic bias in the economic system against minorities. I want to eliminate that. You're never going to eliminate hatred of different people. That is so ingrained in our brains. Everyone has biases. I have been accused of being racist against white males by conservatives, which is hilarious because I am one.  

 

You do realize that many Americans argue that minorities actually have it easier because of affirmative action etc. That is the problem that needs to be addressed and economic issues wont fix it. Because in those people's minds, minorities already have it easier. 

[Dam8610]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

But when you have other issues that specifically face minorities, policing/imprisonment, denial of voting rights with an entire party supporting that, unequal access to the economy/education/health care, if all you do is focus on combatting poverty without specifically addressing why that group has been excluded, you continue to exclude them. 

That's why you also abolish private prisons (Sanders platform point), make college and healthcare free for all (Sanders platform point), and actually listen to the victims to try to implement solutions to the other problems (as Sanders did when he yielded his rally to BLM). Most of the problems you listed can be solved through economic policy. It's so much more difficult to remove racial biases from an individual or a group than it is to enact fiscal policy. Why fight (and typically lose) the harder fight first?

[Jack Parkman]

33 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

 

 

You do realize that many Americans argue that minorities actually have it easier because of affirmative action etc. That is the problem that needs to be addressed and economic issues wont fix it. Because in those people's minds, minorities already have it easier. 

Yes, I realize that and those people are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. They're delusional. They're brainwashed. There is no use arguing with people who have no semblance of rational thought. It is talking to a brick wall. I've tried this. I've given the evidence, and to them they are all lies. They have to realize their biases on their own, nobody can show them the light. They have to want to remove themselves from the Cult of Personality that is Trumpism. They are basically addicts, and they're addicted to their privilege. They're addicted to putting others down to lift themselves up. The first step for those people, is they have to admit they have a problem. Until they do, they're gone. They're lost, and they will never vote rationally. They will never give rational solutions, nor will they ever be decent human beings, until they admit their biases.  They have to admit they have a problem before anyone can address the issue.  

Edited July 3, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Dam8610]

4 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

 

 

You do realize that many Americans argue that minorities actually have it easier because of affirmative action etc. That is the problem that needs to be addressed and economic issues wont fix it. Because in those people's minds, minorities already have it easier. 

You'll have a harder time changing the minds of the old (literally and figuratively) voters than you will finding new ones to outvote them if you have the right platform.

[Balta1701]

7 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

That's why you also abolish private prisons (Sanders platform point), make college and healthcare free for all (Sanders platform point), and actually listen to the victims to try to implement solutions to the other problems (as Sanders did when he yielded his rally to BLM). Most of the problems you listed can be solved through economic policy. It's so much more difficult to remove racial biases from an individual or a group than it is to enact fiscal policy. Why fight (and typically lose) the harder fight first?

Because if college is free but we leave racial barriers in who qualifies for the best colleges, the free college still perpetuates the current inequalities.