Meh, the article itself is so full of shit it would take a longer article to address it all..but that doesn't actually matter, since I'm only commenting on the fact that people are saying it.

How linking another article, one that overtly plays with the themes of victimized whiteness I just described, contradicts anything I mentioned is a mystery. It's just another example from another source of people saying those things. Saying them in the mainstream..rather than the fringes of radical supremacy. That's kindof the issue, to begin with. The message works, it resonates, politicians are by nature panderers and they can't afford to ignore it...while, on the other hand, simply pointing out that the deplorabros exist and are deplorable is political suicide, lol. Seems like the scales might be a little bit tilted.

The short version of a long story here, for the democrat types of the boards dreaming of a broader coalition of voters that poaches some of the republicans base.....is that the candidate who can express those narratives in the most socially acceptable way is going to have an advantage. In truth, every candidate gets as close to the line as they can at some point. That much isn't new. Pandering to overt and latent white supremacy is as old as america.

There will be no meaningful denunciation of the themes that contributed to trumps election even if trump manages to survive to election time and then gets voted out. The current "war" in the dem party is whether or not to stump on such a rejection in the first place. Here again, gotta toss them a bone if we don;t want the bad thing™ to happen...a loss, in this context.

(March 15, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Meh, the article itself is so full of shit it would take a longer article to address it all..but that doesn't actually matter, since I'm only commenting on the fact that people are saying it.  

How linking another article, one that overtly plays with the themes of victimized whiteness I just described, contradicts anything I mentioned is a mystery.  It's just another example from another source of people saying those things.  Saying them in the mainstream..rather than the fringes of radical supremacy.  That's kindof the issue, to begin with.  The message works, it resonates, politicians are by nature panderers and they can't afford to ignore it...while, on the other hand, simply pointing out that the deplorabros exist and are deplorable is political suicide, lol.  Seems like the scales might be a little bit tilted.

The short version of a long story here, for the democrat types of the boards dreaming of a broader coalition of voters that poaches some of the republicans base.....is that the candidate who can express those narratives in the most socially acceptable way is going to have an advantage.  In truth, every candidate gets as close to the line as they can at some point.  That much isn't new.  Pandering to overt and latent white supremacy is as old as america.

There will be no meaningful denunciation of the themes that contributed to trumps election even if trump manages to survive to election time and then gets voted out.

This is why I keep thinking that you are a poe who is really a Republican.  Too many memes, too little reason.

Sure, run with that, lol?  In mere reality I'm one of the boards resident and vocal non-voters.  This particular issue is one of many that I use to highlight the absurdity of seeking justice from an unjust system.

Aint nobody gonna vote out white supremacy, that shit is calling from inside the house. All we do is negotiate with it as we engage in practiced avoidance. The sort of acknowledgement required to begin any process of rooting it out is too uncomfortable, and politically inconvenient. The cover that this state of affairs affords ensures it's continued existence. It all sounds like a sort of "internet talky issue" until we realize that the human currency involved are children in cages and dead bodies on our streets.

(March 15, 2019 at 5:37 am)Thena323 Wrote: resign myself to living with another four years under the authoritarian regime I'm already familiar with...Lol

It seems likely that this is what we'll get. 

Beto has recently backed off his commitment to Medicare for all. He took a pledge not to take donations from the fossil fuel industries and broke it right away. 

Meanwhile Tulsi Gabbard, who seems to be sincerely in favor of what people want (less war, better healthcare, not dying from climate change) gets insulted to her face by status quo propagandists like Stephen Colbert. Talk about corporate brainwashing.

(March 15, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Meh, the article itself is so full of shit it would take a longer article to address it all..but that doesn't actually matter, since I'm only commenting on the fact that people are saying it.  

How linking another article, one that overtly plays with the themes of victimized whiteness I just described, contradicts anything I mentioned is a mystery.  It's just another example from another source of people saying those things.  Saying them in the mainstream..rather than the fringes of radical supremacy.  That's kindof the issue, to begin with.  The message works, it resonates, politicians are by nature panderers and they can't afford to ignore it...while, on the other hand, simply pointing out that the deplorabros exist and are deplorable is political suicide, lol.  Seems like the scales might be a little bit tilted.

The short version of a long story here, for the democrat types of the boards dreaming of a broader coalition of voters that poaches some of the republicans base.....is that the candidate who can express those narratives in the most socially acceptable way is going to have an advantage.  In truth, every candidate gets as close to the line as they can at some point.  That much isn't new.  Pandering to overt and latent white supremacy is as old as america.

There will be no meaningful denunciation of the themes that contributed to trumps election even if trump manages to survive to election time and then gets voted out.  The current "war" in the dem party is whether or not to stump on such a rejection in the first place.  Here again, gotta toss them a bone if we don;t want the bad thing™ to happen...a loss, in this context.

There you have it.

The Dems challenge, especially during primary season, is to be able to pull that off without alienating too many voters from one or both of the country's largest minority coalitions. 
Most minorities do indeed "get" that candidates must engage in some degree of pandering to white supremacy and angst in order to seal the deal; Especially so in today's climate. But doing so as a Dem is a real tightrope. 

Times have changed.
 
Go too far and/or commit to being unapologetically dismissive, and more than enough minority voters are prepared to drop primary candidates like a bad habit or stay home and let the Dems fend for themselves in the general election. Any Democratic candidate dumb enough to expect that minorities will vote and canvass for them, and then exit through the back door and dutifully STFU about their specific concerns until the next election cycle is in for a rude awakening. 
Not gonna to happen.
Lol....And good luck trying to employ scare tactics of "Bu..But Trump will have another four years!". That shit won't work on folks who have long been used to navigating life with a substantial amount of oppression. They already know they can tough another Trump term out.

Minority voters want to be treated like the electoral power that they actually are, and to be heard and engaged just like anyone else.

So the top Democratic contender must learn to become adept at taking calculated swipes at "identity politics", all whilst appealing to them....and manage to convince virtually everyone that they're on their side.

It's a tough row to hoe, but...it can be done.




*bolded text highlighted by me for emphasis

I don't see it being a Beto/Sanders ticket.  The presidential candidate usually has to balance themselves with their VP pick and if the democratic nomination is an especially hard fight, either of them is going to have to balance the ticket with identity politics.  Specifically, they'll have to make their VP pic a woman or person of color.  Not because they would be the best choice (VP's rarely are) but because it would get the party to unify behind them.  That's part of what killed Hillary in 2016; she didn't heal the rift that came from her competion with Sanders.

(March 18, 2019 at 7:43 pm)TaraJo Wrote: I don't see it being a Beto/Sanders ticket.  

I agree, that's impossible. 

Beto is in the Clinton/Obama/Pelosi part of the Dems. Not really challenging the status quo. 

Sanders is different. 

The last election was clarifying. Liberals (e.g. Clinton) are very different from the Left (e.g. Sanders). But that's the American Left, known elsewhere as middle-of-the-road. 

AOC, for example, is centrist if we look at the numbers. Large majorities of Dem voters support her plans. Pelosi opposes them.