A Must Read Twitter Thread

It’s long, but worth it. Here’s the beginning…

The tweet quoted there was this one from the AP:

The thread continues:

There’s more. Everyone should take a look. Read the whole thing!

26 comments on “A Must Read Twitter Thread

  1. So we enter 2018 once again calling for purity of purpose rather than a winning coalition. Welp.

    • If you read the entire Twitter thread then you’d know that’s not what she’s saying.

  2. Here’s a though experiment: Why is the Sanders argument in favor of working-class-friendly policies always referred to by opponents as catering to the “white” working class? Doesn’t this designation slight the fact that the working class is made up of all colors, but disproportionately minorities, who make up a smaller percentage of the upper tiers?

    Is it really true that the issues relating to race are more important to African-American or Hispanic working-class people than the issues surrounding their ability to earn a living? I would argue the answer is no, and I point to the fact that Trump bested Romney among both groups as my evidence.

    OK, so Trump voters were racist. To what use are people planning to put that knowledge? The argument that we should appeal to the working class, including the white working class, is not an argument to turn to racism, except as a straw man for people who think there is some important ground gained in labeling other people racists.

    An appeal to the working class is just that — an appeal to the working class as workers. What those who claim Trump won because of racism can’t seem to grasp is that he might have won despite his racism, not because of it. Most Americans don’t consider themselves racist, and many were reluctant to vote for Trump because of his boorishness, of which his racism is a part (in their eyes).

    This need to prove white people racist is a good way to cement closed the vault in the Democratic Party’s tomb. I mean, it’s true and all, but so what? It won’t win you anything, and will probably cost you a lot. But hey, you’re right, so there’s that.

    • Sorry. Lack of an edit feature means I can’t fix the typo to close the italic.

    • Racism that results in them voting against their self-interests. That’s the entire point. Trying to reach voters like this isn’t going to work. I’d suggest we’d work on voter suppression and turning out our base.

      I’d also say that it isn’t possible to separate the earning a living from racism. Since they directly impact each other.

      As far as Sanders, he couldn’t connect with black/brown voters. That’s why he lost the primary. So… why didn’t his message connect with those voters? Meanwhile, Clinton couldn’t fully tap into Sander’s base. That was the split. In 2020, we need a candidate that brings in both groups – and that will mean including policies that speak to everyone.

    • cassandram

      Why is the Sanders argument in favor of working-class-friendly policies always referred to by opponents as catering to the “white” working class?

      Would be interesting to see who actually says this, since I can’t recall seeing it. As I recall your argument, you thought that Clinton lost some small segment of the WWC because of a lack of message. Not that you could prove that. Or better, that there was a better argument besides “Follow Me and I will Make it the white 50’s again.”

      An appeal to the working class is just that — an appeal to the working class as workers.

      No. Trump won White Working Class voters. He did not win Black Working Class or Hispanic Working class voters. There was a reason for that. And that reason was that Trump’s message had not one thing to do with work, it was all about the toxic identity politics of getting the people back under control who stole your jobs, your neighborhoods, etc.

      And it isn’t a claim of racism, it well supported by a series of studies that began being released around this time last year. The point of getting this is that it tells you who will listen to you. The people who voted their racial resentments are not voters to chase anymore. See Alabama. Or see the Trump voters who are rejecting all chances at retraining, because they are waiting for their jobs to come back. These folks won’t get hat they are looking for, so they steep in their resentments. They aren’t going to buy a rational economic message. Or at least they aren’t there yet. Stockholm Syndrome maybe, but it is well past time to stop chasing these people and chance the people who you have a chance of getting to vote for you.

  3. Wow. Just read the whole thing, and it’s even worse than I thought it would be. Heartfelt BS is still BS, and pointing out that America is a racist society is, again I must insist, a recipe for losing, not winning. The fact that it’s true never mattered in the past, and it will not matter in the future until whites are a minority.

    • cassandram

      The fact that America is a racist society has ALWAYS mattered. You can start with the fact in this country we are STILL fighting over the rights of blackpeople to vote. It is why the GOP tries to make it so hard for black and brown people to vote.

  4. nathan arizona

    I’m white and I hate Trump. Deal with it.

  5. @nathan: That doesn’t matter to Propane Jane. All whites are white and all are culpable. It’s the kind of dumb but animated argument that always wins the day at Daily Kos. I mean, it’s all true, but in a political context, it’s not helpful, it’s harmful. Why people married to the corporate-donor Democratic Party want to make that, instead of corporate fealty, the grounds for the purity testing shouldn’t be hard to determine. Look at who’s making the argument.

    • cassandram

      Which, of course, is not her argument. Her argument is focused specifically on the white working class who voted for Trump. I know you are triggered whenever people criticize white people, but you could have the presence of mind to make sure that you aren’t included in the group being criticized before you get your ass up on your back over it.

      • “Her argument is focused specifically on the white working class who voted for Trump.” – cassandram

        Yes. Focusing “specifically on the white working class avoids who voted for Trump” avoids asking why the working class in general stayed home, rather than vote for Clinton.

  6. nathan arizona.

    I saw a film clip of an anti-Trump march where a woman held a banner saying “white people suck.” Now that’s really good recruitment tool for the resistance. You need us whether you want us or not.

  7. As of October 11, 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent. (46% of Independents are Democratic leaners).

    So with a base of 31% and some indeterminate percent of leaners added to the base, exactly how does focusing on the base result in winning a national election?

    If you think you can win without the Independents, I’ll not be the one to harsh your mellow. But I will tell you that if the messaging is all base, I will probably tune out and sit out. But that’s just me, maybe the rest of the Independents will be different.

    • The twitter thread was about Trump supporters. It wasn’t about a D message. But, given everything that’s happened this past year, it’s nice to know you can afford to tune out and sit out.

  8. Yes, and your comment was that reaching those voters “isn’t going to work” and that is was better to “work on voter suppression and turning out our base.”

    And given everything that’s happened this past year, it’s nice to know that you think you afford to not at least try and reach them. My comment is simply if that’s your thought, I think it’s wrong. If you don’t try and reach Independents, many of whom were Trump supporters, I wondered how it is you intend to win given the statistical representation of your base.

    Further, considering that requiring all voters to provide photo identification at their voting place in order to vote, is
    in favor of by 80% and opposed by 19% (Gallup 2016), relying on opposition to voter suppression methods that require id is a fool’s errand. Yes there are other suppression methods, but the most common is voter id. Consequently, some smart person would have an Aha! moment and decide to expend effort similar to GOTV to getting ids, like starting now, so that it does not become an issue when the election arises.

    Bottom for me is that if don’t bring me someone I can support, I’ll sit out, just like many of you (the figurative “you”) did the last election. If you don’t need me cause you have your base, that’s cool too. But I’m guessing that your base doesn’t have the numbers necessary to counter the twitter jerk we have in office today.

    • *sigh* We need you, Dave. We also need reliable D voters. Going after voters who continuously vote against their self-interests is extremely risky – especially given the dog whistles needed to even catch their attention.

    • “Yes there are other suppression methods, but the most common is voter id.” – Dave

      What suppresses Democratic voter turnout the most are Democrat pols pursuing Republican programs, like job offshoring trade agreements, for- profit, healthy premium insurance schemes, bankster bailouts and bull5h!+ wars.

  9. “Going after voters who continuously vote against their self-interests is extremely risky”

    “Going after voters who continuously vote against their self-interests is a significant challenge”

    There fixed it for you. I honestly appreciate that they are responding to dog whistles. I really do. So if dog whistles are the necessary tool, have we tried every frequency in the dog’s range? The whistles they are responding to are a very narrow set that basically gives them the message that their life sucks, but at least it’s better than this group and that group. So the dog whistle they are responding to is – identity politics.

    Look thematically the Democrats have a big tent, but while the Ds are really good at allowing a lot folks in the tent, they are also really good at keeping them in disparate groups within the tent, resulting in the perceived marginalization of other groups in the tent. What I would think that the Ds would want is to harness the collective angst into a few common dog whistles um, themes that would serve to unify the tent.

    Someone says $15 and free college ought to reach them (it’s in their self interest), but that whistle isn’t in their frequency range because they used to make (and raised families) on $25 an hour and they have never wanted to or intend to go to college. Someone else’s lot in life is better, but for them it’s SSDD.

    Anyway, maybe they are mostly white, but historically they have been in your tent and even if they are dogs it’s incumbent on the party to find a way to speak to them. They want decent paying jobs that they can work at every day. Idle hands are the devil’s workshop and I believe that the rise of this nationalistic, supremacy nonsense can be directly attributed to too much idle time. You ignore them at your peril. Eventually they will see MAGA for what it is, but it doesn’t mean you’ll get them back. There is always someone else with a whistle tuned to the frequency they will respond to.

    • cassandram

      Indeed they are. And the Bannon special sauce is that he was able to spread that nationalist stuff pretty far north of the Mason Dixon line. People who are ready to buy and act on the nationalist stuff are not people you are going to reach with much else. Plenty of these folks hare being told every single day that the reason that they are underemployed and underresourced is that black and brown people have their stuff. If the tent needs to be big enough to accomodate that, then you can let me out of the tent. All this does is to continue to erase the black and brown people who have the same economic anxiety in order to privilege the white ones who have been leaving anyway. The D party has a base. It is time to speak to and motivate that base. Spending your energy on people who haven’t been part of your base since forever makes no sense.

  10. Don’t kid yourself. They haven’t been in your tent for a long time. The hippies and riots drove them away in 68 and 72 and Reagan scooped them up in 1980. The Democrats have not represented the working class for two generations.

    They don’t care about climate change, how the police treat criminals, gender equality, or income inequality. What does the Democratic party of 2018 offer them? An insistence on higher taxes? Unisex bathrooms? Tom Steyer hectoring them about their trucks and SUVs?

  11. nathan arizona

    Brian Stephan: Who are you talking to here?

  12. nathan arizona

    I’m pretty sure they do care about income inequality, if you put it in the right terms. “unisex bathrooms” is not a good selling point whether they’re a good thing or not. Focus on the things that would (or at least might) expand the party or make them OK with the anti-conservative agenda.

  13. nathan arizona

    A lot of them don’t know what the hell they are. They just didn’t like Hillary and they want jobs. Talk to them about jobs, don’t nominate Hillary, encourage the brighter among them to see what an idiot Trump is and we can lure enough them to get that asshole out of office.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: