Too much of the Democratic Party reminds me of the dude or chick who perceives themselves as a person of depth yet are always chasing people who are more "fun" than substantive. They are always after the trashy woman or the asshole bad boy who doesn't want them but enjoys the attention so they lead them on. Or, even if they do want them, they aren't aligned with their principles. But, they think if they are given just a little time they'll mold the bad boy/girl into a productive decent minded person in society. And, we've all seen this way more often than not end in utter disaster.
Well, a sizeable portion of the current Democratic/Leftist population has this mentality toward Trump supporters. And, similar to the way some men ignore good women who are loyal and down to earth for chicks whose boobs are poppin in a halter top but are a hot mess, many Dems ignore the voters who tend to be their loyalists for the voters who appear to be more of a challenge and more attractive.
The loyalist voters for Democrats are undoubtedly people of color and the LGBTQ community. Since the Civil Rights Era people of color and LGBTQ have voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. For example, African-Americans are usually 90% plus in the Democrats corner.
However, over time this has eroded the white working class base. Or, as some refer to it the "working class" because I guess we're supposed to pretend people of color aren't in the working class. Anyway...
For the last 50 years Republicans have been steadily chipping away at the Democrats' once stronghold on the white middle class and poor.
In 2016 Donald Trump swooped in and placed a firm clasp on these voters with a fake populist message soaked in xenophobia, racism and misogyny. He sprinkled in some anti-trade talk and found a way to win the election.
Trump's victory messed Dems' minds all up. They couldn't figure out how a childish, buffoonish, anti-intellectual bigot won. Meantime, people of color and LGBTQ folks were shaking their heads at Democrats' bewilderment and saying, "Welcome to America."
Many Democrats have been unable to reconcile what happened in 2016. Because they haven't been able to reconcile it, they have come up with a simple diagnosis to deflect from reality. Economic angst.
Now, economic angst certainly played a role, so I am not downplaying it. However, for the majority of Trump supporters that was not the primary driver of their support for Trump. The truth is many Trump supporters (especially in deep red states) voted against their economic interests, as by the way they have for decades by voting Republican.
Let's cut the bullshit. Culture wars, race and ethnicity drove Trump supporters. Immigration, while not on the top 10 concerns of a majority of Americans, was the number one concern of Trump supporters. It was not the economy but the southern border where illegal crossings were down 90% from the year 2000!
The second biggest concern was also not the economy but Muslims. Terrorism was a tangential issue, frankly, because Trump and his supporters just didn't want Muslims coming into the country and wanted to quarantine the ones who were here. In fact, so much so, they literally said "fuck the Constitution" and wanted a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country".
Yet, a significant swath of Democrats across the political spectrum may I add insists it's "the economy stupid". And, it is; just not for Trump voters.
Democrats are immersed in this fever dream that if they just reach out to Trumpsters they'll save them from the cult. Fine.
Here's the problem. In doing so they're consciously alienating their most loyal constituency, people of color and the LGBTQ community.
The "It's economic angst" Dems say to the historically marginalized we need to see the big picture. Winning in 2020 is what matters.
Now, it's a party wide thing but the largest segment of this lusting for Trumpsters' support is in the Progressive/Leftist wing. Their argument is that if we concentrate on economic and healthcare issues some Trump supporters will abandon him and convert. Especially if Bernie Sanders (who is my preferred candidate) is the nominee or even Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard.
However, there is a "but" which is we table the social and racial issues or speak about them as if their tangential. For example, talking about criminal justice reform is great but let's keep a lid on the whole "black people are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system" thing. Or, it's ok to denounce white nationalist attacks but let's go easy on the "white nationalism/supremacy is evil and terrorism" rhetoric. Or, it's fine to support trans people, but let's chill on the railing against the bigotry levied upon them. Why you might ask? Well, that kind of talk will likely offend Trump supporters and we won't be able to convert them.
Basically, the message to people of color and LGBTQ is just trust we're on your side but we aren't going to advocate for you right now because we have these folks over here who don't particularly care for you that we're trying to reel in. So, it's essentially the equivalency of the woman who says to the dude who is all into her but he's just a regular guy, "Jim, you know I care about you. You're my friend", because she's more interested in bad boy, Dante, with his cool motorcycle and even cooler 16 warrants. And, she believes after she's done having fun with Dante and realizes he's not serious about her that she can slide back over to Jim, whom like a good lap dog, will be waiting.
That is exactly how it feels some of the Democratic Party feels about its base. Ironically, the people within the party who rightfully scold the establishment for taking people of color and LGBTQ for granted are doing the exact same thing. While they court people who, if they are not bigots, are ok with bigotry we are just expected to be ready and waiting when they need us. That shit is played and trite.
The truth is it's a potentially detrimental strategy. Hillary Clinton essentially employed this strategy in 2016. Some like to assert she was too focused on race but that is just fallacy. She ostensibly didn't make enough of an outreach to African-American voters. Look at the number of black folks who stayed home in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Then, keep in mind the 77,000 vote difference in those three states.
What some folks in the Democratic Party need to seriously realize is they are not winning shit without people of color. Sorry. It is what it is! Whomever wins the nomination will need a majority of support from people of color. And, the nominee will need people of color's support in the general election.
It is so perplexing and infuriating that Dems are more interested in pulling in the support of people who very well might not be racists but certainly are sympathizers and at the very least don't see racism/homophobia as a deal breaker at the expense of people who have been loyal to the party and the agenda. Why is it so important to these folks to pull in Trumpsters when they don't need them? Reach out to the fucking voters who've been ignored and taken for granted who don't need convincing that black, brown, gay and trans people are "icky"! Pull in the voters whose values already closely aligns with yours. I don't get it!
And, here's the thing. Trumpsters are never going to vote for anyone over Trump. It's crystal clear by now there is no red line. At least, it should be clear!
Sure, they might really like Sanders and Warren's economic policies. They might resent the uber wealthy and the establishment. They might hate these expensive imperialistic interventionist wars. They might even support Medicare For All. But, the evidence clearly shows none of these things tend to be the primary factor in voting.
It is empirical over the last 50 years a significant swath of the white working class votes against their economic interests in favor of their socially conservative ones. Whether it's fueled by religious fundamentalism and/or just raw bigotry election after election they don't vote for the candidate who is best for them.
As awful as Hillary Clinton was as a candidate, would she had been worse than Trump? Of course not.
I get it. The trashy hot chick always looks like more fun. Hell, she usually is! But, there is normally a lot of baggage and a lot of risk that accompanies her. At the end of the day she isn't what you need. What you need is usually right in front of you in plain sight. And, sure the hot chick can twerk, hold her own at the bar and do things that would make the "actresses" on Pornhub blush, but when you really need someone to be there for you or just wanna have an intelligent conversation she isn't going to be there. She'll either move on to the next or be with the jerk whom she planned on staying with all along.
Well, a sizeable portion of the current Democratic/Leftist population has this mentality toward Trump supporters. And, similar to the way some men ignore good women who are loyal and down to earth for chicks whose boobs are poppin in a halter top but are a hot mess, many Dems ignore the voters who tend to be their loyalists for the voters who appear to be more of a challenge and more attractive.
The loyalist voters for Democrats are undoubtedly people of color and the LGBTQ community. Since the Civil Rights Era people of color and LGBTQ have voted for Democrats in overwhelming numbers. For example, African-Americans are usually 90% plus in the Democrats corner.
However, over time this has eroded the white working class base. Or, as some refer to it the "working class" because I guess we're supposed to pretend people of color aren't in the working class. Anyway...
For the last 50 years Republicans have been steadily chipping away at the Democrats' once stronghold on the white middle class and poor.
In 2016 Donald Trump swooped in and placed a firm clasp on these voters with a fake populist message soaked in xenophobia, racism and misogyny. He sprinkled in some anti-trade talk and found a way to win the election.
Trump's victory messed Dems' minds all up. They couldn't figure out how a childish, buffoonish, anti-intellectual bigot won. Meantime, people of color and LGBTQ folks were shaking their heads at Democrats' bewilderment and saying, "Welcome to America."
Many Democrats have been unable to reconcile what happened in 2016. Because they haven't been able to reconcile it, they have come up with a simple diagnosis to deflect from reality. Economic angst.
Now, economic angst certainly played a role, so I am not downplaying it. However, for the majority of Trump supporters that was not the primary driver of their support for Trump. The truth is many Trump supporters (especially in deep red states) voted against their economic interests, as by the way they have for decades by voting Republican.
Let's cut the bullshit. Culture wars, race and ethnicity drove Trump supporters. Immigration, while not on the top 10 concerns of a majority of Americans, was the number one concern of Trump supporters. It was not the economy but the southern border where illegal crossings were down 90% from the year 2000!
The second biggest concern was also not the economy but Muslims. Terrorism was a tangential issue, frankly, because Trump and his supporters just didn't want Muslims coming into the country and wanted to quarantine the ones who were here. In fact, so much so, they literally said "fuck the Constitution" and wanted a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country".
Yet, a significant swath of Democrats across the political spectrum may I add insists it's "the economy stupid". And, it is; just not for Trump voters.
Democrats are immersed in this fever dream that if they just reach out to Trumpsters they'll save them from the cult. Fine.
Here's the problem. In doing so they're consciously alienating their most loyal constituency, people of color and the LGBTQ community.
The "It's economic angst" Dems say to the historically marginalized we need to see the big picture. Winning in 2020 is what matters.
Now, it's a party wide thing but the largest segment of this lusting for Trumpsters' support is in the Progressive/Leftist wing. Their argument is that if we concentrate on economic and healthcare issues some Trump supporters will abandon him and convert. Especially if Bernie Sanders (who is my preferred candidate) is the nominee or even Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard.
However, there is a "but" which is we table the social and racial issues or speak about them as if their tangential. For example, talking about criminal justice reform is great but let's keep a lid on the whole "black people are disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system" thing. Or, it's ok to denounce white nationalist attacks but let's go easy on the "white nationalism/supremacy is evil and terrorism" rhetoric. Or, it's fine to support trans people, but let's chill on the railing against the bigotry levied upon them. Why you might ask? Well, that kind of talk will likely offend Trump supporters and we won't be able to convert them.
Basically, the message to people of color and LGBTQ is just trust we're on your side but we aren't going to advocate for you right now because we have these folks over here who don't particularly care for you that we're trying to reel in. So, it's essentially the equivalency of the woman who says to the dude who is all into her but he's just a regular guy, "Jim, you know I care about you. You're my friend", because she's more interested in bad boy, Dante, with his cool motorcycle and even cooler 16 warrants. And, she believes after she's done having fun with Dante and realizes he's not serious about her that she can slide back over to Jim, whom like a good lap dog, will be waiting.
That is exactly how it feels some of the Democratic Party feels about its base. Ironically, the people within the party who rightfully scold the establishment for taking people of color and LGBTQ for granted are doing the exact same thing. While they court people who, if they are not bigots, are ok with bigotry we are just expected to be ready and waiting when they need us. That shit is played and trite.
The truth is it's a potentially detrimental strategy. Hillary Clinton essentially employed this strategy in 2016. Some like to assert she was too focused on race but that is just fallacy. She ostensibly didn't make enough of an outreach to African-American voters. Look at the number of black folks who stayed home in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Then, keep in mind the 77,000 vote difference in those three states.
What some folks in the Democratic Party need to seriously realize is they are not winning shit without people of color. Sorry. It is what it is! Whomever wins the nomination will need a majority of support from people of color. And, the nominee will need people of color's support in the general election.
It is so perplexing and infuriating that Dems are more interested in pulling in the support of people who very well might not be racists but certainly are sympathizers and at the very least don't see racism/homophobia as a deal breaker at the expense of people who have been loyal to the party and the agenda. Why is it so important to these folks to pull in Trumpsters when they don't need them? Reach out to the fucking voters who've been ignored and taken for granted who don't need convincing that black, brown, gay and trans people are "icky"! Pull in the voters whose values already closely aligns with yours. I don't get it!
And, here's the thing. Trumpsters are never going to vote for anyone over Trump. It's crystal clear by now there is no red line. At least, it should be clear!
Sure, they might really like Sanders and Warren's economic policies. They might resent the uber wealthy and the establishment. They might hate these expensive imperialistic interventionist wars. They might even support Medicare For All. But, the evidence clearly shows none of these things tend to be the primary factor in voting.
It is empirical over the last 50 years a significant swath of the white working class votes against their economic interests in favor of their socially conservative ones. Whether it's fueled by religious fundamentalism and/or just raw bigotry election after election they don't vote for the candidate who is best for them.
As awful as Hillary Clinton was as a candidate, would she had been worse than Trump? Of course not.
I get it. The trashy hot chick always looks like more fun. Hell, she usually is! But, there is normally a lot of baggage and a lot of risk that accompanies her. At the end of the day she isn't what you need. What you need is usually right in front of you in plain sight. And, sure the hot chick can twerk, hold her own at the bar and do things that would make the "actresses" on Pornhub blush, but when you really need someone to be there for you or just wanna have an intelligent conversation she isn't going to be there. She'll either move on to the next or be with the jerk whom she planned on staying with all along.
