Can anyone explain how "SJW politics" will enter the Democratic campaign?

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Basically anything the GOP can possibly find will be exploited to use as a wedge with white voters of all ages going into 2020. Black lives matter? Check. Third Wave Feminists making some noise? Blast it. Dumb College students and Professors hating on the working class white man cuz he's privileged? Check. This is just an update version of the southern strategy.

The GOP with Trump have pretty much capped their share of the minority vote. They're not getting George W. Bush 2000/2004 levels of minority backing anymore, so the only step forward for them is to increase their share of the white vote; and that's how they'll try and do it.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Basically anything the GOP can possibly find will be exploited to use as a wedge with white voters of all ages going into 2020. Black lives matter? Check. Third Wave Feminists making some noise? Blast it. Dumb College students and Professors hating on the working class white man cuz he's privileged? Check. This is just an update version of the southern strategy.

The GOP with Trump have pretty much capped their share of the minority vote. They're not getting George W. Bush 2000/2004 levels of minority backing anymore, so the only step forward for them is to increase their share of the white vote; and that's how they'll try and do it.

No, people are saying that CANDIDATES are going to do this, not random people on Tumblr.

[NeederNodder]

It's the GOP's best route of gaining Millennial white voters. It may not deal with federal policy, but it definitely gets easily manipulated youth to vote for you when you scare them into believing that feminists are going to jail you for not using the correct pronouns.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All that nonsense about Bernie supporters being sexist and racist white males. And Hillary saying she was an outsider because she was a woman.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Basically anything the GOP can possibly find will be exploited to use as a wedge with white voters of all ages going into 2020. Black lives matter? Check. Third Wave Feminists making some noise? Blast it. Dumb College students and Professors hating on the working class white man cuz he's privileged? Check. This is just an update version of the southern strategy.

The GOP with Trump have pretty much capped their share of the minority vote. They're not getting George W. Bush 2000/2004 levels of minority backing anymore, so the only step forward for them is to increase their share of the white vote; and that's how they'll try and do it.

No, people are saying that CANDIDATES are going to do this, not random people on Tumblr.

The candidates will be talking about BLM, immigration reform, possibly the Muslim ban (though perhaps this fades by 2020), police reform, etc. It depends also on the candidate in question. But the GOP will latch onto anything ANY of the Democratic candidates say and blast it. And best believe with a big field that a few candidates will say something SJW-y.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Basically anything the GOP can possibly find will be exploited to use as a wedge with white voters of all ages going into 2020. Black lives matter? Check. Third Wave Feminists making some noise? Blast it. Dumb College students and Professors hating on the working class white man cuz he's privileged? Check. This is just an update version of the southern strategy.

The GOP with Trump have pretty much capped their share of the minority vote. They're not getting George W. Bush 2000/2004 levels of minority backing anymore, so the only step forward for them is to increase their share of the white vote; and that's how they'll try and do it.

No, people are saying that CANDIDATES are going to do this, not random people on Tumblr.

The candidates will be talking about BLM, immigration reform, possibly the Muslim ban (though perhaps this fades by 2020), police reform, etc. It depends also on the candidate in question. But the GOP will latch onto anything ANY of the Democratic candidates say and blast it. And best believe with a big field that a few candidates will say something SJW-y.

Those are not SJW issues. That's mainstream liberal stuff that have been issues for decades.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

Basically anything the GOP can possibly find will be exploited to use as a wedge with white voters of all ages going into 2020. Black lives matter? Check. Third Wave Feminists making some noise? Blast it. Dumb College students and Professors hating on the working class white man cuz he's privileged? Check. This is just an update version of the southern strategy.

The GOP with Trump have pretty much capped their share of the minority vote. They're not getting George W. Bush 2000/2004 levels of minority backing anymore, so the only step forward for them is to increase their share of the white vote; and that's how they'll try and do it.

No, people are saying that CANDIDATES are going to do this, not random people on Tumblr.

The candidates will be talking about BLM, immigration reform, possibly the Muslim ban (though perhaps this fades by 2020), police reform, etc. It depends also on the candidate in question. But the GOP will latch onto anything ANY of the Democratic candidates say and blast it. And best believe with a big field that a few candidates will say something SJW-y.

Those are not SJW issues. That's mainstream liberal stuff that have been issues for decades.

A lot of them are "social justice" causes. And yes, the GOP will use them as wedge issues for white voters (since minority outreach isn't likely to happen...lol) as a way of increasing their share of the white vote. I don't see how else they win in 2020.

But people are talking about CANDIDATES adopting "SJW politics". That's stuff like bitching about white people wearing clothes or hairstyles with non-white origins or those ridiculous "non-binary" pronouns. If talking about immigration reform qualifies then George W. Bush was a SJW.

And no, I don't believe that no matter how big the field is any candidate is going to go on some deranged rant about heterosexual people who refuse to have sex with trans people or white people wearing Native American Halloween costumes.

[Coraxion]

Basically anything the GOP can possibly find will be exploited to use as a wedge with white voters of all ages going into 2020. Black lives matter? Check. Third Wave Feminists making some noise? Blast it. Dumb College students and Professors hating on the working class white man cuz he's privileged? Check. This is just an update version of the southern strategy.

The GOP with Trump have pretty much capped their share of the minority vote. They're not getting George W. Bush 2000/2004 levels of minority backing anymore, so the only step forward for them is to increase their share of the white vote; and that's how they'll try and do it.

No, people are saying that CANDIDATES are going to do this, not random people on Tumblr.

There's no difference in the minds of most people, with the us vs. them situation of politics today. I'm not completely innocent myself.

[AN63093]

I don't think any candidate will do anything so obvious as what you suggest, BRTD.  It's more a matter of messaging, tone, choice of what issues to focus on, optics, etc.  Obviously no candidate is going to come out and announce themselves as the "SJW candidate."

I discuss this more, at dreary length unfortunately, in TT's Dem primary thread here, but to state it more succinctly, all D candidates fall within the Dem overton window, and all US candidates (whether D or R) fall within a greater overton window of acceptable US positions (mostly reflecting the Reagan neo-liberal system).  Where candidates fall in their respective party's overton window has a lot more to do stylistic differences and with what cultural faction of their party they associate with, than any greater ideological divide on the actual issues.  In other words, for all of Sanders' supposed socialism, he is more of a reformer in the vein of early 1900s progressive "trust-busting," than a bona fide socialist advocating for, e.g., nationalization of certain industries.  And for all of Clinton's supposed neo-liberalism, at the end of the day she adopted quite a bit of Sanders' platform and wasn't exactly making trickle-down economics a center-piece of her campaign.

It's all optics and messaging and it's quite a bit more subtle than what you're discussing BRTD.  It's Clinton giving speeches to Goldman Sachs.  It's Sanders being frequently lambasted by BLM in his campaign (and then, of course, him just rolling over on that issue, but I digress).  It's Sanders suddenly abandoning his beliefs on illegal immigration, even though his position was not at all outside the Dem mainstream just 10 years ago, but were now the "incorrect" positions for a Dem candidate to hold- not so much for economic reasons, but mostly because it was now seen as the culturally insensitive position.  Another example of Sanders giving in, but again, I digress.

Or it was the DNC, which I remember the most frequent story of the time was not what the Dems' economic vision was (I can't recall that they even had one), but rather the kerfuffle surrounding the speech given by the Muslim father of the deceased American soldier.  I remember watching the DNC and thinking the whole show seemed rather theme-less, and something of a carousel of speakers picked mostly for the desire to check off the required minority group boxes from the list.

Or it was the infighting between the Clinton and Sanders camps, and from somebody who is neither a D nor a supporter of either (although I liked certain aspects of both candidates), from a somewhat detached observer, I found that the most common criticism of Sanders, after the fact that he was unelectable and impractical in his policy positions (something that very well may be true), was not an attack so much on his policies, but attacks on his supporters themselves, e.g., the whole Bernie Bro thing.  Such a divide was quite indicative to me, in the sense that it showed me that the divide was more of warring demographics and barbs being thrown on distaste for the opposing group's identity, and less so over some deep ideological dispute.

I don't know the exact form that "SJW politics" will enter the campaign, or how precisely the candidates will introduce them, because, it's a very subtle thing that manifests itself usually in the form of messaging and tone.  But I can most definitely say that there will be the more, Clintonist/SJW type candidate, and the candidate that is attempting to win over the Sanders wing.  Obviously it is far too early to predict who those respective candidates will be.

[Famous Mortimer]

SJW politics have already infected the Democratic Party. It's why Democratic politicians literally can't speak unless they mention African American people, Latino people, LGBT people, etc. at the end of every paragraph.

Democrats self censor when talking about White people and they can't even talk about people in general because that's considered racist too since it doesn't highlight the particular suffering of minority groups.

This is the reason White people are abandoning the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party pathetically, heavy handedly panders to every group except them.

Struggling White people don't want to hear about how other people are suffering worse and need their money.

[Beet]

The next Democratic president will, on their first day in office, issue an executive order banning Taco Bell for cultural appropriation.

[publicunofficial]

Anyone who talks about race or gender is an SJW, so sayeth the Atlas scholars.

[Shadows]

SJW politics have already infected the Democratic Party. It's why Democratic politicians literally can't speak unless they mention African American people, Latino people, LGBT people, etc. at the end of every paragraph.

Democrats self censor when talking about White people and they can't even talk about people in general because that's considered racist too since it doesn't highlight the particular suffering of minority groups.

This is the reason White people are abandoning the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party pathetically, heavy handedly panders to every group except them.

Struggling White people don't want to hear about how other people are suffering worse and need their money.

One of the sad aspects of this whole deal is that it is disproportionately hurting minorities. If they can campaign & win on a progressive economic agenda where whites don't feel left off then they will be able to help minorities. Immigration reform, Criminal Justice reform, SC & everything else can be taken care of.

You can pander to them all they want but atleast stop in 2019 & 2020 during election years. Atleast pretend that you care about struggling white people before governing. They basically give a picture that they just don't care about them & they vote GOP against their own economic interests.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

So far no one has mentioned any actual SJW politics. Immigration reform and criminal justice reform are liberal policies going back decades, not nonsense raved about by "non-binary otherkin" people on Tumblr.

[Devout Centrist]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

I'm a white guy raised in suburbs.

[Jeppe]

Democrats mention race and gender because it works in firing up their base. Unless you are from a minority group, I guess it'd be hard to be comfortable with it, but a large majority of their voter base falls into  those categories, so they have to mention those specific issues to get their attention and support, because those voters care about their issues more than vague promises about bringing back jobs to some random town they've never been to.

[Famous Mortimer]

Democrats mention race and gender because it works in firing up their base. Unless you are from a minority group, I guess it'd be hard to be comfortable with it, but a large majority of their voter base falls into  those categories, so they have to mention those specific issues to get their attention and support, because those voters care about their issues more than vague promises about bringing back jobs to some random town they've never been to.

This is inaccurate. Such rhetoric totally failed to increase Black turnout. The Blacks that did turn out would have almost certainly still voted Democrat anyway. Mentions of gender and race aren't aimed at primarily at turning out minorities, they are aimed at pleasing a certain type of white person and at preventing accusations of racism from a certain type of white person.

[Jeppe]

Democrats mention race and gender because it works in firing up their base. Unless you are from a minority group, I guess it'd be hard to be comfortable with it, but a large majority of their voter base falls into  those categories, so they have to mention those specific issues to get their attention and support, because those voters care about their issues more than vague promises about bringing back jobs to some random town they've never been to.

This is inaccurate. Such rhetoric totally failed to increase Black turnout. The Blacks that did turn out would have almost certainly still voted Democrat anyway. Mentions of gender and race aren't aimed at primarily at turning out minorities, they are aimed at pleasing a certain type of white person and at preventing accusations of racism from a certain type of white person.

And Hillary still blew past expectations in most metropolitan areas in the country, where minority groups congregate. Hillary broke electoral records in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, even with a strong third party presence. Trump may have lost voters in those areas, but the votes that Hillary added from Obama was usually much higher than the amount Trump lost, meaning she was doing something right with turnout in those areas.

[Coraxion]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

[Mr. Smith]

Democrats mention race and gender because it works in firing up their base. Unless you are from a minority group, I guess it'd be hard to be comfortable with it, but a large majority of their voter base falls into  those categories, so they have to mention those specific issues to get their attention and support, because those voters care about their issues more than vague promises about bringing back jobs to some random town they've never been to.

This is inaccurate. Such rhetoric totally failed to increase Black turnout. The Blacks that did turn out would have almost certainly still voted Democrat anyway. Mentions of gender and race aren't aimed at primarily at turning out minorities, they are aimed at pleasing a certain type of white person and at preventing accusations of racism from a certain type of white person.

And Hillary still blew past expectations in most metropolitan areas in the country, where minority groups congregate. Hillary broke electoral records in places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, even with a strong third party presence. Trump may have lost voters in those areas, but the votes that Hillary added from Obama was usually much higher than the amount Trump lost, meaning she was doing something right with turnout in those areas.

Yes, but it was places like Detroit, Pinellas Co., FL, Eastern NC, Milwaukee, Philadelphia where it was a problem that stopped those states from going over.  Besides Miami, those other cities were in safe states.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

[Devout Centrist]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

Any criticism at all, folks. Sad!

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I mean I keep seeing people saying things like this, but for some reason I have a tough time seeing any of the Democratic candidates start campaign speeches by specifying their pronouns, or running a campaign based around white people shouldn't engage in "cultural appropriation" and complain about whites wearing dreadlocks or hoop earrings, or go on some deranged rant about how people who refuse to have sex with transpeople are transphobic, or make the main issue of their platform "checking white male privilege". Furthermore what do any of those "issues" have to do with federal policy?

BRTD, most of the posters here are white guys raised in the suburbs. "SJW" to them means anything that is associated with social justice and makes them uncomfortable.

If it were 1964, I doubt they'd support the Great Society or the 1964 Civil Rights Act

"Muh evil white males!"

What Democratic politician or remotely plausible 2020 candidate has said anything like that?