2020 Dems "go all in on identity politics"

[H. Ross Peron]

Excellent post, xingkerui.

This is what I fear will be the attitude of working class white men if the Democrats nominate, say, Kamala Harris:

“OMG, the Democrats nominated a minority woman from San Francisco.  They must be practicing the identity politics FOX News warned me of.  I’m not racist or sexist, it’s not fair.  I better vote for Trump, he won’t tolerate the war on folks like me.”

And it won’t matter how solid Harris’s record on economic issues actually is.

And in the real world Obama swept the rust belt twice because voters responded strongly to his populist economic message against McCain and Romney, despite the fact that he was black.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really populist there buddy.

That literally proves my point. Obama managed to win ordinarily Republican voters with socially conservative views by painting his opponents as out of touch rich guys responsible for the great recession. If Democrats are winning those voters they're getting majorities like the one we saw a couple of weeks ago.

Oh, and this midterm Democrats won 15/21 Obama-Trump House districts, 8 of them pickups, on a swing from R+8 to D+3 over all of them (Obama was D+6 in 2012).

He did not win them over with his economically populist message. They’re opposed to basic healthcare reform via Obamacare. READ the article for God’s sake lol. Trump won these voters over with his immigration rhetoric and promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. The gains in a D+8 midterm do not automatically translate to the next presidential election otherwise Romney would’ve won in 2012, Dole would’ve won in 1996, and Mondale would’ve won in 1984.

For better or worse, the reason Obamacare was so unpopular in 2010 (same with Clintoncare in 1994) was due to it being portrayed as a Rube Goldberg machine that would be highly disruptive to existing health insurance policy holders. I highly Trump's opposition to Obamacare was a primary factor in him flipping Obama/Trump areas given every other Republican candidate was wedded to it. It is where he *distinguished* himself such as immigration, trade, and to a lesser extent, nominally protecting entitlements that enabled him to make the gains that he did.

[Beet]

The Democrats should not abandon racial justice issues. That's a straw man... and there's nothing wrong with what Warren, Gillibrand, and Sanders are quoted by in this article. But... anyone who actually pays attention to social justice warriors knows they go farther than that. They'll say stuff like you can't be racist against white people (false), that if white people want to be allies to POC they need to leave their own minds and expectation of respect at the door, that all white people are racist, that no white person they've ever met can be trusted with good advice for them... it's racism. Sure politicians aren't endorsing these views, but it's in the underbelly.

[Rookie Yinzer]

When Democrats learn this message and focus on bread and butter issues where they have the edge, like running solely on healthcare this midterm, they win; when they run on calling the Republican a racist, like Clinton in 2016, they lose.

Donald Trump is a racist. I would be disgusted if the candidate that was expecting to receive 90 percent of the black vote spent the entire election ignoring that fact.

Racism is a bread and butter issue in non-white households. White people need to get over themselves and understand that their lived experience isn't the only one in this country. But keep telling people who will support you if you reach out to their communities to STFU so you can chase imaginary moderate #populists in Sandusky County, Ohio.

ETA: Clinton did focus on a plethora of issues. Maybe it didn't resonate because she was boring or the mainstream media decided to concern troll over emails and the Clinton Foundation but she did. The only time she even really harped on Trump's racism was the speech she gave in Nevada about the Alt-Right, and can someone point out the lies in her speech? It was spot on, but y'all hated her so much y'all couldn't see past your hatred and acknowledge the truths in it.

[Technocracy Timmy]

For better or worse, the reason Obamacare was so unpopular in 2010 (same with Clintoncare in 1994) was due to it being portrayed as a Rube Goldberg machine that would be highly disruptive to existing health insurance policy holders. I highly Trump's opposition to Obamacare was a primary factor in him flipping Obama/Trump areas given every other Republican candidate was wedded to it. It is where he *distinguished* himself such as immigration, trade, and to a lesser extent, nominally protecting entitlements that enabled him to make the gains that he did.

Exactly right. Americans are fine with economic left wing ideas until the second they start getting implemented in some form then there’s a backlash like we saw with the ACA. A single payer proposal would be no different if there was an attempt to enact one.

I highly doubt Trump’s gains in the Midwest came that much from trade and protecting entitlements. We saw a very progressive Democrat in Feingold fall to a standard right wing Republican in Ron Johnson and another standard right wing Republican in Pat Toomey win re-election all while Trump carried these states (Michigan didn’t have a senate race). Rob Portman won in a landslide as well and he was George W. Bush’s trade rep. The only difference was that these republicans had stronger margins in the suburbs relative to Trump. Did Trump pad the margins in rural areas? Probably. But he did not win the Midwest alone nor did he have some special path that was only his. Toomey, Portman, and Johnson all showed that these voters are more than willing to elect standard right wing Republicans.

They’re not economic populists.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

When did I say that Democrats should only run on these issues? I said that they shouldn't, but that they shouldn't ignore these issues either.

I agree with that. I don't think there's any fundamental difference of opinion here, my point is that having a hostile attitude to white people who don't respond to Democratic culture war messaging is counterproductive if you want to elect Democrats and build majorities. The voters we're talking about are open to voting Democratic and live in extremely important states for the Electoral College. It's insane to push them away for cultural reasons.

When did I say that Democrats should only run on these issues? I said that they shouldn't, but that they shouldn't ignore these issues either. It's not like Obama ignored racial issues during his first election, not did he only focus on economic issues. He won in part because he was a charismatic candidate who connected well with voters, not because he ignored race.

Of course Obama talked about race during his runs (more in 2008 than 2012 though), but as a uniter who would usher in a post-racial feel-good America, not by calling McCain or his supporters bigoted, and only as part of a general message of change focused on the economy.

Republicans are going to label Democrats as "PC" whatever they do, so instead of getting cowed into never letting certain issues see the light of day, Democrats should stand their ground and try to appeal to a broad coalition of voters, not just rural white voters in the Midwest, many of whom would vote for Trump even if he bombed Los Angeles and bragged about it. Yes, some focus on economic issues is a must, but the only people Democrats are going to "offend" if they have the gall to actually talk about other issues are snowflakes who will search for any excuse possible to vote Republican.

That sort of Republican messaging works best when the swing voters they're targeting don't see a countervailing message from Democrats which is appealing. And yes, no-one is talking about appealing to Trump's base obviously, but voters which Democrats have won in two of the last four elections.

I agree that Democrats (obviously) need to build a broad coalition of voters, and talking about economic issues is the way to do so because those are consistently the most important issues to every group. Black and Hispanic voters care more about protecting Medicare than criminal justice reform or immigration. You'll win over more women by talking about how tax cuts for millionaires have ballooned the deficit which affects our children's futures etc..

[Statilius the Epicurean]

He did not win them over with his economically populist message. They’re opposed to basic healthcare reform via Obamacare. READ the article for God’s sake lol. Trump won these voters over with his immigration rhetoric and promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. The gains in a D+8 midterm do not automatically translate to the next presidential election otherwise Romney would’ve won in 2012, Dole would’ve won in 1996, and Mondale would’ve won in 1984.

Democrats literally won these voters back in an election which they ran on protecting Obamacare. I'm guessing if they're voters who hate government healthcare then the messaging about Republicans eliminating protections for pre-existing conditions wouldn't have cut through and Trump's caravan rhetoric would have worked.

Obviously midterm gains against an unpopular incumbent President don't automatically translate into the general (although the simplistic "popular vote was D+7 so D+3 = voters were R+4" is the same logic which leads idiots on this site to argue that since DeSantis won Florida is now R+7 and further to the right than Texas and Georgia. We're dealing with an incredibly elastic demographic). What it does show is that Obama/Trump voters are winnable and shouldn't be written off as irredeemably racist for a EC strategy based on the sun belt.

[H. Ross Peron]

Exactly right. Americans are fine with economic left wing ideas until the second they start getting implemented in some form then there’s a backlash like we saw with the ACA. A single payer proposal would be no different if there was an attempt to enact one.

I think any single payer proposal will run into significant practical problems of politics and implementation fwiw. But in the case of the ACA, the backlash came before its implementation based on its alleged provisions and effects. After the ACA was more or less fully implemented with Medicaid expansion and protections for those with preexisting conditions taking effect, the ACA is no longer kryptonite for Democrats and in effect was one of the major issues on which they campaigned on in the last midterm.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree Trump simply did not come out of the blue and in many ways simply an intensification of long-term trends of rural whites moving towards Democrats. However, as you pointed out, many of these candidates relied more heavily on suburban votes while their rural bases of support tended to be those areas which have been consistently Republican. Furthermore, many of these states tended to be prone to ticket-splitting which is why Pennsylvania could elect Rick Santorum even as it voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Thus I'm not sure if their success could be automatically translated to GOP Presidential victories anymore than Arnold Schwarzenegger being governor of California suggested that a GOP revival in the state was possible even without the Iraq War and the 2008 recession.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If Dems really go all in on identity politics, than i would hope that Trump wins a second term. They'll never learn it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

If Dems really go all in on identity politics, than i would hope that Trump wins a second term. They'll never learn it.

So Republican appeals to men based on being "disadvantaged" by "fake accusations" like they did after the Kavanaugh fracas doesn't qualify as "identity politics" to you?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

If Dems really go all in on identity politics, than i would hope that Trump wins a second term. They'll never learn it.

So Republican appeals to men based on being "disadvantaged" by "fake accusations" like they did after the Kavanaugh fracas doesn't qualify as "identity politics" to you?

Yeah nevermind i was wrong about that. But yes both sides are terrible. I wished politicians would start caring about issues that matter.

I'm just very disappointed in Democrats since the HRC fiasco, and i just can't hide that fact.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The voters we're talking about are open to voting Democratic and live in extremely important states for the Electoral College. It's insane to push them away for cultural reasons.

If Dems really go all in on identity politics, than i would hope that Trump wins a second term. They'll never learn it.

What’s the point in having a socialist avatar if you only care to discuss issues of economic injustice for white men? Just be honest about the fact that Democrats talking about racial, gender, and lgbt issues makes you too uncomfortable and that you’re not really socialists.

Hell there’s deeply racist people out there who are often more upfront about what they believe than you guys are.

[AtorBoltox]

Going all in on white identity politics reaped dividends for the GOP

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The voters we're talking about are open to voting Democratic and live in extremely important states for the Electoral College. It's insane to push them away for cultural reasons.

If Dems really go all in on identity politics, than i would hope that Trump wins a second term. They'll never learn it.

What’s the point in having a socialist avatar if you only care to discuss issues of economic injustice for white men? Just be honest about the fact that Democrats talking about racial, gender, and lgbt issues makes you too uncomfortable and that you’re not really socialists.

Hell there’s deeply racist people out there who are often more upfront about what they believe than you guys are.

I have no problem with LGBTQ, gender and racial issues. I just don't want yet another campaign again focused on identity, and we see the same thing in every other country again. I believe in diversity, but i also believe in selecting the best candidate, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation. I won't vote for a candidate because she's a woman. I will vote for the candidate who's best fit to be in office, and if that turns out to be a woman, than that's great. In my opinion, Obama's was a very good and inspiring president, and he was black. But i don't want to force diversity on things like affirmative action, which can discriminate whites or males if they are the best candidates for that certain job.

I just want to go back to times like ten years ago, where there was much less PC'ness / SJW'ness going on in reality and when politicians were more focused on issues that concern all of us. Things like climate change, economic equality (raising minimum wages) and all of that are more urgent, than what's happening now and honestly alienating me. And the elitists and liberals all over the world focuses on social issues to distract us from what really matters today.

And yes, the other camp is terrible too which is outright racist. I don't like to be associated with either camp.

[izixs]

The voters we're talking about are open to voting Democratic and live in extremely important states for the Electoral College. It's insane to push them away for cultural reasons.

If Dems really go all in on identity politics, than i would hope that Trump wins a second term. They'll never learn it.

What’s the point in having a socialist avatar if you only care to discuss issues of economic injustice for white men? Just be honest about the fact that Democrats talking about racial, gender, and lgbt issues makes you too uncomfortable and that you’re not really socialists.

Hell there’s deeply racist people out there who are often more upfront about what they believe than you guys are.

I have no problem with LGBTQ, gender and racial issues. I just don't want yet another campaign again focused on identity, and we see the same thing in every other country again. I believe in diversity, but i also believe in selecting the best candidate, regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation. I won't vote for a candidate because she's a woman. I will vote for the candidate who's best fit to be in office, and if that turns out to be a woman, than that's great. In my opinion, Obama's was a very good and inspiring president, and he was black. But i don't want to force diversity on things like affirmative action, which can discriminate whites or males if they are the best candidates for that certain job.

I just want to go back to times like ten years ago, where there was much less PC'ness / SJW'ness going on in reality and when politicians were more focused on issues that concern all of us. Things like climate change, economic equality (raising minimum wages) and all of that are more urgent, than what's happening now and honestly alienating me. And the elitists and liberals all over the world focuses on social issues to distract us from what really matters today.

And yes, the other camp is terrible too which is outright racist. I don't like to be associated with either camp.

I think its important to draw a distinction between a candidate who is running on a platform of "I am an X!" and a candidate who is running on a platform of "I will protect/enfranchise/ect folks who are X, Y, and Z!" The latter suggests an engagement with the realities of the world while the former is a cynical attempt to get votes without offering anything substantive. In total from a comparison of my experiences with the Obama 08 and Clinton 16 campaigns, though both had some elements of both, Obama was more the second while Clinton more the first. Which may be one of the reasons you're off put by the whole notion as it is the more recent of the two.

Anyway! Economic, environmental, and related issues are keenly linked to gender and race in the US, so it is irresponsible to try to cut them apart. Race is the most obviously linked due to the long running massive disparity of economic power between whites and minorities, and to a lesser degree on gender lines, but again, women are still underpaid compared to men for the same work. On the environmental front, its a lot easier for a company to set up a potentially dangerous chemical plant near a black neighborhood than it is a white neighborhood. Part of the reason is the economic power, but also the power structures that exist in most communities are deferential to such planning options. After all its seen as 'good' if the dangerous industry ends up next to the poor black people over there as suddenly they have 'good paying' jobs with only some long term draw backs to their health that might be intentionally understated when approval is acquired by the city, so its all good, right?

In the US, money is the primary means for oppression of minorities and women. Keep the money with the white guys in the hyper capitalist status quo, and everyone else has only limited power. Try to fix an issue like income inequality though, and suddenly folks other than white men start having the economic mobility that they possess, and thus are no longer unable to change the status quo. There are millions of white Americans who are deathly afraid that even one non-white person or family moves into their neighborhood. And in many a place they'll even get violent about it. And so to prevent that, they oppose any change that might empower the powerless under the current economic system as it might upset their exclusive whites only communities, schools, and institutions.

Its important to understand part of the motivation for why folks keep supporting bonkers Republican economics you see. For there is a huge racial component to it that no one ever wants to talk about. Because either it makes them uncomfortable, one doesn't see the connection, or one thinks only the 'PC police' or what ever boogieman conservatives have invented are the only ones trying to make the connection but are being actively slandered to make the message go unheard.

If you truly want to move out of the shadow of capitalism, tackling this sickness that drives many to take up policies that prevent improvement for all is essential. And that sickness is bigotry.

[Kamala's side hoe]

The Democrats should not abandon racial justice issues. That's a straw man... and there's nothing wrong with what Warren, Gillibrand, and Sanders are quoted by in this article. But... anyone who actually pays attention to social justice warriors knows they go farther than that. They'll say stuff like you can't be racist against white people (false), that if white people want to be allies to POC they need to leave their own minds and expectation of respect at the door, that all white people are racist, that no white person they've ever met can be trusted with good advice for them... it's racism. Sure politicians aren't endorsing these views, but it's in the underbelly.

This. You can be pro-social justice but anti-SJW. Most concrete criticism of "SJWs" I've seen online and among my RL friend group has been on gender issues and radical Islam.

[pbrower2a]

The Democrats shouldn’t be distracted by identity politics. They should instead be focused exclusively on the politics of the working class in the white rural areas of PA, MI, and WI and cater to their needs only. That is the answer.

They can target specific ethnic groups through selective advertising (such as in choosing to air certain ads on radio stations with largely-black or largely-Hispanic audience or in publications that break toward such groups).  But that is nothing new, Republicans advertising heavily in publications and other media with heavily-conservative users.

Republicans already play up white identity.

[blacknwhiterose]

This one, the NPC meme,

What is NPC???

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Democrats should not abandon racial justice issues. That's a straw man... and there's nothing wrong with what Warren, Gillibrand, and Sanders are quoted by in this article. But... anyone who actually pays attention to social justice warriors knows they go farther than that. They'll say stuff like you can't be racist against white people (false), that if white people want to be allies to POC they need to leave their own minds and expectation of respect at the door, that all white people are racist, that no white person they've ever met can be trusted with good advice for them... it's racism. Sure politicians aren't endorsing these views, but it's in the underbelly.

This. You can be pro-social justice but anti-SJW. Most concrete criticism of "SJWs" I've seen online and among my RL friend group has been on gender issues and radical Islam.

But "SJW" is such a vague buzzword that it seems to mean whatever to people want to define it as. Some would describe advocacy of social justice at all as being an "SJW." It's a term that needs to not be used unirionically. It's does nothing but muddy the waters.

[Person Man]

It's 2018. Everyone is "all in on identity politics". Isn't that what Trump is about ?

[Kamala's side hoe]

The Democrats should not abandon racial justice issues. That's a straw man... and there's nothing wrong with what Warren, Gillibrand, and Sanders are quoted by in this article. But... anyone who actually pays attention to social justice warriors knows they go farther than that. They'll say stuff like you can't be racist against white people (false), that if white people want to be allies to POC they need to leave their own minds and expectation of respect at the door, that all white people are racist, that no white person they've ever met can be trusted with good advice for them... it's racism. Sure politicians aren't endorsing these views, but it's in the underbelly.

This. You can be pro-social justice but anti-SJW. Most concrete criticism of "SJWs" I've seen online and among my RL friend group has been on gender issues and radical Islam.

But "SJW" is such a vague buzzword that it seems to mean whatever to people want to define it as. Some would describe advocacy of social justice at all as being an "SJW." It's a term that needs to not be used unirionically. It's does nothing but muddy the waters.

I think Beet and I have enough shared life experiences to have a similar understanding of what we mean by “SJW”. It includes certain connotations of whiteness, Buzzfeed, groupthink, vocal fry, and lack of perspective that not every left-leaning activist or political commentator embodies.

For other people, those qualities may be synonymous and interchangeable with political activism.

[Intell]

All identity politics is class politics. The democratic party should stand for the working class irrespective of their race, sexual orientation, gender etc.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

All identity politics is class politics. The democratic party should stand for the working class irrespective of their race, sexual orientation, gender etc.

This.

[NEW JERSEY FOR MENENDEZ]

All identity politics is class politics. The democratic party should stand for the working class irrespective of their race, sexual orientation, gender etc.

This.

Both of you aren’t Americans lol

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

All identity politics is class politics. The democratic party should stand for the working class irrespective of their race, sexual orientation, gender etc.

This.

Yeah, that's not identity politics here. It's catering to made-up genders, the "oppression olympics", and anything anti-white male (white females now being grouped in as well). 

It's "intersectionalism" where 3rd-wave feminists stand with Muslims because "oppression" yet they hate the white male patriarchy, but the Sharia Law Arab patriarchy is A-OK. 

These people are a brainwashed minority mostly entrenched in coastal colleges spreading their intellectual bile like a plague on the continent where they can do the most damage and are hardest to remove.

If the Dems are dumb enough to follow these idiotic cultural Marxists and make it part of their main platform; you'll see a red tsunami in 2020.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

If Dems really go all in on identity politics, than i would hope that Trump wins a second term. They'll never learn it.

So Republican appeals to men based on being "disadvantaged" by "fake accusations" like they did after the Kavanaugh fracas doesn't qualify as "identity politics" to you?

Yeah nevermind i was wrong about that. But yes both sides are terrible. I wished politicians would start caring about issues that matter.

I'm just very disappointed in Democrats since the HRC fiasco, and i just can't hide that fact.

Thank you for clearly exhibiting the root cause behind the “anti-identity politics” crusade: it’s the notion among too many people that any non-economic issue isn’t “an issue that matters,” usually because it doesn’t apply to them. It’s real easy for white people in Iowa to say that racial discrimination isn’t a “real issue” the way that healthcare is, because they never experience it.

Some of you need to understand that social policy has massive ramifications on the lives of many, even if it doesn’t affect you personally. Gay marriage might not be a priority for a majority of straight Americans, but for the gay community, it’s a life-changing matter. Unfortunately, much of the American public can not fathom that their individual interests can’t always be the center of attention. I would think that people who describe themselves as liberal would understand how damaging or uplifting social policy can be among minority demographics, but it seems as though many on this site and elsewhere find social issues as “distractions.”