General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumssheshe2
(83,654 posts)They are our base.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)That is the only way sanity prevails there, African-Americans going big and a handful of moral Whites joining them.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)I really want Espy to win
sheshe2
(83,654 posts)allgood33
(1,584 posts)Even more need to come out and vote in proportion to the racism against them.
The is the "Black lives matter" that the GOP knows and fears.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I'll say it again, Republicans vote against their economic interests precisely because they are voting *for* their perceived cultural/social interests. The latter takes precedence.
So-called "independents" tend to be very partisan (not 'middle of the road'), include a disproportionate percentage of young people, and are not terribly reliable.
Given the above, who should we target in order to win? We win by turning out the base, in particular women and persons of color. It's not about "progressive" vs. non-progressive, or "far left" vs. moderate (it does not serve us well to fall into the trap of that narrative). Those candidates who have at least some grasp of oppression theory (or how systemic racism and sexism impacts life - and politics - in the United States) are needed. They are the ones who will lead us to the end of Republican Party viability. We must emphasize anti-racism and anti-sexism, not shy away from those things.
Cha
(296,846 posts)It's A No Brainer!
Brilliant.. so simple. And, yet..?
We must emphasize anti-racism and anti-sexism, not shy away from those things.
Mahalo nui loa, Garret!
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And, yet, too many bought into the inherently racist and disproven 2016 "white working class/economic anxiety" narrative. As I've written about at length: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11442020
And, yet, too many have bought into the "far left" vs. moderate narrative that causes division and alienation. As if some Democrats are progressive and others are regressive. As if there's some great divide over positions on issues. There isn't. The conflict that exists has been misdiagnosed, as I stated here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11436338
And, yet, I'm cautiously optimistic that we can eventually eradicate the Republican Party by greatly diminishing racism, sexism and their impact on society.
Cha
(296,846 posts)the ".. and yet?"
Exactly what so many of us have seen and know exactly what you're saying is so true. It's referred to constantly on Twitterverse basically saying the same.
A Grand and Honorable Goal!
Thank You again!
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)0rganism
(23,927 posts)how did it happen? i don't know, but the evidence is overwhelming.
Kahuna7
(2,531 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)This makes my heart happy.
Cha
(296,846 posts)Strongest Turnout in 2008, 2012, 2016, and now after two years of the Traitor and his Doormats dismantling all our Democratic Institutions, and selling American down the river to Russia and the Saudis.. they're were out in Force Again during the Famous Blue Wave of 2018.
I love them to pieces!
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)Cha
(296,846 posts)Please Check out Garrett's post, Tarheel..
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11457695
Tarheel_Dem
(31,222 posts)TeamPooka
(24,207 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Mark my words, we will see record-breaking Democratic turnout if she's our nominee.
Harris-O'Rourke would work for me.
Cha
(296,846 posts)in time.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)And I wasn't really on board with him being VP, but I've come around on that. Other possibilities include Klobuchar, Castro, Booker, Landrieu, Brown, Bullock, Kennedy, Murphy, etc.
Beto won me over with his statement about kneeling during the national anthem. Others may be more qualified, but he's damn impressive...and he would likely boost turnout even more.
TeamPooka
(24,207 posts)he could win the White house
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)I suppose a comparison might be made in the sense that Obama had only served at the federal level for a short time, as Beto has.
As for being a "winner," there's a world of difference between winning in Illinois and winning in Texas. Beto came damn close to pulling off the unthinkable. But I don't really want to turn this into a Beto vs. Obama thing, as that serves no purpose.
I simply wanted to say that I could support Beto being Kamala's running mate. That's all. I don't expect Beto to seek the nomination, and I hope that he doesn't. He has said that he won't, and I hope he stays true to that. That doesn't mean, of course, that he couldn't be selected as the nominee's running mate.
TeamPooka
(24,207 posts)Cha
(296,846 posts)capable of learning quickly on the job.
We'll see what happens by then.. there are so many Dems looking at the job.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)20+ seekers of the nomination will lead to a circus atmosphere, and we run the risk of drowning out some truly viable candidates.
If we start out with such a high number, I'm hoping we quickly see the field whittled down to just a handful.
And I really take issue with the way the primary is run, such as Iowa and New Hampshire having so much sway. But not much to be done on that score. For now I just take comfort in knowing we're moving away from caucuses.
Cha
(296,846 posts)A form of voter suppression.. and I hope "Open Primaries" too.
It's the Democratic Party candidate who's vying.. we should get to decide.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)If Joe and Camilla team up, that should be unbeatable.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)Granted Trump does a better job of exposing exactly what the GOP is, but the results we saw in 2018 should be the norm and not the except, the GOP is what it is with or without Trump.
UCmeNdc
(9,600 posts)If the true count of black voters were ever realized the Democratic Party would be winning everywhere. The GOP knows that. Hence, all of the voter suppression tactics the GOP uses.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)More of them voted in person or early voted in person this year. But some key blue areas still suffered mailin vote loss or rejection. I hope that in 2020, most AA vote in person, hooefully early so that any issues can be addressed.
handmade34
(22,756 posts)and almost 20 percent of potential black voters in Florida will now be able to vote!
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It is a huge mistake for anyone to alienate AA and POC voters by making "excuses" for racism. It's a very short-sighted approach for anyone (particularly our elected representative and/or candidates) to suggest that racist behavior isn't really racist. That type of thing serves no good purpose.
All I'm trying to say here is that anyone who would say such a thing needs to OWN IT for themselves, because it definitely does NOT represent what the Democratic Party is all about. As a party, the Democrats need to rise-up against such things, shine a harsh light on it, and call-it-out wherever it exists.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Also - all the more reason to work towards a presidential run with an AA woman at the top of the ticket.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That's a secondary consideration for me. Our party's nominee should be qualified and experienced. Our party's nominee should have a vision that embraces and promotes our party's ideals and platform. Our party's nominee should be a long-time loyal Democrat.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Experienced might be a little bit harder to come by since the power structure has favored white men for so many decades.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)But, I hope we can all agree that it's better to focus on a candidate's experience, knowledge, agenda, party-loyalty and character... rather than to risk the appearance of clumsy and overt pandering. I'll be honest with you, I believe that such things reflect poorly on the party and on anyone who advocates for them. We're better than that. All I'm trying to say here (and I know I'm repeating myself) is that it's a mistake to underestimate people. I believe that AA and POC voters are much smarter than many are inclined to give them credit for. They are able to make a smart and informed decision without being spoon-fed, and without the need to be primarily motivated to support our party's nominee by virtue of his/her skin color or gender.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Democrats would lose every national election forever without those voters.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)Or even to retain and expand?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)to this demographic group (half of 13.3% of the population) for their critically important contribution as a group.
But moving from the old days of making sure that they didn't count to considering that they count more than everyone else is the flip side of an old, corroded coin. Could we really take away an equal number of black male or white votes and it wouldn't matter? Those didn't "propel" anything?
How about a headline saying that the demographic group most committed to fighting for equality is black women, half of 13.3% of the population, and the least is white men? Simple truth.
As are the facts that the vote, when it can be cast and excepting the presidency, is truly equal and race-and-creed-irrelevant, that all committed, reliable Democratic voters regardless of color and creed are our base, and that our wins are all the result of the totality of the votes of everyone in our grand, diverse coalition.
I've got nothing to add. That was very nicely stated
tblue37
(65,227 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,438 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)God bless them all!