As is the denial of white privilege and structural racism. As is anti-Muslim sentiment (it's not purely a matter of Christian supremacy). As is the opposition to *certain* immigrants.

Opposition to feminism is rooted in sexism. As is opposition to equal pay for women.

Opposition to LGBTQ rights is rooted in heterosexism.

So, please stop saying that only a fraction of Trump supporters (or Republicans more generally) are bigots. It's embarrassing.

1) the Democratic Party must do all it can to combat voter suppression

2) the Democratic Party should make a big stink about gerrymandering

3) the Democratic Party should promote media literacy and critical thinking in schools, while drawing attention to the GOP's complicity in people subscribing to patently false beliefs

4) the Democratic Party should draw attention to the media's obsession with spectacle and penchant for false equivalencies, while promoting media responsibility (because long overdue is a strong pushback against the "liberal media" narrative; and the airwaves are part of "the commons"

5) Neither Clinton nor Sanders will be the nominee in 2020

Agree? Partially agree? Disagree completely?

Given the way people keep referring to social justice and economic justice (the latter being a component of the former), I thought it worth sharing some definitions. And I think this is relevant to the postmortem because much of the post-election analysis is rooted in a misunderstanding of those terms.

From the Center for Economic and Social Justice:



From Wikipedia:

I could nitpick aspects of the following piece, but I think it makes many an excellent point: "4 Completely Wrong Post-Election Things Democrats Are Fighting About"







That 2nd excerpt contains points I've made numerous times. If a portion of the *white* working class has much different priorities or desires than the working class as a whole, one need not think too long and hard about why that might be.

It's fine to like Bernie and his message. Most Democrats probably agree with him on most things. But without support of the base, it doesn't matter.

There have been plenty of threads about whether or not Sanders would have won had he been the nominee. Posts about aspects of his past that may have caused serious problems, posts about how Bloomberg would have run, speculation about what turnout would have been like, etc. ***THIS THREAD IS NOT INTENDED TO PRODUCE MORE OF THE SAME***

The writing was on the wall after Super Tuesday. Many of us were saying back in March that it was clear Clinton would become the nominee. The race was essentially over after March 15, if not after Super Tuesday. And caucuses, which are undemocratic, are the only reason the race was even remotely close.

Clinton had the support of the base. Sanders did not.

That's the reality. You may not like that reality, but it is what it is.

So, instead of arguing about whether or not Sanders would have beaten Trump, perhaps folks should be thinking about what it would take to produce a nominee in 2020 who speaks out strongly against plutocracy/corporatocracy *and* has the support of the Democratic Party base (and can, of course, pass the inevitable vetting process).

It will need to be someone who gets that not all disparities are rooted in class. Someone who views so-called social justice and so-called economic justice through the lens of a Venn diagram (there is a great deal of overlap and there are also important distinctions). Someone who has a proper appreciation for how historical injustices (both race-based and sex-based) continue to impact the present (to say nothing of ongoing institutionalized racism and sexism), and that even wealthy persons of color often get horribly mistreated based on race. Someone who gets that it's not enough to simply promote policies that help all poor people in the same way to the same extent.

***EDIT:

Defining the base: The base, for quite some time, has been predominantly POC, women and urban dwellers. The base is not nearly as fluid as some in this thread are claiming.

Will someone please answer that question?

Thanks in advance.

A) he continues to align with Wall Street and establishment types (no draining of the swamp)

B) he leads an effort to privatize Social Security, Medicare, public education, etc.

C) he doesn't destroy ISIS

D) he doesn't bring back millions of jobs that have been outsourced (and attempts to reduce the minimum wage to boot)

E) he doesn't withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal

F) he doesn't withdraw from the Paris Agreement

G) he does a 180 on civil rights and pisses off hate groups like the KKK (no mass deportations, no Muslim registry, full support of LGBTQ rights, full support of Black Lives Matter, etc.)

Which of the above would piss off the most Trump supporters?

Turn Texas blue. If Texas goes blue, Republicans will have no choice but to advocate for doing away with the electoral college. Or at least some sort of proportional allocation system.

Some seem to conflate two different arguments.

Obama has spoken about the importance of doing outreach to rural areas of purple states like Iowa so as to minimize the losses in those areas in order to carry the state. There are Democrats (not all of whom are white, by the way) in rural areas of purple states, and they (like any other group) are more likely to vote if they're the target of GOTV efforts. I, for one, think that's totally valid.

And then there's the argument that Democrats don't have a strong economic message (never mind the evidence to the contrary), or that they need to substantially alter their overall message.

Now, some may subscribe to both arguments, and that's fine. But let's not conflate the two.

I've seen one too many posts suggesting that "independents" are swing voters or non-partisan issue-based voters who must be appealed to, so let me once again address this myth.

A piece in The Nation offers the following excerpts:





And part of the rise in non-affiliateds can be attributed to young voters making up such a large bloc at this time in our history. Many will become affiliated by their late 20s.

More articles:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/americans-arent-becoming-more-politically-independent-they-just-like-saying-they-are/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/?utm_term=.ec8826153c83

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/10/why-people-call-themselves-independent-even-when-they-arent/?utm_term=.045cfbeb9ce1

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/independent-voters-are-overrated/