***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[Beans]

Political parties should make sure that [women/latino/black women/asian/ect] feel like a valued part of their coalition.


but when it becomes about men, or black men it's suddenly like "why, what's the point?"

Hmm that’s an interesting take.. considering we have seen some real convo lately about the importance of black men with this coalition.

 

[cubanref]

People's feelings got hurt cause Obama called a spade a spade but it is what it is with all the lies, conspiracies and hate being pushed from republicans

 

[IATT]

 

[p0tat0 5alad]

10% of white women is much larger than 10% of black men so we can stop acting like black folks are going to be THE reason either candidate loses.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

There seem to be two different groups under discussion:

1. Misogynist dudes who just don’t accept women as equals and will never vote for a woman.

2. Guys who believe women are their equals, but who don’t think the Democrats are offering them anything.

I think to the extent 2) exists, it makes sense to message to them. And I think that there’s no point in this cycle, with a female candidate, to cater much to 1).

I guess the real question is how much of the shift in voting patterns has to do with 1 vs 2. How many of each are there?

To me, 2 feels a lot like all the economic anxiety excuses we heard in 2016, but I guess Trump’s increase in support against Biden suggests there’s at least a few people in that camp.

But honestly, if the Dem’s are going to pivot strategy and messaging to pick off voters, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t focus more on white males which have much, much greater numbers. I mean, just throw DIE and/or affirmative action under the bus, declare racism over, and stop calling out micro aggressions and you’d probably win over way more white people that you’ve lost black men.

Throw in some strong anti-immigrant rhetoric in there too for good measure. Trade off on Latino voters is likely worth it. I mean, I’d Dems really want to win, they can shift the entire party to the right. Bill Clinton showed the way years ago.

 

[IATT]

 

[dacomeup]

This is why complaining about what Obama said makes little sense to me. Those voters have already rejected the messenger.

And my point is that if the Dems are just willing to let them walk away then that’s a massive problem for the future of the party.



Thread if we wanna go this route, though.

 

[Dhizzle]

It’s not wild to say that the 45% of voters are either brainwashed, severely uneducated, don’t care, this lying is funny (makes him a cool dude), or extremely rich that will benefit from his scams

The rest of us 55% just want a better tomorrow. Plain and *** simple.

 

[IATT]

 

[dacomeup]

Can you speak more on the , "big societal risk" point that you made? What was said to be the potential risks here?

I come in peace.

I mean, we see the effects already. Mass shooters, domestic violence, male relationships being very surface level and studies of loneliness increasing, suicide, the Manosphere shaping the youth. These are all risks to society, especially with as women shift further left.

 

[Beans]

There seem to be two different groups under discussion:

1. Misogynist dudes who just don’t accept women as equals and will never vote for a woman.

2. Guys who believe women are their equals, but who don’t think the Democrats are offering them anything.

I think to the extent 2) exists, it makes sense to message to them. And I think that there’s no point in this cycle, with a female candidate, to cater much to 1).

I guess the real question is how much of the shift in voting patterns has to do with 1 vs 2. How many of each are there?

To me, 2 feels a lot like all the economic anxiety excuses we heard in 2016, but I guess Trump’s increase in support against Biden suggests there’s at least a few people in that camp.

But honestly, if the Dem’s are going to pivot strategy and messaging to pick off voters, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t focus more on white males which have much, much greater numbers. I mean, just throw DIE and/or affirmative action under the bus, declare racism over, and stop calling out micro aggressions and you’d probably win over way more white people that you’ve lost black men.

Throw in some strong anti-immigrant rhetoric in there too for good measure. Trade off on Latino voters is likely worth it. I mean, I’d Dems really want to win, they can shift the entire party to the right. Bill Clinton showed the way years ago.

So you are suggesting Dems essentially become reps? Or is the joke missed on me lol

 

[dacomeup]

People's feelings got hurt cause Obama called a spade a spade but it is what it is with all the lies, conspiracies and hate being pushed from republicans

Posts like this are completely missing the point

 

[dacomeup]

10% of white women is much larger than 10% of black men so we can stop acting like black folks are going to be THE reason either candidate loses.

Right, but how many of those white women are voting Harris for reproductive rights? Is that a reliable constituency that the Dems want to depend on moving forward? Black men have been a part of the Democratic base for decades

But honestly, if the Dem’s are going to pivot strategy and messaging to pick off voters, I’m not sure why they wouldn’t focus more on white males which have much, much greater numbers. I mean, just throw DIE and/or affirmative action under the bus, declare racism over, and stop calling out micro aggressions and you’d probably win over way more white people that you’ve lost black men.

Highly doubt this would work, but then alienate Black women, who are the most reliably constituency? Yea, not smart.

 

[Beans]

While I agree I think it’s something they can build upon. However, it shouldn’t come at the cost of not tackling issues across all demographics

 

[IATT]

 

[cubanref]

Posts like this are completely missing the point

How so?

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[Public Enemy]

Liz Cheney issues dire warning about ‘fundamentally cruel’ Trump, agrees he’s a ‘fascist’

The former GOP representative from Wyoming said Vice President Kamala Harris, if elected, “will lead with a sincere heart” as “someone who’s dedicated her life to public service.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[gry60]

irrational does not mean random.

I didn't use the word to mean random. I used it to mean "outside of logic." I don't know how "random" fits in my post.

there beliefs derive from the way the two parties present themselves. democrats can change the way they present themselves.

No, those beliefs derive from a combination of the ideas they believe in, their experiences, their knowledge/education, the environment in which they grew up/live, and the people surrounding them. Nobody can quantify the extent to which these factors matter other than the voters themselves.

The parties don't shape their values; they go to the parties that best represent (or are willing to accept) those values. That's why we have independent voters.

no it wouldn't, you can run as a woman and you can present yourself as a party that believes men are an important part of the coalition. that like half the reason they chose tim walz.

the reason i think it's a cop out, because rather than doing the hard work of figuring out how to appeal to these people. it's way easier to just write them off totally.

A large majority of Black men continue to support the Democratic party and see themselves in its policies.

For the minority of voters we are talking about, what work is there to do? They already told us who they'd like (and wouldn't like) as president. What kind of messaging are you trying to craft? "with the Kamala child tax credit, you'll be able to afford more ammo"? Duh! They know this! They just don't want to have to defend Kamala's policies among their macho friends. You said it yourself, they're simple-minded...

Irrational =/= random.
wanting purpose, wanting to fulfill gendered expectations, is a totally normal human behavior,
you can call it irrational, but most humans behave this way.

I don't know why men should/would be different.

That's a very interesting argument here, because I don't know how keeping capable women from power helps those men fulfill their own purpose, unless their purpose is in controlling how much achievements the women in their life can have. If so, that is a very insecure perspective and a representation of the zero-sum view of social dynamics that pervades the men's rights debate.

If you believe in this zero-sum view, I don't think the Democratic party can craft a compelling message for you. It's the same perspective that is the foundation of anti-immigration and xenophobic attitudes; none of this constitutes the core of the democratic platform.

learned helplessness. Democratic party became more feminine culturally from like 2016-2020, and it turns out some percentage men aren't into it.

If this is a general statement, I will highly disagree with you because the perception of the Democratic party varies depending on where one is in the country and the issues that matter in that area. In my neck of the woods, people vote Democrat because of their policies on unions, wages, and healthcare. We don't have the issue of restricted abortion, so it doesn't matter to us. Democratic elected officials are mostly men.

The only way this statement makes sense to me is if you look at the increasingly negative messaging of the GOP towards women (especially college educated and/or professionals - including tradeswomen here) over that period of time. If so, you're complaining that the Democratic has refused to follow the GOP's cultural attitude towards women, resulting in more women identifying with it.

And I don't see a problem with it.

these voters aren't acting randomly, they are responding to real messaging decisions by the democratic party.

if they change the messaging, they can appeal to these voters.

They are acting irrationally, and they are hearing the message of the Democratic party through communication filters (media or personal networks) that confirm what they believe.

 

[dacomeup]

How so?

Is the point to scold people or to try to get them to vote Dem?

 

[Public Enemy]

 

[gry60]

And my point is that if the Dems are just willing to let them walk away then that’s a massive problem for the future of the party.

See my response to Osh.

It's not a willingness to watch those voters walk away; it's realizing that they can't craft a message that will keep them in without losing other demographics, especially when the GOP is willing to embrace the "women, submit to your husband" brand of messaging, which resonates with the religious values most Black people grew up with.

The only solution is to cultivate the next batch of voters out of the 51% who don't regularly vote. If we're being honest, the GOP not following the 2013 autopsy of an election and diving head first into neo-confederacy and racism bought Democrats a lot of time to stay relevant. I could already see the shift away from the Dems happening back then, especially after the legalization of gay marriage.

 

[cubanref]

Is the point to scold people or to try to get them to vote Dem?

I get where you're coming from but at this point if you're a minority and still voting/supporting trump than I'm scolding you.

It's like trying to educate a conspiracy theorist... doesn't matter what evidence you have to prove your point they will always have an excuse.