I generally enjoy your work, Keith, and don’t think you’re wrong that Democrats need to remain a big tent party, but this is so poorly researched and argued. For instance, you link to FAIRs website regarding Washington State’s use of racial preferences for the Covenant Homeownership Program and categorize it as “excluding white men from cheap homes.” If you did five seconds of research, you’d find that there are several first time homebuyer assistance programs in Washington State that do not have any sort of racial preferences (see, for instance, the Home Advantage Program) and that the Covenant Homeownership Program was established to specifically address government sanctioned housing discrimination against certain racial minority groups in Washington State (see https://wshfc.org/covenant/WSHFCWACHPFULLSTUDY32024.pdf#page14). To say that you mischaracterize the situation is an understatement. Similarly, you suggest that NY State Department of Health’s guidelines for prioritizing patient treatment of COVID-19 with Paxlovid and other anti-COVID-19 antivirals was “denying them [white men] access to vaccines” when the guidelines simply said race could be considered as one factor among many when determining who to prioritize for said treatment. Even if you disagree with those guidelines, that is not at all the same as “denying” white men vaccines.
But the bigger problem with this piece are two arguments you make:
First, you make it seem as though Democrats have abandoned their attempts to court white male voters altogether. The Harris-Walz Campaign (same with Hillary and Obama) did intentional, targeted outreach and advertising to white men throughout the campaign. You may argue that their attempts to sway or activate white male voters weren’t effective, and I’d certainly agree if you argued that those efforts weren’t the core focus or message of their campaign (although I don’t think that’s a bad thing given that white men haven’t been the base of the Democratic Party in many, many years), but that’s quite different than arguing that Democrats aren’t acting as if white men vote. Additionally, the examples you highlight of politicos excluding or vilifying white men (to the extent that they’re accurately conveyed in those articles) are from people who represent one wing of several within the Democratic Party. As a sidenote, given the headline and argument for this piece, it’s kind of rich to link to a story about Bowman… who lost to a white male Democrat in the primary.
Second, you state that Republicans deliberately avoided engaging in identity politics— a hilariously laughable proposition. Did you forget Trump claiming Harris suddenly became Black? Or his denigration of “Democrat run cities” as bastions of crime and chaos? Or his comments about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, OH? Or his rhetoric that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of this country”? Or the ads claiming that Harris supported taxpayer covered surgeries for transgender people in prison? I refuse to believe that you’re so naive as to believe that those examples (and many others) do not constitute the deliberate engagement with identity politics. Their campaigns and rhetoric may not speak to your identity or mine, but they are absolutely crafted and deployed with the intent of angering, activating, motivating, etc. white voters, and white male voters in particular.
Seems really easy to not violate the 14th amendment by openly discriminating based on race. If a city or state feels like it absolutely must do so, just do what the republicans do and discriminate against an attribute that is highly correlated to race but isn’t covered by the 14th amendment. Credit score seems like an obvious example when it comes to the Washington housing thing.
I believe you are right and Dems need to make room in the tent for low-income working class white me who are struggling to feel any of that 'white male privilege' when they can't both feed their family and pay the bills. They are not going to vote Dem as long as their struggles are dismissed and instead they are blamed as causing the struggles for everyone else. Maybe we should hone the message against the obviously privileged and oligarchy and welcome in the men who BE allies if they HAD allies.
White men of today aren't responsible for slavery. Why did you reach that far back in history instead of simply reaching for more recent systemic racism like Jim Crow, red lining, the war on drugs, the welfare queen trope, gerrymandering, the wealth and wage gap, etc. that does affect Black people alive today? So a party that has aligned itself with white supremacy, maga, takes control of our government and your white man response is to ignore race and focus on the poor white man that's been left behind? I could literally be starving and in need of cancer treatment that that dead CEO wouldn't have approved and I still wouldn't have voted for trump's maga republican party because they are everything that decent white men have fought against. Trump won the majority of uneducated voters, racists and the super wealthy. We need to focus on more public education and less on rolling back the civil rights progress we've made, as white men! Zero tolerance for the intolerant. This election was won on the basis of race. White supremacy. Check your privilege again.
Driving out Bernie and jumping over AOC are bad moves by dems. The true oppressors in fact are wealthy white men. Perhaps what is needed is a new identity in identity politics: what are the needs of the 80% vs the top 20%. The party looks on the poor from afar( it needs to become the party of the people left behind in the ever increasing income disparities. It needs to be real and not muted by the interests of our very wealthy dem leaders and their donors.
We need to push the class issue and dems must not cave to the interests of the very rich. The democrats must confront and end the control of the party by the wealthy
You aren't going to win this demographic when there is so much money dedicated to screaming at them from the other side that helping anyone ever hurts them. They want to be the front of the line to get helped or tear the system down in protest. The implication behind the America First motto is how dare you help somebody else first. Helping sick people isn't fair to healthy people, helping college grads isn't fair to non-college workers and so on (despite Biden's investments in trade schools as well).
You say the democrats adoption of civil rights drove the south away but like it wasn't explicitly the Republican plan to stir up a base around civil rights issues with the famous "Southern Strategy".
Reagan realized that getting people to vote against their own interests was telling them the system helped black people, like with the whole "Welfare Queens" stereotypes he pushed.
You're right the bigger tent needs to be bigger but these are the least willing to be reached voters you are talking about because they know how much they benefit. They like identity politics as long as it's their identity being pushed
Winning then isn’t the point necessarily. Regaining some of them is enough. More simply, if you want to be the inclusive party (and we do) then really do it. We can work to minimize white privilege and the patriarchy without making Uncle Mike feel like Trump is his only option.
Especially when Uncle Mike has felt powerless and abandoned his whole life. Did he have advantages over black Uncle Mike or Aunt Terry? All things being equal he did. Uncle Mike wasn’t pulled over every time he drove or followed around every store. He never got paid $.70 on the dollar or had his symptoms ignored at the doctor.
But that doesn’t mean he was in control of any of those things. He didn’t do it, the rich and powerful have set up the inherently flawed institutions.
Until we change the message from what’s wrong and who is responsible he won’t hear us. It’s the difference between saying “you’ve had it easier than many others” and “we are all getting screwed somehow by the top 1%”. Because that is the reality, every other division only benefits them.
I don't disagree but you are describing what dems are already doing. When was the last time a primary presidential candidate said "white privilege"? Biden is trying to talk about unions and trade schools in addition to college help. Harris gave big speeches about an economy that works for all. The counter to that was for GOP to suddenly care about protecting women, specifically women's sports?
People will say they voted a certain way because of the price of cereal but those same people re-elected Bush during higher gas prices, while pushing for invasions that got Americans killed and started wars because.... they were worried about gay marriage. That was my family and no amount of empathizing with them or showing them the right facts would have changed it. The party and it's followers have only gotten less flexible since 2016.
All the 1% arguments bounce of billionaire Trump like he's teflon. Dems lost because turnout was low. As Buttegeige said in the 2019 debate Republicans will call them "crazy socialists" no matter what policy we run so we might as well run something that matters.
" but these are the least willing to be reached voters you are talking about because they know how much they benefit."
The point Keith makes, and that I agree with, is that they DON'T know how much they benefit.
I am not sure how to change the conversation, other than emphasizing the shared unfairness, but it does need to shift. That or we lose a constituency that needs Dem policies and that Dems need to win.
I totally agree with what you said! I voted Democrat but the majority of my family voted Republican.They said all they heard was help for the Middle Class very little about Working Class! They are Small Town or Rural. High School Graduates not College because they felt that they could not afford it.They were struggling to survive!! The men felt that because the were white they got all the blame for what's wrong in the country! I tried to explain that the president didn't set the prices but company leaders did! I was told I lived in the big city to long.i pointed out that I am a High School Graduate, worked retail for over forty years as clerk and low management, I was struggling too. They said why wasn't I voting for Rump he was going to save us, I said he is going to make it worse! They felt Forgotten!!
Where are they getting their news? Did they watch a single Kamala speech? They didn't see anything about economy for all?
My family is a similar situation I get how hard it is to talk to them. What would have broken through? What would they have seen if she worked it into her campaign?
This article is a breath of fresh air, and it's a shame that there's so many ignorant people in the comments section. Like it or not, white men make up about 33% of the population and if you think dumping on 1/3 of voters is a good strategy then you need to take a remedial math class. Nobody's asking anyone to "pander to white men". It is entirely possible to fight for women, minorities, LGBT+ folks, and others without dumping on white guys in the process. Figure out how before the 2026 midterms come around, Democrats, or we're all screwed.
Bottom line in 2024 was that white men and others could not accept a black/brown WOMAN as president. We Democrats need to vet our candidates before putting them forward. I was all in for Kamala, BTY.
It's that simple...this was the controlling issue. All the stuff about white men? Silly, superficial crap from people who can't see controlling issues, and do not question what they think prior to sharing naked assertions - mere conclusions that can't be logically supported with facts. We know white men can't jump, and a shit ton can't get beyond their bigotry - irrational sets against people of color and women.
Excellent observations. As it stands now, boys are falling behind in schools from grade to college education. They are convinced (perhaps correctly) that if they are competing for a job, he’ll never stand a chance if there is a person of color in the running. Time’s up on putting a thumb on the scales to “even out” the result. Democrats will never improve their numbers unless they can attract men and not repulse them.
Pretty delusional to say that the Republican Party didn’t run on identity politics in 2024. Other than that, spot on.
The views of white men are not inherently bad or inferior because they’re held by white men and yet the attitude that they are is extremely prevalent among the online left. I personally don’t feel excluded from the Democratic Party because of my whiteness and maleness, but I don’t base my vote on what the idiots on Twitter have to say or what the idiots on TV have to say about the idiots on Twitter.
Somehow even the stated goals of the Republican presidential candidate himself are not taken seriously by voters but those same voters perceive the ramblings of extremely online Twitter users as policy proposals straight from the DNC platform.
I am 82, too young to be this old, and willing to admit that from so much experience, I have, regrettably, become too fucking enlighten, and hear how I sound from decades of intermittent therapy as a "recovering narcissist" suffering from a personality disorder - diagnosed 40 years ago as - over caring. If I have not lost you yet, here's my take on how Dems need to be, not just talk.
The controlling issue was not about not talking to white men...wtf? But first, about what MLK Jr. observed so long ago: no group has suffered more prejudice than people of color, except for women. I worked for the Harris/Walz campaign, no one in my lifetime has deserved more the Kamal Harris to be in the Oval. And I did what almost no one but members of my small group did after the Russian Asset was unlawfully elected to the Oval, as 100 GOP electors was un qualified under the electoral clause. This is what I led into SCOTUS: www.citizensfortruth.net
This is not about me, but a track record is a past that is prologue to support conclusions that may be contrary to assertions/opinions that are mere conclusions un supported by facts.
Democrats must recognize they cannot overcome latent prejudice with a great candidate to break ceilings. Harris was double whammied, and worse too many Dems did not properly value the achievements of Joe Biden - aided by his great VP - that achieved transformative legislation of beneficial interest the to the public good.
Furthermore, it's time to recognize:
The FCC dismantled The Rule Against Cross Ownership which enabled the vast CONCENTRATED MEDIA POWER, so that 6 sociopathic billionaire men own/control 90% of news sources and media outlets. And these sociopaths are akin to German industrialists in 1933 who either supported or went along with Hitler. So the so-called lib media, even the august NY Times were not for Biden or Dems, even ran unabashed hit pieces against Biden...read some of Baker's outright shit. CNN moderators silence in the face of the Russian Asset's lies, who did not support an ill great President, was deafening.
Public ed has been defunded, siphoned off to KKKristian charters. Civic high school courses are MIA, so kids are not learning the meaning of Democracy or the role of responsible citizens to question and analyze candidates. They get information on Tic Toc and are glued to hooky headlines on devices. So the US has turned out a generation of DEVICE THINKERS, who can't be bothered by lies or a search for truth. They are entitled to their own opinion no matter how fucked up?
There is too much focus on touchy feely politically correct verbal and written behavior, not enough explicit explanation/education of what Democrats have actually done to shore up the public good - and they can't rely on the Fourth Estate that has become non partisan - but about TRUTH. Has the DNC ever sent out a bulleted list with what they have done and what Republicans have blocked/obstructed. Nope, the send out questions to find out hot buttons that are designed to elicit donations - not understanding!
So this article is, at best superficial, and designed to support the ludicrous assumption about talking to BIGOTTED MISOGYNISTS. This bears repeating, Dems must get pragmatic... and run candidates in the future who have the best chance to win to rescue Democracy. And it is self-evident the great feelings flowing from attempting to break ceilings, and all the feely touchy stuff, is not a path to victory. Policies that make sense to protect and improve the public good will never be enacted without more Democrats in Congress and State Houses. This should be self-evident, but it's not to single voter issue libs or the far leftists - who prefer self-defeating behavior to electing people who can fill glasses to 70 or even 50% full.
> no one in my lifetime has deserved more the Kamal Harris to be in the Oval
Kamala Harris was a literal real life DEI hire for VP. Biden specifically said his VP was going to be a black woman before the decision was made. No better qualified white man would have gotten the position. Which is largely fine in the case of VP because it’s a meaningless job with no actual role or authority.
She was a state Attorney General and a one term Senator. She wasn’t qualified to be President by any stretch of the imagination and would never have won an open primary in 2024.
Also no one “deserves” to be President and this mentality is why Clinton was the nominee and why the democrats lost in 2016. Fuck whoever “deserves” it. Nominate someone who can actually win.
I’m not going to address the rest of your schizophrenic screed.
Not playing psych tag, debating irrelevant assertions. So you are one of the open primary malcontents...who thought an open clusterfuck would be more Democratic? Hold long did it take to certify Harris unanimously? See DSM 5 to determine your particular personality disorder. schizo screed - lol. Clearly you have no clue about 2016.. I do and went SCOTUS to correct it: www.citizensfortruth.net what do you do - opine with assertions and mere conclusions which are unsupported by facts. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) the Supreme Court opined: “…a complaint will not suffice if it tenders ‘naked’ assertions[s] devoid of factual enhancement.” “…Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. …”
After enough MAGAs & regular republicans feel the pain & suffer the effects of all the damage done by trump, perhaps they'll think twice about voting republican the next time!!!
adding, there is no excuse for not voting for Harris, and or Hillary. Harris and Dems did their utmost to communicate, but there is a citizen's very clear obligation to be involved in due diligence and support the Constitution. AND NOTHING COULD BE CLEARER THAT PUTIN'S PUPPET, A CONVICTED RAPIST & FELON, WHO FOMENTED, INSTIGATED & LED THE TREASON J6 COUP --- SHOULD NOT GET ANY VOTES. So this is on all the women who voted for the misogynist cruel GOPs & the rapist.
Ludicrous. Was HRC, who won by 3M votes, subject to hostility by Dems or was it Sanders Progressive Marxist Socialists, because, as Bernie was accustomed to bleating - Hillary is not progressive enough. So a lousy 70K total progressive votes for Green Jill Stein, the Russian Stalking Horse, in 3 Swing States cost HRC the electoral election and America a Great President. Democracy was the loser.
The Democratic New Deal Coalition was based on delivering economic results to working people. When 1960's Democrats stopped supporting the New Deal through their economic policy that coalition would eventually collapse.
Economics no longer worked for Democrats as it once had. Democrat shifted to identity politics in the 1970's in reflection of this reality. Republicans also went to identity politics because their economic policy offered little to working people. The also began a policy of lying in gradually increasing amounts so by today they have a base completely unaffected by lies.
You continue to misunderstand all the same things you misunderstood at the beginning of the election. You and those like you completely torpedoed the coalition necessary to win. Because of this type nonsense that elitists care about. You don’t put on side of the coalition against the other. You reinforce the positives of the coalition. You did the opposite while openly lying to people about the competency of Biden and then Harris. You can’t go on about how amazing Biden is then watch his political death on live TV and then use all the same exact talking points about Harris. People have memories longer than goldfish. You are illustrating exactly how little you learned.
I generally enjoy your work, Keith, and don’t think you’re wrong that Democrats need to remain a big tent party, but this is so poorly researched and argued. For instance, you link to FAIRs website regarding Washington State’s use of racial preferences for the Covenant Homeownership Program and categorize it as “excluding white men from cheap homes.” If you did five seconds of research, you’d find that there are several first time homebuyer assistance programs in Washington State that do not have any sort of racial preferences (see, for instance, the Home Advantage Program) and that the Covenant Homeownership Program was established to specifically address government sanctioned housing discrimination against certain racial minority groups in Washington State (see https://wshfc.org/covenant/WSHFCWACHPFULLSTUDY32024.pdf#page14). To say that you mischaracterize the situation is an understatement. Similarly, you suggest that NY State Department of Health’s guidelines for prioritizing patient treatment of COVID-19 with Paxlovid and other anti-COVID-19 antivirals was “denying them [white men] access to vaccines” when the guidelines simply said race could be considered as one factor among many when determining who to prioritize for said treatment. Even if you disagree with those guidelines, that is not at all the same as “denying” white men vaccines.
But the bigger problem with this piece are two arguments you make:
First, you make it seem as though Democrats have abandoned their attempts to court white male voters altogether. The Harris-Walz Campaign (same with Hillary and Obama) did intentional, targeted outreach and advertising to white men throughout the campaign. You may argue that their attempts to sway or activate white male voters weren’t effective, and I’d certainly agree if you argued that those efforts weren’t the core focus or message of their campaign (although I don’t think that’s a bad thing given that white men haven’t been the base of the Democratic Party in many, many years), but that’s quite different than arguing that Democrats aren’t acting as if white men vote. Additionally, the examples you highlight of politicos excluding or vilifying white men (to the extent that they’re accurately conveyed in those articles) are from people who represent one wing of several within the Democratic Party. As a sidenote, given the headline and argument for this piece, it’s kind of rich to link to a story about Bowman… who lost to a white male Democrat in the primary.
Second, you state that Republicans deliberately avoided engaging in identity politics— a hilariously laughable proposition. Did you forget Trump claiming Harris suddenly became Black? Or his denigration of “Democrat run cities” as bastions of crime and chaos? Or his comments about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, OH? Or his rhetoric that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of this country”? Or the ads claiming that Harris supported taxpayer covered surgeries for transgender people in prison? I refuse to believe that you’re so naive as to believe that those examples (and many others) do not constitute the deliberate engagement with identity politics. Their campaigns and rhetoric may not speak to your identity or mine, but they are absolutely crafted and deployed with the intent of angering, activating, motivating, etc. white voters, and white male voters in particular.
Seems really easy to not violate the 14th amendment by openly discriminating based on race. If a city or state feels like it absolutely must do so, just do what the republicans do and discriminate against an attribute that is highly correlated to race but isn’t covered by the 14th amendment. Credit score seems like an obvious example when it comes to the Washington housing thing.
I believe you are right and Dems need to make room in the tent for low-income working class white me who are struggling to feel any of that 'white male privilege' when they can't both feed their family and pay the bills. They are not going to vote Dem as long as their struggles are dismissed and instead they are blamed as causing the struggles for everyone else. Maybe we should hone the message against the obviously privileged and oligarchy and welcome in the men who BE allies if they HAD allies.
I should have proofread that b/4 I hit send. Sorry about the typos.
White men of today aren't responsible for slavery. Why did you reach that far back in history instead of simply reaching for more recent systemic racism like Jim Crow, red lining, the war on drugs, the welfare queen trope, gerrymandering, the wealth and wage gap, etc. that does affect Black people alive today? So a party that has aligned itself with white supremacy, maga, takes control of our government and your white man response is to ignore race and focus on the poor white man that's been left behind? I could literally be starving and in need of cancer treatment that that dead CEO wouldn't have approved and I still wouldn't have voted for trump's maga republican party because they are everything that decent white men have fought against. Trump won the majority of uneducated voters, racists and the super wealthy. We need to focus on more public education and less on rolling back the civil rights progress we've made, as white men! Zero tolerance for the intolerant. This election was won on the basis of race. White supremacy. Check your privilege again.
So the white men of today are all collectively responsible for Jim Crow, red lining, the war on drugs, and Reagan’s choice of campaign ads?
Driving out Bernie and jumping over AOC are bad moves by dems. The true oppressors in fact are wealthy white men. Perhaps what is needed is a new identity in identity politics: what are the needs of the 80% vs the top 20%. The party looks on the poor from afar( it needs to become the party of the people left behind in the ever increasing income disparities. It needs to be real and not muted by the interests of our very wealthy dem leaders and their donors.
We need to push the class issue and dems must not cave to the interests of the very rich. The democrats must confront and end the control of the party by the wealthy
You aren't going to win this demographic when there is so much money dedicated to screaming at them from the other side that helping anyone ever hurts them. They want to be the front of the line to get helped or tear the system down in protest. The implication behind the America First motto is how dare you help somebody else first. Helping sick people isn't fair to healthy people, helping college grads isn't fair to non-college workers and so on (despite Biden's investments in trade schools as well).
You say the democrats adoption of civil rights drove the south away but like it wasn't explicitly the Republican plan to stir up a base around civil rights issues with the famous "Southern Strategy".
Reagan realized that getting people to vote against their own interests was telling them the system helped black people, like with the whole "Welfare Queens" stereotypes he pushed.
You're right the bigger tent needs to be bigger but these are the least willing to be reached voters you are talking about because they know how much they benefit. They like identity politics as long as it's their identity being pushed
Winning then isn’t the point necessarily. Regaining some of them is enough. More simply, if you want to be the inclusive party (and we do) then really do it. We can work to minimize white privilege and the patriarchy without making Uncle Mike feel like Trump is his only option.
Especially when Uncle Mike has felt powerless and abandoned his whole life. Did he have advantages over black Uncle Mike or Aunt Terry? All things being equal he did. Uncle Mike wasn’t pulled over every time he drove or followed around every store. He never got paid $.70 on the dollar or had his symptoms ignored at the doctor.
But that doesn’t mean he was in control of any of those things. He didn’t do it, the rich and powerful have set up the inherently flawed institutions.
Until we change the message from what’s wrong and who is responsible he won’t hear us. It’s the difference between saying “you’ve had it easier than many others” and “we are all getting screwed somehow by the top 1%”. Because that is the reality, every other division only benefits them.
I don't disagree but you are describing what dems are already doing. When was the last time a primary presidential candidate said "white privilege"? Biden is trying to talk about unions and trade schools in addition to college help. Harris gave big speeches about an economy that works for all. The counter to that was for GOP to suddenly care about protecting women, specifically women's sports?
People will say they voted a certain way because of the price of cereal but those same people re-elected Bush during higher gas prices, while pushing for invasions that got Americans killed and started wars because.... they were worried about gay marriage. That was my family and no amount of empathizing with them or showing them the right facts would have changed it. The party and it's followers have only gotten less flexible since 2016.
All the 1% arguments bounce of billionaire Trump like he's teflon. Dems lost because turnout was low. As Buttegeige said in the 2019 debate Republicans will call them "crazy socialists" no matter what policy we run so we might as well run something that matters.
" but these are the least willing to be reached voters you are talking about because they know how much they benefit."
The point Keith makes, and that I agree with, is that they DON'T know how much they benefit.
I am not sure how to change the conversation, other than emphasizing the shared unfairness, but it does need to shift. That or we lose a constituency that needs Dem policies and that Dems need to win.
I totally agree with what you said! I voted Democrat but the majority of my family voted Republican.They said all they heard was help for the Middle Class very little about Working Class! They are Small Town or Rural. High School Graduates not College because they felt that they could not afford it.They were struggling to survive!! The men felt that because the were white they got all the blame for what's wrong in the country! I tried to explain that the president didn't set the prices but company leaders did! I was told I lived in the big city to long.i pointed out that I am a High School Graduate, worked retail for over forty years as clerk and low management, I was struggling too. They said why wasn't I voting for Rump he was going to save us, I said he is going to make it worse! They felt Forgotten!!
Where are they getting their news? Did they watch a single Kamala speech? They didn't see anything about economy for all?
My family is a similar situation I get how hard it is to talk to them. What would have broken through? What would they have seen if she worked it into her campaign?
This article is a breath of fresh air, and it's a shame that there's so many ignorant people in the comments section. Like it or not, white men make up about 33% of the population and if you think dumping on 1/3 of voters is a good strategy then you need to take a remedial math class. Nobody's asking anyone to "pander to white men". It is entirely possible to fight for women, minorities, LGBT+ folks, and others without dumping on white guys in the process. Figure out how before the 2026 midterms come around, Democrats, or we're all screwed.
Bottom line in 2024 was that white men and others could not accept a black/brown WOMAN as president. We Democrats need to vet our candidates before putting them forward. I was all in for Kamala, BTY.
It's that simple...this was the controlling issue. All the stuff about white men? Silly, superficial crap from people who can't see controlling issues, and do not question what they think prior to sharing naked assertions - mere conclusions that can't be logically supported with facts. We know white men can't jump, and a shit ton can't get beyond their bigotry - irrational sets against people of color and women.
Excellent observations. As it stands now, boys are falling behind in schools from grade to college education. They are convinced (perhaps correctly) that if they are competing for a job, he’ll never stand a chance if there is a person of color in the running. Time’s up on putting a thumb on the scales to “even out” the result. Democrats will never improve their numbers unless they can attract men and not repulse them.
Pretty delusional to say that the Republican Party didn’t run on identity politics in 2024. Other than that, spot on.
The views of white men are not inherently bad or inferior because they’re held by white men and yet the attitude that they are is extremely prevalent among the online left. I personally don’t feel excluded from the Democratic Party because of my whiteness and maleness, but I don’t base my vote on what the idiots on Twitter have to say or what the idiots on TV have to say about the idiots on Twitter.
Somehow even the stated goals of the Republican presidential candidate himself are not taken seriously by voters but those same voters perceive the ramblings of extremely online Twitter users as policy proposals straight from the DNC platform.
I am 82, too young to be this old, and willing to admit that from so much experience, I have, regrettably, become too fucking enlighten, and hear how I sound from decades of intermittent therapy as a "recovering narcissist" suffering from a personality disorder - diagnosed 40 years ago as - over caring. If I have not lost you yet, here's my take on how Dems need to be, not just talk.
The controlling issue was not about not talking to white men...wtf? But first, about what MLK Jr. observed so long ago: no group has suffered more prejudice than people of color, except for women. I worked for the Harris/Walz campaign, no one in my lifetime has deserved more the Kamal Harris to be in the Oval. And I did what almost no one but members of my small group did after the Russian Asset was unlawfully elected to the Oval, as 100 GOP electors was un qualified under the electoral clause. This is what I led into SCOTUS: www.citizensfortruth.net
This is not about me, but a track record is a past that is prologue to support conclusions that may be contrary to assertions/opinions that are mere conclusions un supported by facts.
Democrats must recognize they cannot overcome latent prejudice with a great candidate to break ceilings. Harris was double whammied, and worse too many Dems did not properly value the achievements of Joe Biden - aided by his great VP - that achieved transformative legislation of beneficial interest the to the public good.
Furthermore, it's time to recognize:
The FCC dismantled The Rule Against Cross Ownership which enabled the vast CONCENTRATED MEDIA POWER, so that 6 sociopathic billionaire men own/control 90% of news sources and media outlets. And these sociopaths are akin to German industrialists in 1933 who either supported or went along with Hitler. So the so-called lib media, even the august NY Times were not for Biden or Dems, even ran unabashed hit pieces against Biden...read some of Baker's outright shit. CNN moderators silence in the face of the Russian Asset's lies, who did not support an ill great President, was deafening.
Public ed has been defunded, siphoned off to KKKristian charters. Civic high school courses are MIA, so kids are not learning the meaning of Democracy or the role of responsible citizens to question and analyze candidates. They get information on Tic Toc and are glued to hooky headlines on devices. So the US has turned out a generation of DEVICE THINKERS, who can't be bothered by lies or a search for truth. They are entitled to their own opinion no matter how fucked up?
There is too much focus on touchy feely politically correct verbal and written behavior, not enough explicit explanation/education of what Democrats have actually done to shore up the public good - and they can't rely on the Fourth Estate that has become non partisan - but about TRUTH. Has the DNC ever sent out a bulleted list with what they have done and what Republicans have blocked/obstructed. Nope, the send out questions to find out hot buttons that are designed to elicit donations - not understanding!
So this article is, at best superficial, and designed to support the ludicrous assumption about talking to BIGOTTED MISOGYNISTS. This bears repeating, Dems must get pragmatic... and run candidates in the future who have the best chance to win to rescue Democracy. And it is self-evident the great feelings flowing from attempting to break ceilings, and all the feely touchy stuff, is not a path to victory. Policies that make sense to protect and improve the public good will never be enacted without more Democrats in Congress and State Houses. This should be self-evident, but it's not to single voter issue libs or the far leftists - who prefer self-defeating behavior to electing people who can fill glasses to 70 or even 50% full.
> no one in my lifetime has deserved more the Kamal Harris to be in the Oval
Kamala Harris was a literal real life DEI hire for VP. Biden specifically said his VP was going to be a black woman before the decision was made. No better qualified white man would have gotten the position. Which is largely fine in the case of VP because it’s a meaningless job with no actual role or authority.
She was a state Attorney General and a one term Senator. She wasn’t qualified to be President by any stretch of the imagination and would never have won an open primary in 2024.
Also no one “deserves” to be President and this mentality is why Clinton was the nominee and why the democrats lost in 2016. Fuck whoever “deserves” it. Nominate someone who can actually win.
I’m not going to address the rest of your schizophrenic screed.
Not playing psych tag, debating irrelevant assertions. So you are one of the open primary malcontents...who thought an open clusterfuck would be more Democratic? Hold long did it take to certify Harris unanimously? See DSM 5 to determine your particular personality disorder. schizo screed - lol. Clearly you have no clue about 2016.. I do and went SCOTUS to correct it: www.citizensfortruth.net what do you do - opine with assertions and mere conclusions which are unsupported by facts. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) the Supreme Court opined: “…a complaint will not suffice if it tenders ‘naked’ assertions[s] devoid of factual enhancement.” “…Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. …”
After enough MAGAs & regular republicans feel the pain & suffer the effects of all the damage done by trump, perhaps they'll think twice about voting republican the next time!!!
If one thing is self-evident MAGA borderline defective embittered loser haters - DON'T THINK.
Dems are pretty hostile to White Women voters too, there is zero effort made to win the suburban white mom vote.
adding, there is no excuse for not voting for Harris, and or Hillary. Harris and Dems did their utmost to communicate, but there is a citizen's very clear obligation to be involved in due diligence and support the Constitution. AND NOTHING COULD BE CLEARER THAT PUTIN'S PUPPET, A CONVICTED RAPIST & FELON, WHO FOMENTED, INSTIGATED & LED THE TREASON J6 COUP --- SHOULD NOT GET ANY VOTES. So this is on all the women who voted for the misogynist cruel GOPs & the rapist.
Ludicrous. Was HRC, who won by 3M votes, subject to hostility by Dems or was it Sanders Progressive Marxist Socialists, because, as Bernie was accustomed to bleating - Hillary is not progressive enough. So a lousy 70K total progressive votes for Green Jill Stein, the Russian Stalking Horse, in 3 Swing States cost HRC the electoral election and America a Great President. Democracy was the loser.
Just because Hillary is a White Woman does not mean that anything you said actually address the way Dems act towards White Women.
TL, perhaps your thoughts are messy - we agree. So does you reply mean you though Hillary was not "progressive enough?"
The Democratic New Deal Coalition was based on delivering economic results to working people. When 1960's Democrats stopped supporting the New Deal through their economic policy that coalition would eventually collapse.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/summary-of-concepts-involved-in-addressing
Economics no longer worked for Democrats as it once had. Democrat shifted to identity politics in the 1970's in reflection of this reality. Republicans also went to identity politics because their economic policy offered little to working people. The also began a policy of lying in gradually increasing amounts so by today they have a base completely unaffected by lies.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/political-evolution-in-the-us#:~:text=Over%201948%2D60,conservative%20Christians.
You continue to misunderstand all the same things you misunderstood at the beginning of the election. You and those like you completely torpedoed the coalition necessary to win. Because of this type nonsense that elitists care about. You don’t put on side of the coalition against the other. You reinforce the positives of the coalition. You did the opposite while openly lying to people about the competency of Biden and then Harris. You can’t go on about how amazing Biden is then watch his political death on live TV and then use all the same exact talking points about Harris. People have memories longer than goldfish. You are illustrating exactly how little you learned.