Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

In reply to the discussion: So the children have won [View all]
 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
24. See what happens when we assume? (Including myself)
Wed Dec 7, 2016, 04:55 PM
Dec 2016

You bring up some good points.

Let me just touch on the ones where we might not be on 100% agreement.

How do I conclude that white suburbanites won't come back?

Partly for the very reasons you mention (combined with their overtly racist behaviors), partly because of the post-Bill elections, a lot because of the last election. Let me talk about them in reverse order.

Trump had only one message, hate. I know the "still Bernie" folks want to say Trump pushed the anti-TPP idea too, but he really didn't and, besides, Bernie was out pushing the same message for Hillary. The simple and I think indisputable fact is that every single (euphemistically, not literally) person who put a check next to Trump's name was driven by hate. What's more, they believed so strongly in hate that they didn't vote for a candidate who (even if you were the staunchest Hillary opponent during the primary) was, at very least (and we know she was much more), as acceptable as any other Democrat who has run. They showed they were one issue voters of the most reprehensible kind and that issue was keeping us down. You don't come back from that.

If you take that revelation and look at the post-Bill demise of our party, you start to realize that, over that period of time, we ran lots of candidates who were very similar to Hillary to the extent that they were not overtly "liberal" and often times vastly superior to their opponents. They also failed to bring in the suburban vote. I think it logical to conclude that what was, at least in my mind, conclusively proven reasons for their rejection of the astoundingly better Hillary Clinton, was what also drove them away from other Democrats.

Finally, I think when you combine your observation about the Democratic Party becoming the champion of "the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups" with long lines of suburbanites cuing up to by guns when the only "danger" is the racist myth perpetrated by the NRA, their support for anti-gay referendums (even in states like California), the virulent anti-mosque demonstrations in the suburbs, and the (again, primarily suburban) rise in hate crimes, it's hard to deny that hatred is the driving factor in white suburbia. This is especially true when you recall that, unlike the <$50K working folks who voted for Hillary who have seen hardships even during the recovery, suburbanites have seen their 401Ks explode, their home values bounce, and their cost of living stay low. In other words, they have ZERO reason to be anything to be disgruntled over (other than hate) and they still voted for a psychopath.

As for Stan Greenberg's analysis, I thought is was pretty result-oriented at the time (evidence, limiting his sample pool to union workers), but even assuming that he was correct then, those people don't exist in significant numbers any more. We're not looking at a big mass of union workers who watched their jobs go overseas while Obama was president (and by Stan's theory, working for "us folks&quot . These are folks who either never made a union wage in their life or, if they did, haven't made one for two decades. These are now the sub-$50k workers who Hillary actually did bring back to the fold.

I have to tell you that on everything else, we couldn't agree more.

I do think there is one other path which can get us back at every level and maybe sooner than a generation (which may just be wishful thinking because I won't live to see another generation). It is what somehow became a "dirty word" around here . . . "identity politics." If we take up the mantle of "the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups" (AND the working class voters Hillary already kept in line) with the kind of vigor we've been too scared to do for years upon years. If we stand up not just for the bright-eyed high achiever who has been kept down by overt racism but the also the Michael Browns who have been kept down by subtle racism even before they were shot down in the street; if we stand up for the right to vote of not just the ninety year old daughter of slaves, but also of the black man who just got out of prison for murder; if we tell working people of all races colors and creeds that THEY are the "producers" of wealth and that the controllers of capital are the "takers;" in short, that there is "good" and there is "bad" and they are the "good," we might just stop the haters in their tracks.

Thank you so much for getting back to me. I honestly appreciate it more than you can imagine.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

So the children have won [View all] Uponthegears Dec 2016 OP
Recommended. With reservations. guillaumeb Dec 2016 #1
So, you set up a false equivalence and demand that everyone meet in the middle... TwilightZone Dec 2016 #2
Thank you for pointing out the typo Uponthegears Dec 2016 #4
Hmmmm... many, many words. What was that you were saying about "little blaming fits?" Squinch Dec 2016 #3
Yea, it does require some reading Uponthegears Dec 2016 #6
Even if I agree with your interpretation, you are at odds with yourself here. JCanete Dec 2016 #5
It has nothing to do with the Clintons Uponthegears Dec 2016 #7
It is a good history lesson, and again I'm in agreement with your argument. JCanete Dec 2016 #9
I think you have a point Uponthegears Dec 2016 #11
What was Hillary's economic message? Exilednight Dec 2016 #8
It is true. Clinton and the DNC thought they could pull this out without JCanete Dec 2016 #10
It's tempting to look at the last three weeks Uponthegears Dec 2016 #12
That is why russ feingold, and Zyper Teachout lost. Feingold lost by a larger percentage than still_one Dec 2016 #14
You know that Uponthegears Dec 2016 #20
I didn't ask about her plan, I asked about her message. Exilednight Dec 2016 #15
In the GE, it was Bernie's message Uponthegears Dec 2016 #16
No it wasn't. What was her 3 to 5 word message? Exilednight Dec 2016 #22
No, let's be honest Uponthegears Dec 2016 #25
There's a difference between a message and a plan. Exilednight Dec 2016 #27
Great point Uponthegears Dec 2016 #28
Just for arguments sake, let's say she didn't have a good message. That does not account for the still_one Dec 2016 #17
A lot of it was her ability to convey her plans I'm a manner Exilednight Dec 2016 #23
Post removed Post removed Dec 2016 #13
Maybe you should read all the posts Uponthegears Dec 2016 #18
While I was stroking my ego" The last month before the election I did full time phone banking into still_one Dec 2016 #21
See what happens when we assume? (Including myself) Uponthegears Dec 2016 #24
Good analysis. Thanks! nt jalan48 Dec 2016 #19
You are my new favorite poster! hueymahl Dec 2016 #26
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So the children have won»Reply #24