Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No one is blaming minorities for the rise of Trump, they're pointing out that since Trump expanded his margins across all demographics, Kamala Harris' failure can't be easily explained away by racism or misogyny, and there must be a deeper frustration among many of the groups that make up the Democrats' coalition like black and Latino Americans. Also, I rarely hear Democrats make this point; they seem to mainly blame wokeness.
And what is "wokeness." "Wokeness" means to them the existence of queer people, women, and POC.
Also, I envy you for not seeing democrats blame minorities for the rise of Trump, I wish I could be so happily nieve.
Or maybe the DNC refuses to speak to, let alone execute an agenda regarding the needs of the working class, election after election. Of course they'd be trounced after effectively revealing themselves as controlled opposition.
My forlorn hope is a massive repudiation of the Democratic establishment in the next round of primaries.
Armed revolution in the face of predator drones with hellfires and 5th generation multi-role fighter aircraft is a fools errand for suicidal rubes.
"So V, quiet life or blaze of glory hm?"
1812 overture intensifies
Yes I know, wrong V. I don't care.
Yo prefiero vivir con paz si posible.
53% of white women also voted for Trump in 2024. They also swung the vote in 2016.
But really, the DNC just fucked up, plain and simple. They're run by a quorum of dinosaurs all Group Thinking their soggy old brains to failure after failure.
I kinda get what you mean, am I’m really weirded out by how obsessed the US is with ethnic groups, like “black vote”, “white vote” etc, because most countries don’t focus on race like that.
But data wise, Trump barely increased his vote share in white men over last election, but significantly increased in black men, so I think that’s why some data analysts are pointing it out as an interesting shift in the electorate. However to suggest it’s any ethnic group’s “fault” someone won is just stupid. And if you’re gonna do that, try gen-X white men living in the countryside.
That’s because most countries are far more ethnically homogenous than the US. The ones that aren’t show similar patterns. Look at India for example. Or Israel.
This is, of course, Ameri-centric horseshit. American voting is reported on as white, black, Latino and not-statisitcally-significant. Meanwhile they'll call other countries "ethnically homogenous" mostly because they don't know anything about any other countries or literally thousands of years of finding any reason to hate each other. Motherfucker I don't care if we're genetically identical I'll be dead and buried before I vote for a fucking Walloon/Protestant/Catholic/Silesian/Scouser/Galician/Lombard/Frisian (delete as appropriate). They haven't at any point all been thrown into a cage, deprived of their heritage and told "nah you're just black/mexican now". And it ignores that yes, global migration is global. Every colonial state has left people behind in its former colonies, and found themselves with former subjects as citizens too.
Wow, chill out! I was very careful to use the word more. I didn’t say other countries are ethnically homogenous in the absolute sense, just relative to the US. Take Japan for example. Yes, there are quite a lot of ethnic minorities in Japan (both indigenous and foreign) however well over 90% of the country identifies only as Japanese and nothing else. This is a very different picture from the US.
You can see a similar story many other countries but not all. India, for example, has many ethnic groups which are strongly distinguished by language, religion, and culture. It’s also the case that ethnicity plays a major role in the politics of India and that role has been increasing of late, not diminishing.
“I just got back from touring Ireland. It’s wild over there. It just goes to show that without blacks, Jews, or Mexicans, people will improvise!”
-Jimmie Walker
As an outsider, my guess is to construct and and cultivate the idea that minorities vote in a block. I mean, no one literally needs to be told that non white people all vote for the same person or anything. However, it only has to work just enough to make just enough white people vote down racial lines.
I'm all for not scapegoating any minority, since what's notable about the Black vote is roughly the same as for Latin American, younger demographics, and so on: it isn't that they are "to blame," it's that the support increased over 2016 or 2020.
So while it's a good reminder not to scapegoat, we definitely still need to talk and think about how different demographics (who will absolutely lose rights and opportunities under Trump) looked at Trump and decided to say, "more, please," if we're ever going to get out of this mess.
There's that quote that said something along the lines of give poor white men someone to look down on and they'll empty their pockets for you. I think that's one of the reasons latino voters voted for Trump. There was a lot of misinformation demonizing Venezuelan immigrants in spanish and I think that led a lot of these morons to believe they were part of the "in" group and they would benefit.
LBJ said it:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you. - Lyndon B. Johnson”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9150190-if-you-can-convince-the-lowest-white-man-he-s-better
Had a similar thought and you put it very well! AP VoteCast data here is helpful on this point (caveat that final numbers are probably still not in yet)
The moderate wing feels entitled to those votes.
And for whatever reason they keep doubling down on refusing to do voter outreach and listening to what Dem voters want. Current leadership will never back away from the strategy of:
What are ya gonna do, vote R?
Because it's obviously not working. As long as we allow the DNC to prioritize rewarding donor bundlers with leadership positions, it'll never change.
The only metric is bringing money in, so whoever pays the most gets to determine the party platform.
Which wouldn't suck so much if the DNC was the furthest right option. When that's how the furtherest left option acts, turnout will always be abysmal and even when we "win" we still lose and billionaires always win.
Because of citizens united, money decides election wins. So how do we win without donors?
They outspent and lost this time.
That doesn’t mean we can win without donors. Republicans had foreign bots and billionaires buying votes.
Ever hear the one about wrestling a pig in the mud?
Why are you avoiding the question?
There isn't a question in your previous comment.
And apparently you haven't heard the one.
You don't wrestle a pig in mud because it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it.
It will only drive up donorship to the Republicans and foster more lenient ~~bribery~~ donation policy from the Democrats going forward.
The Democrats need to actually submit themselves to overhauling campaign funding if they want to make any headway. But they want that money. They want it more than they want any of their alleged policy goals.
Because of citizens united, money decides election wins. So how do we win without donors?
This was the question that you are avoiding.
To overhaul campaign funding they need to win. For that to happen they need donors.
Also, just because a saying exists doesn’t make it right.
They didn't avoid it
They outspent and lost this time.
Is a refutation of the premise. If, as you say, donation money decides elections then the democrats, having gotten and spent more, should have won.
So, did money decide this election win?
Republicans spent money and won. So yes it does. I never said spending the most money guarantees a win. That’s a straw man argument you are trying to build.
Was your argument that "democrats have to spend some money"? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I'm just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with thought, you meant most money.
This was the original comment I responded to.
As long as we allow the DNC to prioritize rewarding donor bundlers with leadership positions, it'll never change.
My question was how do we win elections without donors?
I don't see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?
This is still feeling like a "more doners is more better" argument which they rejected with a "not this time" reply so no questions were avoided.
No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it's always a confession.
Was your argument that "democrats have to spend some money"? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I'm just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with, thought you meant most money.
Because of citizens united..
part interests me. Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
Edit to answer your question:
How do we win without doners?
They don't. But, because we've established they don't need the most money to win they can be more selective in their choices. Taking donations from oil companies at the cost of votes, bad plan. Taking donations from genocidal governments at the cost of votes, bad plan. Promise voters that you'll level wealth inequality at the cost of money, good plan. They don't need all the money.
Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
They were pretty limited because donors have a maximum donation amount, so once you're maxed that's it.
Unless you're a PAC then as long as you follow some rules, people can donate as much as they like to the PAC and the PAC can use that money to do basically everything a normal campaign organization would do...all legal because of citizens united.
The rules are poorly written and even more poorly enforced.
Coordinate with a candidate before they announce their candidacy?
Pass
Coordinate with an individual who is then hired as an advisor to the candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the children / spouse of an incumbent candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the candidate themselves through means that prevent detection?
Pass
Coordinate with a candidate explicitly in broad daylight while making no attempt to hide it and leave a paper trail, electronic records, notarized documents, and a plan to do so again in the future and market your services doing so to other candidates?
Candidate elected; you are at a sub 1% chance to be charged with a misdemeanor if investigated by the DoJ because the FEC can't be arsed
I answered the question in an edit for the sake of fairness. Tldr: they don't. The doners don't need to cost votes.
I don't see the relevance. So long as people aren't saying they spend no money, which they didn't, why bring it up? It still implies a "most money" argument to me.
Edit: I don't read usernames and it bites me everytime
Instead the base should focus their anger on the democratic party itself. Give us something to fight for or keep losing
Haven’t had a real primary since 2008. WTF is this anti democratic “superdelegate” bullshit?
The party leadership has been captured by big money donors.
Ignoring the whole propagandized media thing again.
Every election cycle, the Democrats and media start to fret about the black vote. Will black women turn out? Will black men vote correctly? And this cycle culminated in the Obamas going on a "pull your pants up and vote" tour to boost turnout.
Now I'm not black, but I recognize double standards and condescension. I wouldn't want to be treated that way.
After the election, Latinos have been targeted by progressive rage and lashing out. I've seen people that I used to respect say that they deserve to be deported because of their vote.
So black folks, brown folks, Hispanics, etc go ahead and vote for trump. Fuck around and find out. DNC sucks balls, but if you can't vote minimally in your own interests you're about to get what's coming to you. Sorry about ya, the writing is on the wall.
My Indiana coastal elite D voting ass is not spending any more time or energy saving morons from their own vote.
What, they demanded incompetent racist fuckery. Order up! The fact that they brought down all women with them is, like, a bonus.