***Official Political Discussion Thread***

23,078
12,035
Joined Aug 2, 2006
I see it differently.

Trump purposefully floated an insulting, half-baked "platinum" plan, not to win over any serious black voters, but to solidify his appeal with racist whites who appreciated that Trump was insulting the people they hate.
This has become a dangerous conventional wisdom among young progressive people

this is just wrong.

The Trump campaign made serious efforts to boost his vote share amongst black voters,
they hired staff, opened campaign offices, and held in events in swing state cities with large black populations.

there were multiple reports about this.


"Black colleges and universities; the criminal justice reform bill that Congress passed and he signed last year; and the once-record low unemployment rate among Black Americans reached just before the pandemic that Trump has cited as proof economic conditions have improved under his watch."


"In Wisconsin, Black Voices for Trump has held events in recent weeks at an office the state GOP opened in a predominantly black neighborhood in Milwaukee.
“It’s the first Republican office in the heart of Milwaukee in a very long time,” said Khenzer Senat, the director of Black voter outreach for the Wisconsin Republican Party."



You can think his pitch was clumsy, you can think it was dumb, and you can think it was filled with lies...I would agree.

but to pretend like they spent all that money as some weird 3d chess bank shot to appeal to racists who were going to vote for him anyways, is just willful blindness.



Trump tried harder than any recent Republican to appeal to black and brown voters, and it seems to have worked despite his open racism.
Democrats and progressives should ask themselves why that is rather than try to pretend it didn't happen.
 
23,078
12,035
Joined Aug 2, 2006
What is "pretty much worked" though? Because if it was meant to syphon enough votes off the top from the Dems to win the general election, it didn't make much of a dent whatsoever. I do think that if a GOP politician faked his or her concern for Black folks better, maybe some people would get swept into it. But I think that's ultimately antithetical towards the whole identity and history of the Republican party. They don't care and it shows in everything they do (and more notably, in everything they *don't* do). Their antiblackness is baked into the core of the party, any Black person who'd assess their platforms for more than a few seconds would probably be able to sniff it out. In my opinion.
It def worked, trump lost because he lost the suburbs, and college educated voters.
his gains with black and brown voters kept him in striking distance.

he lost in the end.
but to pretend like it didn't work is crazy talk.

he increased his share of the black vote, that is the very definition of working.



imo you better hope Tim Scott never wins the nomination.


The idea that you'd win any demographic group 92-8 for the rest of time is also makes zero sense.
The republicans have def not hit their ceiling yet with black voters.
 
163
1,120
Joined Jul 20, 2012
It def worked, trump lost because he lost the suburbs, and college educated voters.
his gains with black and brown voters kept him in striking distance.

he lost in the end.
but to pretend like it didn't work is crazy talk.

he increased his share of the black vote, that is the very definition of working.



imo you better hope Tim Scott never wins the nomination.


The idea that you'd win any demographic group 92-8 for the rest of time is also makes zero sense.
The republicans have def not hit their ceiling yet with black voters.
Tim Scott ain't getting a nomination, though IMO. Like, ever. My whole post was talking about how the GOP, regardless of their operations they put up, are at their core anti-black. Both rhetorically and in their actions. Part of that is why people like Tim Scott will never get a nomination. Additionally, they have zero interest in even addressing or acknowledging the systemic racism and inequities that their policies make worse. Denying one of the biggest ails for Black folk in America won't do much in whatever gains they've made this election. I just can't see the GOP making serious inroads without reversing multiple stances that their base of white males align with.
 

aepps20

Supporter
23,351
44,835
Joined Feb 8, 2004

RustyShackleford

Supporter
45,150
108,821
Joined Jul 20, 2009
I mean as a general principle, if you feel that your arguments or even your character is being consistently misrepresented by your colleagues, it maybe is better to move on.

That doesn't seems to be the case with Matt Yglesias though. It seems like he signed onto a letter with a transphobic subtext, he got called on it but one of his colleagues really hurt him by saying that they felt unsafe and it probably festered. Yglesias certainly considers himself an ally of the trans community and its an awkward position to be in when you feel that you’ve been treated unfairly and that person treating you unfairly is using your allyship with their community to get away with it. It’s a tough call since the left needs webs of allyship/solidarity to succeed.

I suppose that could be fragility but whatever it is, it seems different than Weis and Sullivan’s departures. Those two consistently called for genocide, their colleagues engaged with their arguments, as they were constructed, and those two moved on so they could advocate for genocide in a more supportive environment.
Put him signing the letter aside, what came afterward is where the real ****ty behavior starts imo.

That is not what his coworker did though. She didn't report him to HR, she didn't throw him under the bus, she actually said Matt has been nothing but kind to her, she didn't there to be any official pushback from Vox management toward him. She was apparently one of many people at Vox used a letter to the editor program to make their disagreement with Matt more official.

So I don't how she came close to doing what you characterized. Like she called him an ally, called him kind, what to make sure no disciplinary action was taken against him. In return Matt cherry picks parts of the story to craft a narrative, this results in Emily getting attack and threaten online, to the point Yglesias had to demand people stop it.

Now he quits, runs to conservatives writers to be a posterboy of free speech being stifled, and then cites that one instance again, misrepresenting what Emily did. Which results in another wave of disgusting **** being thrown at her.

If anything, Yglesias is an example of a practice many white affluent liberals like to do. Use their claim allyship as a shield to do ****ty things against marginalized groups. Then when the pushback comes, they pearl clutch. Yglesias doesn't seem like he is pissed his allyship for used against him, he is pissed that his feelings were not central to the discourse around the situation. Even worse, he keeps hinting there is more to the story, yet the only thing he is talking freely about is this one instance. How he was wronged by a transgender coworker who....checks notes...disagreed with him disagreeing with others.

Seems to me that Yglesias is a privilege white dude that loves to kick the hornet's nest whenever he a) thinks it is necessary b) for his own assumment, but this time the right person pushed back, and he ended up with egg on his face. And the thing is that his handling of the situation is not an outlier when it comes to left wing spaces. Sure he is a much better actor/human being/writer than Sullivan and Weis. Weis and Sullivan are entitled bigots. But I think it is a fair comparison to make considering how he is behaving just like them after he quit. Telling a convenient story that paints him as the the only one that was wronged.

Dude is a critic that couldn't handle criticism. A person that couldn't handle the same energy he puts out in the world being return to him in the smallest way.

I think there is a difference between saying members of marginalized groups on the left should have some patience with other members because solidarity is necessary, people are not perfect, and disagreements should be able to exist within the coalition without breaking it. I am all for stop the purity testing. But I am not sympathetic to someone that confuses that sentiment (intentionally or unintentionally) with being allowed to say whatever you want, even if you are an *******, with no pushback.

I think calling him fragile is me letting him off easy.
 
Last edited:
24,537
45,230
Joined Jul 18, 2013
Barring any drastic changes to party demographics and platforms it seems premature to devote any measure of time to worrying about Republicans winning a more significant amount of the black vote. The larger concerns are the anti-democratic institutions and policies that would make even a slight (yet still improbable) shift a major issue, assuming it happens while republicans are still blatantly anti-black. Anyways, for Tim Scott to even make it to the General Election republican voters would have to send him there. Hoping that doesn't happen is like hoping lightning doesn't strike you on a sunny day.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
45,150
108,821
Joined Jul 20, 2009
-2004 happened (Bush actively went after black voters), midterms happen. I am sure many Dems know that getting over 90% of the black vote is not a lock.

-The Dems have been focused on securing the black vote. Maybe they could do better. But the black vote has also been severely weakened over the past 10 years also. The Dems are fighting a two front war already. So many are aware how losing voters in close elections severely hurts their political prospects.

-Like is the point of this whole argument for people to acknowledge the GOP has not hit their ceiling with black voters? That black people can fall victim to the same nonsense white people do. And what is the solution to this problem exactly? What gameplan are the Dems just ignoring. Because if there was some easy fix to stopping people from believing lies and propaganda, the Dems would be blowing the GOP out consistently.

Like the main takeaway is suppose "if a more talented politician, uses a more effective strategy, then they might be more successful". Like yeah ok, thanks for that.

But sure cool, throw it on the pile of other **** people have to worry about. But it might get buried in a year when I have to worry about the undemocratically appointed Supreme Court strikes down the rest of the VRA, and black voters are targets of even more voter suppression.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now