I thought reparations disappeared years ago. It's back? How terrible. It is not only too divisive, it is not a good plan. There are many better items to hang your hat on.
2020 US Election (Part One)
- Thread starter Lexicus
- Start date
- Status
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Possibly, but what better hill to die on?
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Don't say that, Governor. Don't look at it that way. What am I, Governors both? I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: "You're undeserving; so you can't have it." But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband.
Alfred P Doolittle
Alfred P Doolittle
Pygmalion, Act II - GB Shaw
J
If your campaign is going to die on a hill, choose one where 75% of the public will die with you.
Berzerker
Deity
choosing that hill to die on might get Trump re-elected
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
I highly doubt anyone is going to die on the hill of reparations. However I would expect Elizabeth Warren to at least endorse the same course of action that Ta-Nehisi Coates recommends in his seminal essay on the issue, which is to finally pass a bill to study the issue and make recommendations. The bill is introduced in every Congress since I think 1986, and goes nowhere.
That being said, I think it's an issue that is so far removed from public consciousness that minds could very well be changed on it. The framing of it currently is that it's repayment for slavery, which I don't think connects with people, and leaves open an easy and not unconvincing counter-argument that the U.S. government fought a war to end slavery, and so any bill due for that monstrous wrong has been paid.
However, if you frame it in more recent history, as reparations for specific racist actions of our government towards the descendants of slaves, I think you can change some minds about it. This is how Coates frames it in his essay, and it is very persuasive. It's much harder to argue there is no bill due for government redlining, or for allowing Black WWII vets to be denied their GI bill benefits, or for disparate sentencing and policing.
Last edited:
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
This is also politically the most feasible time to do it, because Dem voters would be on board with Warren if she said she was a Maoist if she still looked like she could beat Trump. Things like the 'spiciness' of reparations or DC statehood or stacking the court or whatever are just going to go in one ear and out the other because all anyone cares about is winning the election.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
I don't think the white population of say, St. Louis, will ever come to grips with the harm they have caused their African American population either directly or indirectly. Especially so when it is presented to them as a grievance that must be addressed with a measurable cost to the white population either in the form of higher taxes or by otherwise favoring the non-white population through programs meant to ultimately redistribute wealth. I was just telling someone how I felt the Ferguson riots were a net-negative for St Louis even if it kicked off the BLM movement which is a net positive for the country. Obviously it's a different situation but I think white privilege does not do well when confronted with the reality of the cost of that privilege on the non-white population.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Confrontation is the necessary first step, but I don't think it has to be in the way that casts blame on white citizens. I think it is possible to broach the subject of reparations as a specific government wrong, perpetrated intentionally by people with bad, racist motives.
After all, as bad as racism is in any form, it is by far the most harmful in the form of overt institutional action. So focus on that as the basis for reparations. The government has spent untold trillions lifting up white citizens. All that reparations would do is finally extend that equally to Black citizens now, after it has been denied to them for decades.
It's still a poor strategy and won't help get people elected.
While it's probably easy to get a majority of people to say that blacks have been discriminated against and have been harmed by that, it's another thing to convince generations of people that weren't even in the country yet or the ancestors weren't in the country when slavery existed they they are responsible for all their ills. (regardless of it's validity) Work on getting justice instead of blaming people. It's a better strategy.
While it's probably easy to get a majority of people to say that blacks have been discriminated against and have been harmed by that, it's another thing to convince generations of people that weren't even in the country yet or the ancestors weren't in the country when slavery existed they they are responsible for all their ills. (regardless of it's validity) Work on getting justice instead of blaming people. It's a better strategy.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
There's ample evidence that supporting BLM cost Dems votes earlier this decade, no matter if the politician was white or black, but in 2020 literally nothing matters I think. The most popular Dems right now are an amalgamation of wildly different policies and demographic makeup and the main goal of most polled voters is beating Trump. Everything essentially is on the table. We're going to have like a literal 100 person battle royale of candidates at this rate.
This is why I think appeals to "centrism" and similar are pointless/unnecessary in this cycle. Even the Democrats that like to think of themselves as "moderates" or whatever (typically the older ones) are fine with the GND and Social-Democrats and Progressivism... you name it, as long as it defeats Trump. So the key to winning is to inspire the less-likely voters to get psyched about voting and emotionally committed to voting. The "moderate" Democrats are going to vote for the nominee no matter who it is.
Any person who considered themselves "centrist" made up their mind about Trump, once and for all, a long time ago. Nothing is changing their mind at this point. You're either voting for Trump, or you're not... and if you are still claiming to be "undecided" about voting for Trump (WTF
) then I'm handwaiving you (the royal you) as being dishonest, even if only to yourself.For anyone who knows they aren't voting for Trump, the only remaining question is whether you're motivated about someone enough to get up, go out, stand in line, and vote for them. For moderates who aren't voting for Trump, that question is already set in stone. They're voting regardless, and they're voting for Trump's opponent, regardless. Democrats need to focus the lion's share of the effort on the folks who are feeling "Meh" about voting.
Yes, I've made up my mind that I will not vote for Trump, but that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically vote for the Dem nominee.
I will not vote for someone that is so far left that it makes me uncomfortable. You will need some of those like me to win. Just my opinion.
And I will be voting regardless.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
This is why I think appeals to "centrism" and similar are pointless/unnecessary in this cycle. Even the Democrats that like to think of themselves as "moderates" or whatever (typically the older ones) are fine with the GND and Social-Democrats and Progressivism... you name it, as long as it defeats Trump. So the key to winning is to inspire the less-likely voters to get psyched about voting and emotionally committed to voting. The "moderate" Democrats are going to vote for the nominee no matter who it is.
Any person who considered themselves "centrist" made up their mind about Trump, once and for all, a long time ago. Nothing is changing their mind at this point. You're either voting for Trump, or you're not... and if you are still claiming to be "undecided" about voting for Trump (WTF
For anyone who knows they aren't voting for Trump, the only remaining question is whether you're motivated about someone enough to get up, go out, stand in line, and vote for them. For moderates who aren't voting for Trump, that question is already set in stone. They're voting regardless, and they're voting for Trump's opponent, regardless. Democrats need to focus the lion's share of the effort on the folks who are feeling "Meh" about voting.
Short term this is rock solid truth. Unfortunately, it was also rock solid truth in 2008, and look what happened in 2010 and beyond. If Democrats look at 2020 as "the chance to elect anyone, no matter how much they would normally be opposed" they will be right back where they started.
That's my point. People have already made up their mind whether they are voting for Trump or not. So the task is to inspire the largest amount possible of people who will not vote for Trump to vote for the Democrat's nominee. For some folks, this just isn't possible. My concern is that for every precious few folks the Democrats gain... who say they might vote for the Democratic nominee, but also say they are uncomfortable with a candidate who is "too far left"... they lose far more voters who say they are definitely voting for the Democratic nominee, if they decide to vote.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
I think we need to have qualifiers for why each one of these things happened, too. 2010 was a combination of a recession we were still knee deep in that was driving anger, and a president that, believe it or not, was still black, which also drove a lot of anger. Policy itself is largely a very very small facet of most any election, and it certainly wasn't pushing the main angry response to Obama, nor is it for Trump. Both Bernie and Biden would face the same conservative critiques.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
It's probably better to say, involved people have made up their mind. That is why likely voters give better polling data then registered voters which, in turn, are better than generic adults.
It is worth noting that as you progress from Adult polls, through RV polls, to LV polls trump's numbers improve.
J
But those are the votes you need. Bernie will drive out the vote in the areas that Mickey Mouse would win if he were running. Those wins are already in the bank. You need those marginal votes in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio etc. where Bernie is not an asset.
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Bernie beat Hillary in Michigan. At least here in Michigan you have two routes to winning as a dem; either turn out black voters in Detroit/Flint/Muskegon/Kalamazoo/etc., or continue to peel college educated white women in the Detroit and Lansing suburbs to your side. I don't honestly see any Dem candidate who can't really do that*, and plenty who could.
* I suppose a white dude is the most uphill climb in this regard but the midwest is pretty white.
* I suppose a white dude is the most uphill climb in this regard but the midwest is pretty white.
- Status
Similar threads
