Progressive Group: Screw White Working Class Voters
Well, after Jon Ossoff’s loss in Georgia, it’s another stinging reminder that Democrats don’t know how to win elections yet in the Trump era. As I’ve mentioned before, the blame game has begun, along with a debate centering on where the Left goes from here. Do they go for the Bern, a hard-core left wing push, or sprint to the center to peel off moderate suburban GOP voters who dot congressional districts Democrats need to win to retake the House in 2018. For starters, the farther left the party goes, the more insane and unappealing they become. Yet, Democrats are also facing another harsh reality: white working class voters. The backbone of the party has been ripped out, assimilated by Republicans. They’re not die-hard Republicans though. With the right messaging, like job creation, trade, infrastructure, and pension protection, they’ll move back to the Democrats. They number in the tens of millions. They’re part of the demographic that makes up 60-75 percent of the entire presidential electorate. White voters matter. With that overwhelming majority, that percentage can make ripple effects in elections. If Mitt Romney won three percent more of the white vote, he would’ve won the 2012 election.
Yet, progressives evidently don’t care about the white working class. Democracy in Color, a progressive group, seems to be more focused on turning out minority voters and other traditional voting blocs in the Democratic base. In a report from the group, they feel that Obama voters flipped for Jill Stein more than Trump. Brent Scher of The Washington Free Beacon had more [emphasis mine]:
"Democrats and progressives are once again at risk of replicating their billion-dollar blunder by squandering precious time and resources chasing voters who backed Trump," writes the group, which recommends allocating money towards turning out minority voters.
"Democrats didn't lose because white working class voters defected to Trump," said Steve Phillips, the group's founder. "Democrats lost because of lower Black voter turnout and Obama voters defecting to Jill Stein and other third- and fourth-party candidates."
The report comes two days after Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff, who ran as a centrist and openly courted Republican voters, was defeated by Republican Karen Handel despite spending nearly $30 million on the race.
Phillips, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote earlier this week on Democracy in Color's website that "every dollar" Ossoff "spent wooing Republicans is money flushed down the drain."
So, screw white voters; is that the mantra? These people, who have been suffering economically for years, are so lost to the GOP that they’re not worth the outreach operations. I don’t believe that; these are voters from the old Ross Perot mold. They’re movable, just how women are movable a voting bloc; 52 percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. Also, Democrats didn’t lose because the white working class defected to Trump? That’s just false. American National Election Studies noted that 8.4 million 2012 Obama voters defected to Trump. That’s enough to win an election—and these folks certainly didn’t flock to Stein, who accumulated less than 1.5 million total votes for her 2016 campaign. This is just willful ignorance, but Democracy in Color is San Francisco-based, the heart of the progressive echo chamber. Some Democrats have drafted 2016 autopsies that note the Democratic Party is dead without gains at the state level. That means venturing into red districts. The Left can sure go on a purity crusade. It’s probably going to be messy, and they’ll keep losing elections. https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/06/23/progressive-group-screw-white-working-class-voters-n2345409
Yet, progressives evidently don’t care about the white working class. Democracy in Color, a progressive group, seems to be more focused on turning out minority voters and other traditional voting blocs in the Democratic base. In a report from the group, they feel that Obama voters flipped for Jill Stein more than Trump. Brent Scher of The Washington Free Beacon had more [emphasis mine]:
"Democrats and progressives are once again at risk of replicating their billion-dollar blunder by squandering precious time and resources chasing voters who backed Trump," writes the group, which recommends allocating money towards turning out minority voters.
"Democrats didn't lose because white working class voters defected to Trump," said Steve Phillips, the group's founder. "Democrats lost because of lower Black voter turnout and Obama voters defecting to Jill Stein and other third- and fourth-party candidates."
The report comes two days after Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff, who ran as a centrist and openly courted Republican voters, was defeated by Republican Karen Handel despite spending nearly $30 million on the race.
Phillips, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote earlier this week on Democracy in Color's website that "every dollar" Ossoff "spent wooing Republicans is money flushed down the drain."
So, screw white voters; is that the mantra? These people, who have been suffering economically for years, are so lost to the GOP that they’re not worth the outreach operations. I don’t believe that; these are voters from the old Ross Perot mold. They’re movable, just how women are movable a voting bloc; 52 percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. Also, Democrats didn’t lose because the white working class defected to Trump? That’s just false. American National Election Studies noted that 8.4 million 2012 Obama voters defected to Trump. That’s enough to win an election—and these folks certainly didn’t flock to Stein, who accumulated less than 1.5 million total votes for her 2016 campaign. This is just willful ignorance, but Democracy in Color is San Francisco-based, the heart of the progressive echo chamber. Some Democrats have drafted 2016 autopsies that note the Democratic Party is dead without gains at the state level. That means venturing into red districts. The Left can sure go on a purity crusade. It’s probably going to be messy, and they’ll keep losing elections. https://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/06/23/progressive-group-screw-white-working-class-voters-n2345409
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
"Democrats didn't lose because white working class voters defected to Trump," said Steve Phillips, the group's founder. "Democrats lost because of lower Black voter turnout and Obama voters defecting to Jill Stein and other third- and fourth-party candidates."
The Trump administration has taken little meaningful action to prevent Russian hacking, leaking and disruption in the next national election in 2018, despite warnings from intelligence officials that it will happen again, officials and experts told NBC News.
"This attack is really the political equivalent of 9/11 — it is deadly, deadly serious," said Michael Vickers, a career intelligence official who was the Pentagon's top intelligence official in the Obama administration. " The Russians will definitely be back , given the success they had…I don't see much evidence of a response."
Well, it worked the last time and with Trump's cooperation he is hoping Putin will be just as successful in 2018 too.
Talk about a way off the topic reply. The article is about whether progressives should try to go after those who voted 3rd party and those among various of their interest groups who had lower turnout than 2012 or if they should reach out to the millions of white working class voters who voted Obama in 2012 and then for Trump in 2016. The progressive group in the seeded article supports the former over the latter.
I always though that it was the white working class voters job to be screwed.
It is also possible that the red candidates won because they had red help.
No, it's not our job to get screwed over. There is no evidence of any foreign red input having any effect on the election outcome or voting results. None.
"No, it's not our job to get screwed over."
I guess you told me. Then why is this healthcare bill debate trying to cut funds to medcaid and redistribute it to tax breaks for the wealthy? Its killing care for the poor and disabled and the rich get tax breaks. Who is in the middle paying for it all white middle class voters. Its job one however ya slice it. Bend over brother.
The denier-in-chief still can't acknowledge the red active measures in his "win". Give it time. The subsoenas are coming.
It is also possible that the red candidates won because they had red help.
I'd say it's becoming more and more probable. Red (Puitn) help is how you end up with people like the "Dear Leader" in the White House today. Charlie Sykes (one of the few remaining Republicans with the right to still call himself one) said that the Republican Party is no longer a Party as he recognizes any longer, but that rather it has become a personality cult. I honestly believe that if Trump said he went and played a round of golf one day (hell, everyday) and hit 10 hole's in one that 30% of the people polled (his base) would actually believe him and tell him he should practice more.
What's worse is that I honestly believe that if he told his base to start shooting and killing and Democrats that they know, a pretty fair number of them would. Without hesitation. The "base" of the GOP is no longer a "base. Like Charlie Sykes said (and Richard Painter (another one of the few Republicans worthy of the name) agreed), it's a cult. If Putin showed up tomorrow and took over running the American government also, most of Trump's base would accept it without a peep. They are enthralled by the "Dear Leader" that much.
Posts like that are the reason for the lack of comity and civility in America and here.
First of all, he doesn't know what he's talking about in my opinion. NBC is already putting the propaganda out about how Trump hasn't fixed the hacking for 2018, completely ignoring that Trump had nothing to do with the hacking long before the election this time. In fact Russia has been hacking for decades.
The Washington Post uses words to make it sound like this is the first big effort by Russia to hack us, but it is by far not the first time. But the way the articles are written up and where the emphasis is put is what matters in order to spread the propaganda.
Why don't they put an article up about how the Obama Administration didn't do anything about it? Well, we know the not so secret reason for that. We would have never known anything about it had Hillary won the election. It was a calculated maneuver by Obama and the FBI.
They really thought it was going to be a landslide for Hillary no matter what the Russians were doing. They knew the Russians had not accomplished anything to affect the election. To reveal it early on would have hurt Hillary in their judgement, so they held back until it became evident Trump really had a good chance to win.
They knew that, even though the propaganda was being thrown in our face from the media to discourage us. Right before the election and after the election it was beneficial to release the Russian hacking, since it was Trump who had won the election and they were scared to death because they feared all the corruption during the last eight years was going to be exposed, which I believe it will before it is over.
Right now Trump is not quite strong enough to accomplish that. I trust the FBI and other intelligence agencies about as much as I trust that strange looking fellow walking by my car the other day looking in the windows. Still too many moles appointed by Bill Clinton and Obama hanging in there and they are in high places with lots of power.
During the meantime the spying was going on, but it has been going on for eight years anyway by the Obama Administration against anyone who was considered an opponent.
The Benghazi incident was belittled in order to get through the election by telling lies about it. Remember Osama is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run. That was all BS put out there by Obama when he knew it wasn't true and nothing was going to keep him from winning that election so he would have more leverage with the Russians, but the Russians turned on him and he changed his aggression. Hillary really wanted war with Russia, after all between her and Obama they had practically turned the whole world into a war zone.
Randy, what does your disruptive off topic derailing post have to do with the topic of the seeded article? I'm just curious.