There is. A vast amount- but not nearly so much as there is teen porn.
yes…
When they’re five
Republicans have been cynically manipulating the working class for decades.
Some view Trump as their just deserts.
But there wouldn’t be a vacuum for him to fill, had the Democrats not failed to make a home for the working class in the first place.
Yes, a female President is historic but a female President was never as implausible as a black president.
And THIS is exactly the point that I am objecting to. These women are basically saying that younger women who support Bernie are just little kids without much sense in their heads. Well the Democratic party is going to be depending on those little kids to win the general election.
I have to admit to at least a bit of schadenfreude about the Republican party getting stuck with Trump.
Oh. I see your point now. Yes the Democratic party has been tone deaf to the concerns of the working class by adopting economics policies that are generally good for the working class but trying to impose social policies that they don’t like.
Comments about bibles and guns are not helpful to winning votes.
Or at least, the “female President” concept became less implausible much earlier. Remember, the first major-party Presidential ticket to include a woman was over thirty years ago, in the Mondale-Ferraro campaign of 1984. AFAICT, the first black person to be a major party’s nominee for Pres or Vice-Pres was Obama in 2008.
(Interestingly, if we’re talking more fringe political parties, black nominees and female nominees made their debut in the Chief Exec stakes at exactly the same time, with the nomination by the Equal Rights Party in 1872 of suffragist Victoria Woodhull for President and Frederick Douglass for Vice-President. However, Douglass never officially acknowledged his nomination and Woodhull would have been under 35 when inaugurated, so it could be argued that their ticket didn’t really count.)
:dubious: Saying it’s a question of “bibles and guns” is being rather misleadingly selective about the issues involved, though.
Many of the “social policies” that the Democratic Party has endorsed that haven’t appealed much to the American white working class have involved not bibles or guns but civil rights for minorities, ending discrimination against same-sex couples, supporting women’s reproductive rights, and so on and so forth. Face it, the Democratic Party’s white-working-class problem has been not so much that liberals are “tone deaf” about working-class enthusiasm for bibles and guns, but rather that many working-class whites have remained so ardently anti-liberal on social issues.
Pretending that if Democrats had only been a bit more tactful about revival meetings and the Second Amendment they’d have socially conservative working-class white people all over them like red on raspberries is an unconvincing fantasy.
I think the white-working-class is more divided. Anecdotally, I know quite a few folks (mostly younger) who have no problem at all with race or gays, but the single issue of guns is enough to put them in the R column.
To put it another way – they are white, and not gay. Policies that affect others and not themselves, they don’t care enough about to fight one way or the other. Many other social issues they just don’t care about. Who cares if prayer is in school or not, they’re out of school. Who cares if someone else can get healthcare or not, they’ve got it through their job. Who cares if someone else can get an abortion or not, they’re not pregnant. They’re not poor, they’re not rich, tax policy doesn’t really seem to matter with one party vs. another. etc. etc. Those are all abstract. They don’t really seem to affect your life at all.
BUT, they own and regularly shoot guns. They are convinced that one party wants to change their life and take away their guns. The other party wants them to keep their guns. That issue alone could have a direct and meaningful effect on their life.
There is no single silver bullet but you are making it sound like white working class voters are basically thinly disguised racists and bigots. Sure there are some racists and bigots among them (in fact that seems to be where the vast majority of Democratic racism comes from) who think that civil rights is a usurpation of the white man’s position in society, but some of the social issues you mention have a religious dimension to them. Abortion and gay marriage in particular seem to have some religious drivers.
The gun issue has several dimensions but when Democrats attack guns and gun owners they are definitely playing into the notion that Democrats are all about big city voters and they don’t really care about rural voters.
Then that’s not exactly a matter of the Democratic Party just being “tone deaf” about working-class “concerns”, is it? On the contrary, that’s a fundamental difference of principle.
If many working-class whites oppose Democratic positions because they have religious objections to women’s reproductive rights or marriage equality for same-sex couples, I don’t think there’s much that Democrats can do about it short of abandoning some core concepts of liberalism. Which many Democrats, including myself, would not consider a worthwhile trade-off.
However, this is all getting rather far afield from the OP’s chosen topic of women’s “phases”, so maybe that’s enough about that for now, at least from me.
I think that Hillary winning on her first attempt would not have been as much of a watershed event as Obama winning on his second attempt. This country’s civil rights movement has seen much more progress and success for women than for blacks. It was just a matter of time.