This is a working strategy only if you assume that by forcing the issue, you’ll win. If you force the Democratic Party to choose between its moderate wing and its liberal wing, it might pick the moderates. It is in fact very probable.
The party is currently controlled by moderates. They’d rather keep it that way.
Moderates probably outnumber liberals so they have more votes.
Moderates probably have more money and influence on average than liberals.
The Republicans are much more likely to pick up abandoned moderates than they are to pick up abandoned liberals.
I agree, this would be the optimal solution. But you know, the Tea Party wasn’t really a grassroots movement. It was pure astroturf, the product of millions poured into it by the Koch Brothers. That’s why it sprang up so fast. (Granted, there was a large population of frightened old racists who jumped on it like hound dogs on a bandwagon full of pork chops once it got going.) Real grassroots movements take time and effort to take off. Should a progressive movement like the Tea Party spring up among the Democrats, I’ll happily support it, though I’d be suspicious of it as another attempt by the Democrats to capture liberal/progressive voters without implementing their policies. In the meantime, the Democrats will not have my vote, because at least that way I have a hope of influencing them.
I agree. But in the absence of a viable Democratic progressive wing, they will have to do. All the Democrats would have to do to render them not a threat electorally is to implement policies that would attract progressive voters. Not happening.
Not a problem for me. I’ve voted Democrat for decades … I’m REAL used to voting for parties with flawed agendas.
Let’s see the ones that address his assertion. Or yours, since you want to ascribe to his thinking. For the record, I’m sure there are plenty of dumb things both Reps and Dems have said. But I’d love to see what you, and he, passes for support for your assertion.
Of course, I am talking about the Teaparty & co, not the “Gotbux” wing of the GoP*. But currently the teaparty tail is waging the dog, so far all intents & purposes the GoP is being run by a lot of ignorant red-necked racists.
who are exactly as socially aware as it’s in their best economic issue to be.
While the progressive wing of the Democratic Party certainly does not match the size and influence of the Tea Party, it has accomplished far more than the Green Party ever has by actually sending several of their number to Congress.
The difference, however, is that the Democrats are electable while having a flawed agenda while the Greens are not.
I’m shuffling through 200+ pages of Stupid Republican Ideas (and assorted waffling) but I’ll see what I can dig up for you. Are you going to require explicit racism or can I include obvious dogwhistles too?
Have the Reps embraced any economic policies that Blacks support?
While I’m sure having a few black faces in important positions is interesting, logical people choose parties based on the policies they support, not the color of the people in charge.
Given that Blacks in this country tend to be poorer, and have higher unemployment, what Republican policies benefit them directly? Sure, there is the theoretical benefit of Supply Side Economics, but it’s difficult to see how it has benefited the poor rather than the rich, given our widening income inequality over the last few decades.
Personally, I see Reps supporting reduced unemployment payments, food stamps, medicare expansion, things that would likely benefit many black families directly.
Obviously, the more explicit it is the more convincing it will be. The more dogwhistle-like it is, the more you will be injecting your own biases into someone’s else’s words and asking me to accept those biases. So, in this case, I’d say you’d need stuff that’s definitive and not open to interpretation. I already understand that many think many statements are racist. I disagree. So if you desire to convince someone not predisposed to assuming racism exists in a particular quote, you should provide evidence that is strong.
Well, two quick ones are Charter Schools and illegal immigration. Many, if not most, Blacks in urban areas support Charter Schools. Just look to NYC now, Dem Mayor DiBlasio is suffering a backlash among a large segment of those who helped elect him due to his actions that are not friendly to Charter Schools. We saw the same thing in Washington, D.C. not long ago.
The other, the Dem stance on illegal immigration is a similar “Fuck You” to the poorer Black Americans you ask about. For the millions of them that have low skills, they have 1) fewer job opportunities they would have if the illegals weren’t here, and 2) many of the opportunities that remain come with wages that are artificially suppressed due an inflated worker pool.
While I agree that the rich (actually I’d say “corporations”) benefit from this greatly, that does not negate the fact that it hurts poor Blacks. Remember, we’re not arguing about the poor, generally, but about one specific subset: poor Blacks. And the more illegals that are able to flood the market the worse it makes it for those Blacks with the fewest options.
I’d say that another group is those Black Americans who are devout Christians. For many White Americans, that dictates the way they vote. It seems to be true for a much smaller percent of religious Blacks. While it might not be wise to assume parity among the two groups, most devout Christians tend to feel a greater allegiance to the Republicans.