Firstly, is it a regular thing to always tie social justice with IDentity? You're right. Those things should not be dismissed. How it was mishandled was that it was the centerpiece of the campaign. For better or worse. Campaign ads, "im voting Hillary because she's a Woman!" (While caring nothing about her policy substance or history),
I would love to see these ads with people saying they're voting for Hillary because she's a woman, with no mention of her policy substance or vote record.
ads that only fired shots about how much of a dirty man Trump is, and how misogynist and racist he his (which is true).
Those seem like valid attack lines against such a blatantly racist and sexist candidate.
The "deplorables" comment, PC outrage over his various speeches and other actions, etc. But WHERE IS THE FUCKING SUBSTANCE?
There were many rallies and speeches devoted to policy. Problem was, nobody cared! Both the media and many voters did not give a shit about Hillary's more uplifting or policy wonk moments; they wanted to hear whatever Trump was saying, and then wanted to hear Hillary attack Trump for whatever she just said. There was no shortage of thought policy positions, or speeches and white papers to support those positions, from Hillary's campaign. Just a lack of interest from the press and, consequentially, many voters.
How are you going to reach Bernie supporters after the DNC conspired against him? That's all fine, sure. Even as her campaign was over, they refused to let it go! They blamed the "sexists and Bernie bros", and any OTHER thing than themselves, indirectly pinning sexism on anybody that voted against her (including Bernie supporters, even during the Primary and beyond), etc.
I'm not sure if you're talking about post-primary or post-election, but I really do not recall the campaign ever labeling anybody that voted against her, or specifically Bernie voters, as sexists (aside from Madeline Albright's regrettable remark about women needing to support women or they'll go to hell, but she wasn't part of the campaign and this isn't even what you're talking about :lol).
When there are just-as-real issues out there that are MORE important to some people than social issues. It fucking sucks, I know, but it's the reality! Especially in the Rust Belt. That's the telling area that proves this IMO. In hurt demographic run down by trade deals, deals that she supported, where was she with the policy substance to help heal that? Meanwhile, that was one of Trumps driving conversations. They flipped, and looking back, unsurprisingly.
Trump tells rust belt workers what they want to hear; Hillary told them what needs to happen. She gave speeches and espoused positions about the need to, among other things, make education more affordable/accessible and implement more jobs retraining initiatives to transition workers from declining industries into more thriving ones (e.g. moving coal miners into renewable power jobs). Many of those people don't want to hear that; they don't want to be told they need to go to school or undergo some new training program to get a new job, they just their same old job back, with better pay than before. Trump told them he'll deliver, which is why they flipped for him. What's to be done about that other than just have Hillary, or any Dem, straight up lie to these voters about bringing back jobs that the market is phasing out?
Cindi Mayweather said:
What? I've been pretty much on topic. Starting fights? What.
Rich indeed.
Care to actually respond... rather than throw empty potshots
Cindi Mayweather hasn't contributed a single goddamn substantive argument in this entire thread, and has been taking potshots and backpeddling when called out on it, so don't hold your breath.
