Support NeoGAF

[excelsiorlef]

There's literally only a single part of the data set that directly compares middle class blacks with poor whites, which is this:



The rest of the first part compares the home cost of middle-income blacks and whites, and the entire second part compares the social mobility of middle-income blacks and whites and then the social mobility of low-income blacks and whites, never comparing middle-income blacks and low-income whites.

As to the quote parted, I think that's reflective of how poverty is used as a weapon against blackness. If you are ostracized on account of your race, you're more likely to want to live with your own race. If your race is mostly kept poor, that means even if you're relatively wealthy, you're going to live in low-income areas.

I don't think this should be massively complicated. Put it a different way: would you rather be Oprah, or would you rather be Sue, a 62-year old white woman who lives in Mississippi and is out of work and has a recently fired husband who worked in manual labour? I think you'd be nuts not to say Oprah and you'll have to forgive me out of hand you say Sue; I don't think you're being serious. So now slide down the scale. Start with Oprah, then go to Serena Williams, continue down til you're now a $250,000 a year black professional in Houston, and so on. My guess is that at the point you're a household earning $52,000 a year, you'd still pick that over being the white household with no income, or income in the $10,000 or below range.

And I just know you're going to say "you have no experience of blackness" - no, sure. But you have no experience of poverty, so... let's split the difference.

This is a facile argument, I know. Real life isn't like this. The main way blackness is oppressed is *through* poverty; black America is never given the choice to become middle class, and has to fight for it in every breath and every step, and even when they make it, they're not accepted for who they are. The recession hit black households harder than it did white ones; the collapse in manual labour caused a sharper decline in black employment than it did white employment. So, yes, there is an *enormous* intersectionality here - problems of class and race are deeply and perhaps inseparably intertwined. But that's why you have to work on them both, at the same time, if you want to solve them. You don't get to insist on solidarity for your issue, and then ignore it for others.

And what I see pigeon, is you saying: I don't really care about poverty. Not really. I want their solidarity for my issue, and then I'm done. You say you're a socialist, but if so: where are the receipts? Why aren't you talking about poverty as well? I've not seen you talk about the kind of grinding lack of dignity and unemployment faced by the poor of all races. I've not seen you talk about industrial decline and the collapse of unions. I've not seen you pointing out the devastating effect that unfettered free trade has had on manual America. In fact, I've seen you cheering on both free trade and the candidates of free trade uncritically. Now: I believe you. I know you think you're a socialist - and I mean that in the old, proper sense of socialism, as a class movement and not an ideology. But we've talked a lot, and I have the patience a comfortable life affords.

Do the working class believe you?

You went from middle class black family to Oprah.... Maybe admit you are out of your league here?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

This Carrier victory lap feels like one of an endless line of "Mission Accomplished" stunts that will be maximally manipulative.

 

[kirblar]

The reason you don't have class issues resolved IS race. It is the biggest thing interfering with building a coalition to expand the welfare state. You cannot address class without addressing race, because the latter is the roadblock to the former.

The fact that we are talking about the WHITE working class vote and not working class voters in general should tell you how important race, racism and race relations are to understanding how voting and the election played out and how critical they were to Trump's narrow victory. A restoration/growth of implicit or explicit white supremacy is what many of these voters want even if they would never directly harm a non-white person themselves. Let's also not forget that education and race were better predictors of who you would vote for this election than income. This is going to be a tough nut to crack in terms of policy and messaging but left populism, that is well executed and DOES NOT push minority concerns aside, I think will do more to energize non-voters than pull away the people who voted Trump.

The issue isn't pushing minority issues aside, it's that having them at the foreground of discussion for an extended period appears to run a serious risk of white backlash. :-/

 

[Outdoor Miner]

https://twitter.com/charles_gaba/status/804368905451999232

Charles Gaba Verified account
‏@charles_gaba

Charles Gaba Retweeted Decision Desk HQ

With this update:
WI: Hillary down 22,177
MI: Hillary down 10,704
PA: Hillary down 46,435
Total: 79,316

This is DEPRESSING AND SOUL CRUSHING.

 

[dramatis]

Hello.

Today we're going to talk about Asian Americans.

Asian Americans go live in affluent neighborhoods, they have high earning jobs, their kids go to good schools...

And the white people move out of those neighborhoods.

Why? Those Asians aren't oppressed through poverty. They aren't causing trouble. They do well. It turns out, oh my god, that their kids are too smart, and white people fear their kids might feel they're dumb next to these "too excellent" Asian kids.

Poverty is not used as a weapon against Asians, but all the same if you do too well, some white lady in Manhattan will tell an American citizen who graduated from Harvard and edited the staple newspaper of this town for more than ten years to "Go back to China!" If you do too well, suddenly, you're taking their jobs! You're taking their houses! You're too rich! You're too smart! You make us feel bad!

But hey. Let's cherry pick Oprah and consider her the equivalent of a middle class black woman, then compare her to imaginary white woman from Mississippi to show how poor the circumstances are for imaginary white woman compared to a "middle class black woman" whose net worth is $2.9 billion.

 

[kirblar]

Hello.

Today we're going to talk about Asian Americans.

Asian Americans go live in affluent neighborhoods, they have high earning jobs, their kids go to good schools...

And the white people move out of those neighborhoods.

Why? Those Asians aren't oppressed through poverty. They aren't causing trouble. They do well. It turns out, oh my god, that their kids are too smart, and white people fear their kids might feel they're dumb next to these "too excellent" Asian kids.

Poverty is not used as a weapon against Asians, but all the same if you do too well, some white lady in Manhattan will tell an American citizen who graduated from Harvard and edited the staple newspaper of this town for more than ten years to "Go back to China!" If you do too well, suddenly, you're taking their jobs! You're taking their houses! You're too rich! You're too smart! You make us feel bad!

But hey. Let's cherry pick Oprah and consider her the equivalent of a middle class black woman, then compare her to imaginary white woman from Mississippi to show how poor the circumstances are for imaginary white woman compared to a "middle class black woman" whose net worth is $2.9 billion.

Here's the article on White Flight from Asian neighborhoods I'm pretty sure you're referencing: https://psmag.com/ghosts-of-white-p...om-an-asian-ethnoburb-b550ba986cdb#.ve7chlcdy (it's a very good piece.)

 

[tuxfool]

This Carrier victory lap feels like one of an endless line of "Mission Accomplished" stunts that will be maximally manipulative.

After a few years everyone that celebrates it today will be nowhere to be found. Nobody that voted for this will take responsibility for this entire vapid exercise.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not picking Oprah as a middle class black woman. I'm picking her as the extreme case, to say: look, there is definitely {some income level} for which you'd rather be black than white with a household income of $10,000. I then said move downwards through the {some income level}s, and you should find {some income level} for which you'd be indifferent.

Nor am I saying there isn't racism that can exist independent of poverty, so like, that entire talk about Asian Americans is totally irrelevant to me.

I'm just pointing out that: poverty is also a form of state oppression that also dramatically reduces quality of life and living standards; we have just as much of a burden to reduce unemployment, industrial collapse, and the associated indignities as we do anything else. This needs to be an intersectional movement that deals with issues of class AND race.

Clinton, and the Democrats, are not seen as a party concerned with class.

But you are all smart posters, and you can all read, so once again I just have to conclude you're not actually looking to discuss, you just want to feel good attacking a strawman.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Oprah is the wealthiest African American on the planet. I believe she's also the richest woman on the planet. She's also likely one of the most influential African Americans on the planet. And that includes Obama.

Oprah suffered a lot of racism and sexism in her life. Just because she's rich now doesn't mean for a large chunk of her life, she suffered from problems due to her race. She was lucky. Someone with her early life story usually doesn't end up a multi-billionaire on top of the world. They end up on the streets. Or in prison. Or dead.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I'm not picking Oprah as a middle class black woman. I'm picking her as the extreme case, to say: look, there is definitely {some income level} for which you'd rather be black than white with a household income of $10,000. I then said move downwards through the {some income level}s, and you should find {some income level} for which you'd be indifferent.

But you are all smart posters, and you can all read, so once again I just have to conclude you're not actually looking to discuss, you just want to feel good attacking a strawman.

Oprah was such a nonsense person to bring up, it doesn't prove your point, it just makes your point look even weaker.

 

[Crocodile]

The reason you don't have class issues resolved IS race. It is the biggest thing interfering with building a coalition to expand the welfare state. You cannot address class without addressing race, because the latter is the roadblock to the former.

The issue isn't pushing minority issues aside, it's that having them at the foreground of discussion for an extended period appears to run a serious risk of white backlash. :-/

I mean the history of this country should tell you that its not that surprising. We had a Civil War over the issues of race. After a short-lived Reconstruction we had 100 years of Jim Crow. The Democrats and Republicans basically swapped constituents over the issue of race and the Civil Rights Act. Following the Civil Rights act we got the War on Drugs. This isn't a new pattern. Hell that quote in a recent article where a woman said she voted for Obama but was upset and felt betrayed that he "took Trayvon Martin's side" in that shooting incident is emblematic of this problem.

RACE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

(Insert 1535132 Lydon B. Johnson quotes here)

Any other take is fundamentally wrong. That being said, we can't stop talking about issues that are important to minority voters. If the WWC voters get to be wooed and have their concerns listened to and addressed, you sure as hell better believe non-white voters deserved to be wooed and listened too. I do think we are moving, overall, in the right direction but its not a straight linear path but rather a bumpy road with some occasional setbacks. This election was a setback, not the end of America's multiethnic destiny.

 

[kirblar]

I'm not picking Oprah as a middle class black woman. I'm picking her as the extreme case, to say: look, there is definitely {some income level} for which you'd rather be black than white with a household income of $10,000. I then said move downwards through the {some income level}s, and you should find {some income level} for which you'd be indifferent.

Nor am I saying there isn't racism that can exist independent of poverty, so like, that entire talk about Asian Americans is totally irrelevant to me.

I'm just pointing out that: poverty is also a form of state oppression that also dramatically reduces quality of life and living standards; we have just as much of a burden to reduce unemployment, industrial collapse, and the associated indignities as we do anything else. This needs to be an intersectional movement that deals with issues of class AND race.

Clinton, and the Democrats, are not seen as a party concerned with class.

But you are all smart posters, and you can all read, so once again I just have to conclude you're not actually looking to discuss, you just want to feel good attacking a strawman.

They are not seen as a party concerned with class by these people because these people see them as a party concerned with race. Race overrides class for them.

The only time this seems to get overridden is in a recession, where they run to the only party that does their job w/ the economy.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Given the choice between being private faceless, nameless white billionaire CEO who nobody knows exist, but has all the money he could ever need, versus Oprah, who had an extremely hard life and now whose entire life is in the public eye because there was no way she was ever going to become a CEO of a major company and become a billionaire that way, I'm picking the billionaire who lives a private life and wasn't from a broken home, growing up poor, being raped, and all the other stuff Oprah had to deal with that nameless white CEO can't even comprehend exists

Pretty much every major issue in this country is traced back to race.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Oprah is the wealthiest African American on the planet. I believe she's also the richest woman on the planet. She's also likely one of the most influential African Americans on the planet. And that includes Obama.

Oprah suffered a lot of racism and sexism in her life. Just because she's rich now doesn't mean for a large chunk of her life, she suffered from problems due to her race. She was lucky. Someone with her early life story usually doesn't end up a multi-billionaire on top of the world. They end up on the streets. Or in prison. Or dead.

YES.

YES I KNOW.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT OPRAH IS THE AVERAGE STORY.

I am saying: blackness, as a problem, does not absolutely dominate poverty. It is not an acceptable state of affairs to say: we shall be a party of racial justice only (especially because even if you solved racial discrimination tomorrow there would still be poor people who are also black).

This started as a response to pigeon saying: he doesn't feel okay in America because black people do not have unconditional allies. I pointed out that the poor, who are also suffering, do not have unconditional allies either, and they are also suffering, and they probably do not feel okay about this either. Nobody has unconditional allies, and that is why those who are suffering must constantly work with one another and reaffirm that they are doing so.

Pigeon's response to this was: blackness is always worse than poorness, with (I think) the implicit argument attached that blackness deserves unconditional allies and poorness does not. My response is pointing out that blackness and poorness do not dominate each other. There are some black people who lead comfortable and quality lives. There are some poor people who do not experience racial discrimination and racial indignities. Both deserve unconditional allies, neither is actually going to get them, and both will therefore have to work with one another.

 

[dramatis]

Nor am I saying there isn't racism that can exist independent of poverty, so like, that entire talk about Asian Americans is totally irrelevant to me.

I'm just pointing out that: poverty is also a form of state oppression that also dramatically reduces quality of life and living standards; we have just as much of a burden to reduce unemployment, industrial collapse, and the associated indignities as we do anything else. This needs to be an intersectional movement that deals with issues of class AND race.

When you posit that the oppression of black people is more due to poverty above other reasons, including their actual race, you're going to get discussion about Asian Americans and women, because they're proof that economic wealth does not erase the underlying racial or gender problems.

It is race and gender first, class second. A white male gets to say class first, race and gender second, but that would not be the case for someone who is born non-white and not male.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

No Crab, the problem is this.

What comes first in American society: Racism or Poverty?

If you think it's poverty you simply don't understand America, end of story. But you also went a step beyond that and trivialized the very experience of racism by ignorantly assuming that middle class blacks must have better lives than poor whites because they're "richer".

If you don't have any comprehension of the non-equivalence of economic status across races then it makes sense that you wouldn't understand how racism literally impacts everything about your day to day quality of life.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Okay, dramatis. If you want the Democrats to be a party of race and gender first and foremost, I admire your tenacity and your principles, but you will lose the next election. You will lose the Supreme Court. You will probably lose the protections of the Voting Rights Act as increasingly conservative local courts undermine it. You will do, in sum, absolutely nothing, in any way, shape or form, to progress either racial justice or feminism.

EDIT: Neither comes first. They exist together, and are largely inseparable. If America was a country consisting entirely of the same race with no citizens to be racist against, it would still have poverty. If America was a country without any poverty (or remarkably little compared to other societies), it would still have racism.

 

[Fenderputty]

Hello.

Today we're going to talk about Asian Americans.

Asian Americans go live in affluent neighborhoods, they have high earning jobs, their kids go to good schools...

And the white people move out of those neighborhoods.

Why? Those Asians aren't oppressed through poverty. They aren't causing trouble. They do well. It turns out, oh my god, that their kids are too smart, and white people fear their kids might feel they're dumb next to these "too excellent" Asian kids.

Poverty is not used as a weapon against Asians, but all the same if you do too well, some white lady in Manhattan will tell an American citizen who graduated from Harvard and edited the staple newspaper of this town for more than ten years to "Go back to China!" If you do too well, suddenly, you're taking their jobs! You're taking their houses! You're too rich! You're too smart! You make us feel bad!

But hey. Let's cherry pick Oprah and consider her the equivalent of a middle class black woman, then compare her to imaginary white woman from Mississippi to show how poor the circumstances are for imaginary white woman compared to a "middle class black woman" whose net worth is $2.9 billion.

This describes my uncle to a T.

My father and him were building houses / buying houses back in 2005 or so. My father found land and built. His brother wanted to do the same but the city where land was available to build (where my father bought land) has like a 30% + Asian and so they decided to not build but buy in Orange County.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Racism is the #1 biggest issue in this country, and it always has been. It's hard to argue that poverty is the biggest issue (or that they're even tied) when the bloodiest war we ever fought in our country's history was over race. No war in our country was fought over poverty.

And we never really ever recovered from that war or the institution of slavery. It's intertwined in our entire governing system. Our entire government was structured to ensure nobody could get rid of slavery.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

Okay, dramatis. If you want the Democrats to be a party of race and gender first and foremost, I admire your tenacity and your principles, but you will lose the next election. You will lose the Supreme Court. You will probably lose the protections of the Voting Rights Act as increasingly conservative local courts undermine it. You will do, in sum, absolutely nothing, in any way, shape or form, to progress either racial justice or feminism.

Will lose? We already lost those things precisely because of the racial backlash against Obama during the 2010 election.

 

[whyamihere]

Heitkamp taking a job in the Trump administration would be bad, but her being floated and then ultimately passed on would probably help her reelection bid.

 

[Crocodile]

RACE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

RACE IS A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAN CLASS IN AMERICAN POLITICS

RACE MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE COALITIONS BROAD ENOUGH TO TACKLE CLASS BASED ISSUES

DEMOCRATS ARE SEEN BY SOME AS NOT ADDRESSING CLASS ISSUES BECAUSE THEY TRY TO ADDRESS CLASS ISSUES ALONG RACIAL LINES

THE MERE ACT OF TRYING TO UPLIFT NON-WHITE VOTERS TURNS OFF MANY WHITE VOTERS (EVEN WHITE VOTERS WHO BY AND LARGE ARE GOOD PEOPLE)

RACE IS THE REASON MANY WHITE VOTERS ARE REPUBLICANS EVEN IF IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE IN THEIR ECONOMIC BEST INTEREST

EDIT: Maybe All Caps was too much? I'm not rewriting that though

 

[studyguy]

Caps deffo unnecessary.

Anyway, it is what it is at this point, we already lost due to a gigantic kick in the face in retaliation for racial identity politics. We had the same shit happen 20 years ago with angry white southerners mad that minorities were going to get a bigger stake in policies and we have it again now. I'll just sit and wait for another 20 years so the next group of minority rights advocates can get stomped back to square one.

 

[kirblar]

I am saying: blackness, as a problem, does not absolutely dominate poverty.

In 2010, 45% of African Americans owned their homes, compared to 67% of all Americans.[91] The poverty rate among African Americans has decreased from 26.5% in 1998 to 24.7% in 2004, compared to 12.7% for all Americans

The US public sector is the single most important source of employment for African Americans.[109] During 2008–2010, 21.2% of all Black workers were public employees, compared with 16.3% of non-Black workers.[109] Both before and after the onset of the Great Recession, African Americans were 30% more likely than other workers to be employed in the public sector.[109]

The public sector is also a critical source of decent-paying jobs for Black Americans. For both men and women, the median wage earned by Black employees is significantly higher in the public sector than in other industries.[109]

In 1999, the median income of African-American families was $33,255 compared to $53,356 of European Americans. In times of economic hardship for the nation, African Americans suffer disproportionately from job loss and underemployment, with the black underclass being hardest hit. The phrase "last hired and first fired" is reflected in the Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment figures. Nationwide, the October 2008 unemployment rate for African Americans was 11.1%,[110] while the nationwide rate was 6.5%.[111]

The income gap between black and white families is also significant. In 2005, employed blacks earned 65% of the wages of whites, down from 82% in 1975.[92]

(wiki)

No, seriously, it really does. They're not massively over-represented simply because of the natural economic fallout from slavery. They're not over-represented in Government jobs simply because they prefer them.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's good you all think that. I wish you luck. I'm just not sure you'll find it.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

Joe Manchin being floated for Energy Secretary, it sounds like. Although he says he hasn't personally been contacted yet.

 

[Maledict]

Joe Manchin being floated for Energy Secretary, it sounds like. Although he says he hasn't personally been contacted yet.

That would be, strategically, an amazingly smart pick for Trump. Gets him the ever so precious Bi-partisanship seal (wonder how often Fox will mention the fact Obama did the same?), and gives the republicans a guaranteed pick up seat in the senate.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The US public sector is the single most important source of employment for African Americans.[109] During 2008–2010, 21.2% of all Black workers were public employees, compared with 16.3% of non-Black workers.[109] Both before and after the onset of the Great Recession, African Americans were 30% more likely than other workers to be employed in the public sector.[109]

The public sector is also a critical source of decent-paying jobs for Black Americans. For both men and women, the median wage earned by Black employees is significantly higher in the public sector than in other industries.[109]

Oh

That explains a lot about why the GOP hates government workers.

It does make sense though. Government jobs are less likely to discriminate when hiring.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

RACE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

RACE IS A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAN CLASS IN AMERICAN POLITICS

RACE MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE COALITIONS BROAD ENOUGH TO TACKLE CLASS BASED ISSUES

DEMOCRATS ARE SEEN BY SOME AS NOT ADDRESSING CLASS ISSUES BECAUSE THEY TRY TO ADDRESS CLASS ISSUES ALONG RACIAL LINES

THE MERE ACT OF TRYING TO UPLIFT NON-WHITE VOTERS TURNS OFF MANY WHITE VOTERS (EVEN WHITE VOTERS WHO BY AND LARGE ARE GOOD PEOPLE)

RACE IS THE REASON MANY WHITE VOTERS ARE REPUBLICANS EVEN IF IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE IN THEIR ECONOMIC BEST INTEREST

EDIT: Maybe All Caps was too much? I'm not rewriting that though

 

[kirblar]

It's good you all think that. I wish you luck. I'm just not sure you'll find it.

Your country just voted to leave the EU because of a relatively small number of immigrants.

Why do you think things would be better on this front in a country with a relatively gigantic minority population that's going to become majority minority within the next century?

Oh

That explains a lot about why the GOP hates government workers.

It does make sense though. Government jobs are less likely to discriminate when hiring.

....goddamnit, yeah, I didn't make that connection until you said it

 

[AntraxSuicide]

And I just know you're going to say "you have no experience of blackness" - no, sure. But you have no experience of poverty, so... let's split the difference.

Just to jump in on this generalization (which I warned you about!). I'm a poor white guy from Mississippi. My annual income is roughly 12K a year, and that's the most I've ever made a year. I'm fairly certain you've mentioned being wealthy before (I wanna say 200K was a number you mentioned, but I don't feel like checking). Don't take "I've lived in poor towns" as experiencing poverty.

And I would definitely take my current circumstance over being black making 6 figures. Definitely. I get to go to work, walk in parks, go out and drink, etc... without genuine fear for my life. Not to go into great detail, but my dad was incredibly abusive and is a career felon that stole, beat, and injured my family for most of my childhood. Now that I know what safety feels like, I would rather die than feel that fear again.

And it's sad that you'd rather walk down the street afraid for your life (unless you don't think black people should feel that, in which case, you're insane) instead of picking my impoverished life now where I work long hours for bad pay but can confidently say I'm coming home for dinner every day with no reservation. Black people don't get to do that.

 

[pigeon]

So now slide down the scale. Start with Oprah, then go to Serena Williams, continue down til you're now a $250,000 a year black professional in Houston, and so on. My guess is that at the point you're a household earning $52,000 a year, you'd still pick that over being the white household with no income, or income in the $10,000 or below range.

No. As a white person making $10k I would have access to lots of social services and community support, as well as confidence that society would not let me starve and that it would even overlook crimes I committed to survive. Also, I would be able to rely on the police to help solve problems and protect me, and since we just elected a white supremacist, I would have confidence that state violence would be mobilized to raise me up out of poverty on the backs of others.

And what I see pigeon, is you saying: I don't really care about poverty. Not really. I want their solidarity for my issue, and then I'm done. You say you're a socialist, but if so: where are the receipts? Why aren't you talking about poverty as well? I've not seen you talk about the kind of grinding lack of dignity and unemployment faced by the poor of all races. I've not seen you talk about industrial decline and the collapse of unions. I've not seen you pointing out the devastating effect that unfettered free trade has had on manual America. In fact, I've seen you cheering on both free trade and the candidates of free trade uncritically. Now: I believe you. I know you think you're a socialist - and I mean that in the old, proper sense of socialism, as a class movement and not an ideology. But we've talked a lot, and I have the patience a comfortable life affords.

Do the working class believe you?

I'm genuinely frustrated by this post, because I consistently post about the exact same issues you've been talking about in re needing transfer programs and the dangers of automation for lower-class jobs. You can literally find posts from me in 2012 about the importance of coming up with revitalization plans for Appalachia. If you don't think I talk about poverty, I don't think you actually looked. I feel like you are either ignoring my comments, misunderstanding them, or deliberately lying about them here because you are offended.

To be frank, I understand that it comes across a an attack to say that you don't understand race in America, but most Americans don't understand race in America. Is it really so impossible for you to accept that there is something you actually might not have the best understanding of?

The reason I am not talking about poverty right now is that we just elected a white supremacist who poses a direct danger to myself and my family. To be blunt, you should understand this. It is pretty offensive to say "well, the new president might put religious minorities on a registry, strip citizenship from people of color, or cancel elections and institute a fascist dictatorship, but I don't think you're talking enough about how poverty makes it hard to get education." There is actually such a thing as prioritization.

I spent this year fighting for the candidate that I believed would do the best job of uplifting poor low-college workers and creating policies that would lead us towards the social democracy America needs to be functional in the world of automation. Also, she wasn't Idiot Hitler, and that seemed more relevant to mention in my view, but I'm sorry if you felt that I spent too much time on how Nazis were bad.

I'll say it more directly: there can be no solidarity with people who do not accept and are willing to defend my right to live in peace in America. None. If those are the people we must find solidarity with to institute social programs, then there will be no social programs in America as it currently exists. In that world, I believe we should explore options for creating social and economic justice other than competing in American federal elections.

If you are saying that this is prioritizing my issue over theirs, you are correct. My issue is more important, because it is something they already have and take for granted. I have always accepted the right of poor white people to live in peace in America. All I'm asking is for them to do the same. Until they do, we are not a common class. How then can we exist in solidarity?

Now, as I've said before, the election was very close. I think our coalition is still stronger and that most Americans agree with my right to live in peace in America, although I'm questionable at this time as to whether they will defend it as it comes under assault. But let me be clear: my support of the American left, and I suspect the support of many others, is contingent on their willingness to be strident in their defense of my right to live in peace in America. When you talk about building the Democratic Party for success in the future, keep that in mind.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Your country just voted to leave the EU because of a relatively small number of immigrants.

Why do you think things would be better on this front in a country with a relatively gigantic minority population that's going to become majority minority within the next century?

Immigration had little to do with it, though. Net immigration to an area was negatively correlated with voting for Leave - Maledict will confirm that one if they're around. The strongest predictor of voting Leave was how badly affected that area was by the 'trade shock' - where globalization caused traditional labour to collapse. Then Farage came along and told everyone the problem was immigrants and if we left the EU, the jobs would come back, and so people voted to leave. If you travel back in time to ~2005 (before the recession and before Farage, but a time of comparable immigration levels) support for the EU was high.

Sound like a familiar story?

 

[kirblar]

Immigration had little to do with it, though. Net immigration to an area was negatively correlated with voting for Leave - Maledict will confirm that one if they're around. The strongest predictor of voting Leave was how badly affected that area was by the 'trade shock' - where globalization caused traditional labour to collapse. Then Farage came along and told everyone the problem was immigrants and if we left the EU, the jobs would come back, and so people voted to leave. If you travel back in time to ~2005 (before the recession and before Farage, but a time of comparable immigration levels) support for the EU was high.

Sound like a familiar story?

That doesn't explain 2010. It doesn't explain 2012.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

That would be, strategically, an amazingly smart pick for Trump. Gets him the ever so precious Bi-partisanship seal (wonder how often Fox will mention the fact Obama did the same?), and gives the republicans a guaranteed pick up seat in the senate.

It wouldn't necessarily be a guaranteed pick up for the GOP. A Democrat will be Governor, at least.

The WV Gubernatorial race this year is super interesting, actually. The "Mountain Party" - which is essentially the Green Party - got 6.5% of the vote. I gotta say, that party name is some incredible framing.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That doesn't explain 2010. It doesn't explain 2012.

What doesn't it explain?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It wouldn't necessarily be a guaranteed pick up for the GOP. A Democrat will be Governor, at least.

The WV Gubernatorial race this year is super interesting, actually. The "Mountain Party" - which is essentially the Green Party - got 6.5% of the vote. I gotta say, that party name is some incredible framing.

That's genius.

 

[kirblar]

What doesn't it explain?

That this "angry white backlash" has been occurring long before Trump came along. (see: '94)

 

[Maledict]

Immigration had little to do with it, though. Net immigration to an area was negatively correlated with voting for Leave - Maledict will confirm that one if they're around. The strongest predictor of voting Leave was how badly affected that area was by the 'trade shock' - where globalization caused traditional labour to collapse. Then Farage came along and told everyone the problem was immigrants and if we left the EU, the jobs would come back, and so people voted to leave. If you travel back in time to ~2005 (before the recession and before Farage, but a time of comparable immigration levels) support for the EU was high.

Sound like a familiar story?

No, that's not exactly right.

Whilst overall immigration didn't correlate to the vote, %change in immigration was. Areas that had very little immigration that relatively increased a lot vote to leave - even if the overall numbers remained very very low.

The other factor is that we know immigration was the single biggest reason for people to vote Brexit - we've all seen the exit polls and the word clouds that showed immigration as the number 1 issue.

In terms of best correlation with a leave vote BTw, the actual strongest correlation was cultural conservatism. Some very rich areas voted to leave - but if you ask people what they think on things like climate change, feminism etc there was an extremely strong correlation between cultural conservatism and a vote to leave. It was literally white people voting for the 1950s...

 

[Brawndo Addict]

You will do, in sum, absolutely nothing, in any way, shape or form, to progress either racial justice or feminism.

It says everything about your approach that you think this is a pithy line. Politics is not an end, it is a means. You think the objective of racial justice or feminism is passing a couple laws? You think losing those things means that the cause is not advancing?

The true objective of these movements has never been to get key legislation passed that will magically fix society. The objective of these movements is to change the way society and human beings think and feel towards those of different races, genders, and orientations. To have us recognize the shared humanity in our neighbors.

The end is not a society with a bunch of laws enforcing behavior. The end is a society where those laws are unnecessary in the first place. You don't move towards that society without tackling those issues head-on. It is not easy nor did anyone say it would be. But the right choice has never been easy.

 

[kirblar]

No, that's not exactly right.

Whilst overall immigration didn't correlate to the vote, %change in immigration was. Areas that had very little immigration that increased a lot vote to leave - even if the overall numbers remained very very low.

The other factor is that we know immigration was the single biggest reason for people to vote Brexit - we've all seen the exit polls and the word clouds that showed immigration as the number 1 issue.

In terms of best correlation with a leave vote BTw, the actual strongest correlation was cultural conservatism. Some very rich areas voted to leave - but if you ask people what they think on things like climate change, feminism etc there was an extremely strong correlation between cultural conservatism and a vote to leave. It was literally white people voting for the 1950s...

This relates to how once you controlled for racial resentment, there was virtually no difference between how low/high income white people were voting in the US election.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

http://www.businessinsider.com/drain-the-swamp-trump-conned-supporters-whitney-tilson-2016-11

Whitney Tilson on Trump's supporters: 'I think Donald Trump conned them'

In an interview with Bloomberg on Wednesday, Tilson said of Trump's supporters, "I think Donald Trump conned them," pointing to the president-elect's frequent campaign-trail tirades against bankers' influence in Washington.

Tilson said he "can take glee" in knowing some Trump supporters might be disappointed by Trump's latest Cabinet picks.

The president-elect's transition team announced this week that Wall Street banker Steve Mnuchin would be nominated as Treasury secretary. Mnuchin is a Goldman Sachs alum and would be the third such person to run the US Treasury Department since the 1990s. Trump also picked billionaire investor Wilbur Ross to serve as secretary of commerce.

Sorry if posted before.

 

[Plinko]

https://twitter.com/charles_gaba/status/804368905451999232


This is DEPRESSING AND SOUL CRUSHING.

Effectively reach out to African Americans like so many AA politicians and analysts were screaming for, and Hillary is president. 100% her and her campaign's fault.

 

[kirblar]

Effectively reach out to African Americans like so many AA politicians and analysts were screaming for, and Hillary is president. 100% her and her campaign's fault.

Wasn't even just AAs, they weren't doing the groundwork anywhere that they needed to be doing. We all assumed they were doing it, because you'd be insane not to!

 

[Manmademan]

Wow.

Is this what white people think? That a bit of extra money makes up for the difference in skin color, and the lifelong treatment that comes from that?

He's not wrong. As a black American in the middle to upper middle economic bracket there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I would trade my situation to be a poor white guy.

None.

Zero.

Life isn't perfect as a minority, but the educational and sociological advantages I grew up with and am passing on to my kid are priceless.

 

[East Lake]

It says everything about your approach that you think this is a pithy line. Politics is not an end, it is a means. You think the objective of racial justice or feminism is passing a couple laws? You think losing those things means that the cause is not advancing?

The true objective of these movements has never been to get key legislation passed that will magically fix society. The objective of these movements is to change the way society and human beings think and act towards those of different races, genders, and orientations.

The end is not a society with a bunch of laws enforcing behavior. The end is a society where those laws are unnecessary in the first place.

Society can also degrade. Crab's point is that you're all acting like a bunch of Bernie or busters. Race is not the primary concern of the electorate, just like climate change is also not the primary concern although it should be at the very top. Should we all be mad at Hillary for not focusing 90% of her speeches on climate change?

 

[Manmademan]

RACE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN AMERICAN POLITICS

RACE IS A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAN CLASS IN AMERICAN POLITICS

RACE MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE COALITIONS BROAD ENOUGH TO TACKLE CLASS BASED ISSUES

DEMOCRATS ARE SEEN BY SOME AS NOT ADDRESSING CLASS ISSUES BECAUSE THEY TRY TO ADDRESS CLASS ISSUES ALONG RACIAL LINES

THE MERE ACT OF TRYING TO UPLIFT NON-WHITE VOTERS TURNS OFF MANY WHITE VOTERS (EVEN WHITE VOTERS WHO BY AND LARGE ARE GOOD PEOPLE)

RACE IS THE REASON MANY WHITE VOTERS ARE REPUBLICANS EVEN IF IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE IN THEIR ECONOMIC BEST INTEREST

EDIT: Maybe All Caps was too much? I'm not rewriting that though

This is also true.

 

[kirblar]

Society can also degrade. Crab's point is that you're all acting like a bunch of Bernie or busters. Race is not the primary concern of the electorate, just like climate change is also not the primary concern although it should be at the very top. Should we all be mad at Hillary for not focusing 90% of her speeches on climate change?

Of the electorate? No.

Of the swing states in the EC? Yes. We are stuck having to tiptoe around them.

 

[pigeon]

Society can also degrade. Crab's point is that you're all acting like a bunch of Bernie or busters.

Yeah, because the question is how much should we compromise with Nazis. The problem with Busters wasn't that they had a moral line, it was that they had a wrong, dumb moral line.

 

[A Human Becoming]

While I need to look at exit polls more closely and compare results from 2008 and 2012 at a county level, I think the focus on the white working middle class has overshadowed Hillary's poor performance among minorities.

No one should take exit polls for face value, for reasons the New York Times outlined, but as with election polling, +-3 points is likely within the actual result. Taking that into consideration, she did significantly worse than Obama in 2012 with minority groups as a whole, only those who do not consider themselves African-American, Asian-American or Hispanic staying about the same. This was especially true for Black men, Latino women, African-Americans under 44 and Latinos under 29. What I'm wondering is: was it because of Hillary or her message? Black men and Latino women votes shifted more third-party than for Trump. The same is true of African-Americans under 44 and young Latinos.