- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 5,842
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 2,609
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
- Gender
- Male
How Democrats Can Win in the Future
AlterNet - October 20, 2019
How Democrats can win the future – Alternet.org
This thread is not really about whether following the author's suggestions is good or bad for the nation, but about will it win elections for the Democrats with large enough majorities to enact the Democratic proposals into law and prevent the Republicans from repealing these laws in the future.
The following full paragraph about a 1/3 or so into the article:
“These two central dynamics, racial division and surging economic inequality, they are flip sides of the same thing, of dog-whistle politics,” López told me. “They are not separate phenomena.” And the best way to fight them is to call them out explicitly, using the “race-class narratives” developed in a partnership between López and communications guru Anat Shenker-Osorio, as I reported last year. López said as much again in a New York Times op-ed just before the most recent debate, but to little avail.
End of quote from the article.
This first sentence with " " around it is to me states the point of the article as well as any other single sentence as quick summation of all the points of the entire article.
Some might find a different sentence and/or paragraph that does this. Please share that with us if that is so.
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss racism and inequality per se even though the entire article dances around this subject.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss and debate what the author of this article says about racism and inequality and "How Democrats Can Win Future Elections" by taking this these two twin subjects and win elections by building an alliance of white, brown and black middle class families.
The author of the article points out that now Democratic candidates use the term middle class families without the "white, brown and black" adjectives. Leaving these three adjectives allows the Republicans and much of the media to define "middle class families" to mean only brown and black families and to get poor and middle class white people to vote for Republican candidates who will vote against what is in the best economic interests of poor and middle class white people.
The Republicans will win by playing the race card by inferring that only brown and black people will benefit if Medicare for All becomes the law of America. The IRS will take money out of the middle class white people's checks to pay for free medical care for all those brown and black people.
Since Medicare for All is not the law of the land and there are various proposals to get there, I can only predict that the lower middle class whites won't see any increase of income taxes, but will get a vast reduction in premiums and out of pocket expenses. The poor are already getting free medical care and free prescription drugs.
I haven't seen the most recent statistics. However, unless there has been a drastic change, there are more white middle class families than there are brown and black middle class families.
Furthermore, there are more poor white people than there are poor black people. There are more poor white people than they are brown people. There may be more poor white people than there are both brown and black poor people. Those statistics are changing rapidly as more brown people immigrate to the US due to the instability of nations in Central America, not because all the people are brown. There are some white and black people who live in Central America. Most of these immigrants are poor because they are seeking asylum and have left everything they own to get here.
The author does point out that most of the media is owned by people who are conservatives and are in the best executive positions of some big corporations.
This article reminded me of how a person would write a term research paper for university graduate courses. (For non-Americans, graduate means a masters degree which is usually the fifth year of university. The next level is a doctorate degree.) The author uses multiple sources to defend the position of this term research paper on, "Democrats Can Win Elections in the Future"
The author quotes some of the sources with links to support the positions of the article such as, “These dynamics, racial division and surging economic inequality, they are flip sides of the same thing, of dog-whistle politics,”
Other times, the link is in the article for us to click and to read these sources. We need to read the sources to truly discuss what this article says.
My first thought when reading the article is how I would have dreaded being given this article as a student at any university level to read and study for essay questions. There is a "gold mine" of possible essay questions that shooting the bull won't give you any credit for any question appearing on an exam about this article.
I encourage the people who are willing to read the article and the sources to post points that they agree with.
The purpose is simple "How Can Democrats Win Elections in the Future" Please try to make any post you make tie in to this topic in some way.
A died in the wool Republican could comment on why they agree (or disagree) with the author's position on "How Democrats Can Win in the Future" following reading this author's article.
A died in the wool Democrat might post on why they (agree or disagree) with the author's position on "How Democrats Can Win in the Future" following reading this author's article.
Again I state the purpose of this thread:
This thread is not really about whether following the author's suggestions is good or bad for the nation, but about will it win elections for the Democrats with large enough majorities to enact the Democratic proposals into law and prevent the Republicans from repealing these laws in the future.
AlterNet - October 20, 2019
How Democrats can win the future – Alternet.org
This thread is not really about whether following the author's suggestions is good or bad for the nation, but about will it win elections for the Democrats with large enough majorities to enact the Democratic proposals into law and prevent the Republicans from repealing these laws in the future.
The following full paragraph about a 1/3 or so into the article:
“These two central dynamics, racial division and surging economic inequality, they are flip sides of the same thing, of dog-whistle politics,” López told me. “They are not separate phenomena.” And the best way to fight them is to call them out explicitly, using the “race-class narratives” developed in a partnership between López and communications guru Anat Shenker-Osorio, as I reported last year. López said as much again in a New York Times op-ed just before the most recent debate, but to little avail.
End of quote from the article.
This first sentence with " " around it is to me states the point of the article as well as any other single sentence as quick summation of all the points of the entire article.
Some might find a different sentence and/or paragraph that does this. Please share that with us if that is so.
The purpose of this thread is not to discuss racism and inequality per se even though the entire article dances around this subject.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss and debate what the author of this article says about racism and inequality and "How Democrats Can Win Future Elections" by taking this these two twin subjects and win elections by building an alliance of white, brown and black middle class families.
The author of the article points out that now Democratic candidates use the term middle class families without the "white, brown and black" adjectives. Leaving these three adjectives allows the Republicans and much of the media to define "middle class families" to mean only brown and black families and to get poor and middle class white people to vote for Republican candidates who will vote against what is in the best economic interests of poor and middle class white people.
The Republicans will win by playing the race card by inferring that only brown and black people will benefit if Medicare for All becomes the law of America. The IRS will take money out of the middle class white people's checks to pay for free medical care for all those brown and black people.
Since Medicare for All is not the law of the land and there are various proposals to get there, I can only predict that the lower middle class whites won't see any increase of income taxes, but will get a vast reduction in premiums and out of pocket expenses. The poor are already getting free medical care and free prescription drugs.
I haven't seen the most recent statistics. However, unless there has been a drastic change, there are more white middle class families than there are brown and black middle class families.
Furthermore, there are more poor white people than there are poor black people. There are more poor white people than they are brown people. There may be more poor white people than there are both brown and black poor people. Those statistics are changing rapidly as more brown people immigrate to the US due to the instability of nations in Central America, not because all the people are brown. There are some white and black people who live in Central America. Most of these immigrants are poor because they are seeking asylum and have left everything they own to get here.
The author does point out that most of the media is owned by people who are conservatives and are in the best executive positions of some big corporations.
This article reminded me of how a person would write a term research paper for university graduate courses. (For non-Americans, graduate means a masters degree which is usually the fifth year of university. The next level is a doctorate degree.) The author uses multiple sources to defend the position of this term research paper on, "Democrats Can Win Elections in the Future"
The author quotes some of the sources with links to support the positions of the article such as, “These dynamics, racial division and surging economic inequality, they are flip sides of the same thing, of dog-whistle politics,”
Other times, the link is in the article for us to click and to read these sources. We need to read the sources to truly discuss what this article says.
My first thought when reading the article is how I would have dreaded being given this article as a student at any university level to read and study for essay questions. There is a "gold mine" of possible essay questions that shooting the bull won't give you any credit for any question appearing on an exam about this article.
I encourage the people who are willing to read the article and the sources to post points that they agree with.
The purpose is simple "How Can Democrats Win Elections in the Future" Please try to make any post you make tie in to this topic in some way.
A died in the wool Republican could comment on why they agree (or disagree) with the author's position on "How Democrats Can Win in the Future" following reading this author's article.
A died in the wool Democrat might post on why they (agree or disagree) with the author's position on "How Democrats Can Win in the Future" following reading this author's article.
Again I state the purpose of this thread:
This thread is not really about whether following the author's suggestions is good or bad for the nation, but about will it win elections for the Democrats with large enough majorities to enact the Democratic proposals into law and prevent the Republicans from repealing these laws in the future.