Washington Post: The worst thing to be in many Dem primaries?

Teppodama

A Dude, playing a Dude, disquised as another Dude
@Silver
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
11,766
Reaction score
5,303
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2da31cf9a9ec

The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate.
The newest star of the Democratic Party, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, launched her New York congressional campaign by declaring “women like me aren’t supposed to run for office” — a jarring embrace of her distinction as a 28-year-old Latina less than a year removed from a job tending bar.

Her campaign slogan: “It’s time for one of us.”

That appeal to the tribal identities of class, age, gender and ethnicity turned out to be a good gamble, steering her to the nomination in a year when Democratic voters are increasingly embracing diversity as a way to realize the change they seek in the country.

Given an option, Democratic voters have been picking women, racial minorities, and gay men and lesbians in races around the country at historic rates, often at the expense of the white male candidates who in past years
typified the party’s offerings. Ocasio-Cortez’s opponent, veteran Rep. Joseph Crowley, a
white man representing a majority-minority district, fit that bill.

The divide is more stark than any other so far in the primary season, and it reflects the party’s growing dependence on female and minority voters.

The ideological splits between liberal and far-left candidates were predicted to be the focus of clashes this year, but voters have sent conflicting signals on that front.

The tribal trend has implications for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, where a historic number of nonwhite and female candidates are considering launching campaigns, including Sens. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Cory Booker (N.J.). They will likely face off against a cadre of more traditional white male candidates, including possible bids by former vice president Joe Biden and former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe.

“The ideological part is only a very small piece. There is something deeper going on,” said Simon Rosenberg, a strategist at the New Democratic Network. “In this new social media age of politics, compelling, authentic candidates who can tell positive stories about themselves are succeeding over lifer politicians.”

At a rally in Nevada over the weekend, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), another potential 2020 Democratic contender who never fails to mention her own hardscrabble childhood in Oklahoma, got cheers when she let slip that she wanted to see a woman occupy “that really nice, oval-shaped room at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Many of the key Democratic House primaries this year have been competitions over biography, with a premium given to those who break new ground or remove old barriers. House nominees in key races to unseat Republicans include a black former NFL player turned attorney, a female retired fighter pilot and a lesbian Air Force intelligence officer, all of whom defeated more conventional opponents.

“You don’t want to run against a Democratic woman this year,” Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said Wednesday about the trend, citing the House primary in Kentucky won by that former fighter pilot. “Amy McGrath defeated a two-term mayor with a 70 percent approval rating. She did that because she was a fresh face who tapped into the new energy out there.”

This proved the case again in New York on Tuesday, when Ocasio-Cortez toppled Crowley, one of the most powerful Democrats in the nation and one widely seen as heir apparent to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

On the same night, upstate in the Catskill Mountains, Antonio Delgado, an Oxford- and Harvard-educated African American lawyer, emerged from a crowded field of six white Democratic candidates, some of them more liberal, for the chance to take on Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.) in one of the most competitive House elections this cycle.

In Maryland, Democrats nominated Ben Jealous, the African American former head of the NAACP, making him the second black gubernatorial nomination this year, following former Georgiastatehouse leader Stacey Abrams’s win last month. There have been only two African Americans elected governor in the 50 states in recent history — and at least two more black Democratic candidates, in Florida and Wisconsin, have a chance to win nominations this fall.

Through the end of June, 151 women have won House Democratic primaries, nearly doubling the 81 female nominees at the same point in the 2016 cycle, according to data collected by the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University. Republican nominations of women rose much more slowly, to 32 in 2018 from 27 in 2016.

“Historically, what we have seen, which could also be true in this cycle, is the association of women with something different, something new and something that represents change,” said Kelly Dittmar, a professor at the center. “In this year, women provide one of the starkest contrasts to the president and the party in power in Washington.”

For some Democrats, there is a clear logic to trying to elevate politicians who belong to underrepresented groups, given the threat many feel from the behavior and policies of President Trump, who regularly magnifies racial division and has been caught on tape boasting about the sexual assault of women.

“It’s not accidental that Donald Trump followed the first black president riding a wave of resentment,” said Steve Phillips, founder of Democracy in Color, a group that promotes youth and minority political activism. “And it’s not accidental that the people who are fighting back are the people who are being attacked.”

Polls show that Democrats generally place a far higher value on racial, ethnic and national diversity than Republicans. A Pew Research survey in late April found that 58 percent of Americans say increasing numbers of people from different groups makes America a better place. That included 70 percent of people who identified with the Democratic Party and 47 percent who identified with Republicans.

Ocasio-Cortez, who calls herself a Democratic socialist, ran on the left edge of her own party, endorsing many of the most liberal policies in circulation, including an abolition of the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Medicare for all, and a program to guarantee government jobs at $15 an hour for all Americans. Crowley, who has his own liberal record and co-sponsored a Medicare-for-all bill, countered by calling ICE “fascist” and saying he wanted reforms without abolishing the agency.

But policy was not the clear dividing line in the race.

Ocasio-Cortez spent much of the campaign, including much of the only one-on-one debate, focusing on Crowley’s decision to take money from corporate donors and raise his kids in Virginia while he worked at the U.S. Capitol. She argued throughout the campaign that Crowley “doesn’t drink our water or breathe our air.”

Two years after Crowley was elected to the state legislature in the late ’80s, Queens County, where he was born, was about 58 percent white, according to the 1990 Census. Today, it is 48 percent white, according to census figures. The district he represents, which includes parts of the Bronx, is 18 percent white.

“I think the district has changed very dramatically, and I think that she, from her ideas to her diversity, I mean she really reflects her district,” Booker said in an interview Wednesday.

The closest analog to Crowley’s downfall was Dave Brat’s unexpected 2014 Virginia primary defeat of Rep. Eric Cantor, a Republican leader seen by many as a future House speaker. But that race, between two white men of similar age and background, hinged on the conservative dispute over immigration and a determination by voters to upset the ways of Washington.

Several of the outside groups working to recruit and train candidates for the Democratic ticket have placed a premium on finding women and minorities. Amanda Litman, co-founder of the candidate training and support organization Run for Something, said candidates who broke the white-male mold were doing better because voters want to support people like themselves.

“The candidates that do the best are the ones who are most representative of their communities, and that’s women and people of color,” she said. “They’re able to represent their voters in an authentic way, much more powerful than gender or any other single factor.”

Maurice Mitchell, national director of the liberal Working Families Party, said electing more diverse candidates was “part of my mandate.”

Earlier this year, he became the first black man to lead the organization, which began as a left-wing political party and has grown into an organizing force for liberal candidates and set out to elect more nonwhite leftists.

“This is where the energy is. This is where our most idealistic thinking and strategizing on the ground is,” he said. “We want to break up the idea that the way you get folks elected is choosing middle-of-the-road white male business owners and veterans to run — people who will only say and do the most scripted things that polarize the least people.”

Tribalism in how the various groups within the Democratic part vote you say? Surely you jest Washington Post!
 
Self-cannabilism in an effort to keep the GOP relevant. It's manufactured hysteria.

All Dems needed to do in order to sweep every election was act normal and maybe adopt 1 or 2 Bernie issues.
 
The Washington Post has led the Democrat stampede toward racial and gender identity politics for a long time. This misguided and wrong focus is killing their party.
 
Trump and bernie showed that populism is the winning hand.

Jobs, jobs, jobs.
People are most happy when they feel financially secure and feel like they can plan for the future.

If they say middle class jobs are gone again like last election, they're going to have a tough time.
 
Self-cannabilism in an effort to keep the GOP relevant. It's manufactured hysteria.

All Dems needed to do in order to sweep every election was act normal and maybe adopt 1 or 2 Bernie issues.

Haha, the chances of that happening are really really slim.
 
We've watched decades - heck, probably centuries - of candidates run on being a good Christian family man, usually white, and now we're suddenly concerned about tribalism in campaigning and how people vote. Maybe we're not actually concerned about tribalism in the sense that it's an active force in politics, but rather we're actually concerned that our tribe isn't the default winner any more?
 
Yup. Just watched it happen in San Francisco. London Breed (yes that's her name) is well known for being shady and her major opponent is a decent long time SF politician.

But she ran hard against the "white old boys" club which is absurd in this city and she pulled it out, barely, because the idea of a black female as mayor was more important than qualifications.

Enjoy, goofs.
 
We've watched decades - heck, probably centuries - of candidates run on being a good Christian family man, usually white, and now we're suddenly concerned about tribalism in campaigning and how people vote. Maybe we're not actually concerned about tribalism in the sense that it's an active force in politics, but rather we're actually concerned that our tribe isn't the default winner any more?

How many alternatives were there to white christian men?
I would not consider being a "family man" a tribal thing. More a reflection of character.
 
How many alternatives were there to white christian men?
I would not consider being a "family man" a tribal thing. More a reflection of character.

How many alternatives? People of other religions, colours, and women. It's not like these groups didn't exist in America. The fact that these other groups were discounted outright doesn't show that there weren't alternatives - it shows that one tribal group was so dominant that others were just ignored, and not taken seriously.

Whether "family man" is part of a tribal group or not is semantics. Family values is one of the core values signaled by the cadre of white, Christian men who have come before - part of the identity of the White nuclear family at the center of their tribe. I think it's inaccurate to say it's not part of the core value of said tribe, and saying "it's not a tribal thing" will, ultimately, amount to mincing words.
 
We've watched decades - heck, probably centuries - of candidates run on being a good Christian family man, usually white, and now we're suddenly concerned about tribalism in campaigning and how people vote. Maybe we're not actually concerned about tribalism in the sense that it's an active force in politics, but rather we're actually concerned that our tribe isn't the default winner any more?
My dad is white and my mom is not. I don't want my dad to be racially discriminated against in favor of my mom. No, it's not about 'our tribe isn't the default winner anymore'. We're supposed to have moved beyond tribalism period. The left clearly has not.

The right sees good students. The left just sees white people and Asian people. The right sees illegal immigrants. The left just sees Hispanics. Etc, etc. The left never just sees a person. Whether they want to racially discriminate in college admissions or in job opportunities or in enforcement of the law, the left supports institutional racism everywhere.
 
Last edited:
The right sees good students. The left just sees white people and Asian people. The right sees illegal immigrants. The left just sees Hispanics. Etc, etc. The left never just sees a person. Whether they want to racially discriminate in college admissions or in job opportunities or in enforcement of the law, the left supports institutional racism everywhere.

No one told me it was Through-The-Looking-Glass day on Sherdog.

But OK. Here's mine.

Females just want to randomly bang men. But males want to establish meaningful, long term relationships. Females are only focused on looks. But males are attracted to women who possess wealth and power regardless of their age or weight.
 
It's okay to elect a brown woman. It's not okay to elect her because she's a brown woman.
 
How many alternatives? People of other religions, colours, and women. It's not like these groups didn't exist in America. The fact that these other groups were discounted outright doesn't show that there weren't alternatives - it shows that one tribal group was so dominant that others were just ignored, and not taken seriously.

Whether "family man" is part of a tribal group or not is semantics. Family values is one of the core values signaled by the cadre of white, Christian men who have come before - part of the identity of the White nuclear family at the center of their tribe. I think it's inaccurate to say it's not part of the core value of said tribe, and saying "it's not a tribal thing" will, ultimately, amount to mincing words.
I would say family values are one of the core values signaled by my first generation Jewish family, my Buddhist Asian, and Christian Polynesian family... Any people who procreate or otherwise raise a family who don't embody "family values" are basically outing themselves as substandard people. To care for and properly respect your family is not exclusive to white or Christian people, it's been the bedrock of literally every society for all of human history.

As for the OP, I'm not too worried about people electing non-white officials. The result of the vote is the will of the people.
 
I would say family values are one of the core values signaled by my first generation Jewish family, my Buddhist Asian, and Christian Polynesian family... Any people who procreate or otherwise raise a family who don't embody "family values" are basically outing themselves as substandard people. To care for and properly respect your family is not exclusive to white or Christian people, it's been the bedrock of literally every society for all of human history.

As for the OP, I'm not too worried about people electing non-white officials. The result of the vote is the will of the people.

I think you'll find a lot of communists/socialists have their family values, but those family values are very much also subject to a notion of the state taking primacy above the nuclear family unit. It's the whole "it takes a village" mentality which can come into conflict with family values.

Also, and this is the crux of my original point, "family values" in the U.S. is coded European/Western. You go abroad and you'll find core elements of what you consider to be family values to vary greatly beyond the Judeo-Christian structure. You ask a guy from certain areas in India what he means by "family values" and he might rattle off a bunch of things you agree with - and then say something about age of consent or arranged marriage that will have you screaming "pedophile!" because the what your tribal group identifies as family values are quite contrary to his. He would be immediately dismissed from a U.S. election because his "family values" don't match the ones that the White men running on a "family values" platform for centuries now have done.

Ironically, that you're so quick to judge those who have other views on the role of family than what you perceive as normal as "substandard people" plays directly into the point I'm making here - that there is one script of "family values" that holds primacy in the Western political dialogue, and it is central to/shares space with all sorts of notions of consent, marriage, who can labour, who earns the paycheque, and any number of other things. This is a core element of tribal identity - and you jumping to "well, those who don't hold an approximation of the view I do are substandard people" while recognizing that there are other ways of doing it makes my point ring even more clear - that the "family values" angle is part of a distinctly Western tribe, as American politicians have played it.

Is there crossover between many different cultures' and philosophy's versions of "family values"? Of course. The differences are what draw tribal lines though, and American politics certainly has a very, very Western version of family values, and a tribe surrounding and defending it.
 
How many alternatives? People of other religions, colours, and women. It's not like these groups didn't exist in America. The fact that these other groups were discounted outright doesn't show that there weren't alternatives - it shows that one tribal group was so dominant that others were just ignored, and not taken seriously.

You are misunderstanding my question. I didn't ask how many existed, i asked how many were alternatives.
I exist. That doesn't mean i am a potential member of parliament.

How many alternatives were presented to voters?

Whether "family man" is part of a tribal group or not is semantics. Family values is one of the core values signaled by the cadre of white, Christian men who have come before - part of the identity of the White nuclear family at the center of their tribe. I think it's inaccurate to say it's not part of the core value of said tribe, and saying "it's not a tribal thing" will, ultimately, amount to mincing words.

Well, no. It is not "mincing words". It is establishing definitions. Words mean things. If we are going to engage in discourse, it helps if we agree on, or at least understand the other party's definitions of the terms we are using.

Would you argue against the idea that, on balance, "family" is an objectively good thing?
I am not necessarily talking about the nuclear family either. I don't think i could manage it personally, but i think strengthening the extended family is better for everyone.

I would say that the facts favour family-friendly, and so "family man" is far more than tribal. And is closer to whatever category "not a criminal" would occupy the extreme end of.
I don't think that that is tribal.
 
I think you'll find a lot of communists/socialists have their family values, but those family values are very much also subject to a notion of the state taking primacy above the nuclear family unit. It's the whole "it takes a village" mentality which can come into conflict with family values.

Also, and this is the crux of my original point, "family values" in the U.S. is coded European/Western. You go abroad and you'll find core elements of what you consider to be family values to vary greatly beyond the Judeo-Christian structure. You ask a guy from certain areas in India what he means by "family values" and he might rattle off a bunch of things you agree with - and then say something about age of consent or arranged marriage that will have you screaming "pedophile!" because the what your tribal group identifies as family values are quite contrary to his. He would be immediately dismissed from a U.S. election because his "family values" don't match the ones that the White men running on a "family values" platform for centuries now have done.

Ironically, that you're so quick to judge those who have other views on the role of family than what you perceive as normal as "substandard people" plays directly into the point I'm making here - that there is one script of "family values" that holds primacy in the Western political dialogue, and it is central to/shares space with all sorts of notions of consent, marriage, who can labour, who earns the paycheque, and any number of other things. This is a core element of tribal identity - and you jumping to "well, those who don't hold an approximation of the view I do are substandard people" while recognizing that there are other ways of doing it makes my point ring even more clear - that the "family values" angle is part of a distinctly Western tribe, as American politicians have played it.

Is there crossover between many different cultures' and philosophy's versions of "family values"? Of course. The differences are what draw tribal lines though, and American politics certainly has a very, very Western version of family values, and a tribe surrounding and defending it.
Lol ok. What I meant by substandard was people who abandon their family or otherwise harm them. All family values mean to me is being loyal to your family and considering their best interests in your decision making. I clearly mentioned my Buddhist Asian family so I don’t know why you would think I’m referring to some “coded” language exclusively pertaining to European/Western people.

I personally identify as socialist so I’m not sure why you’d assume that I wouldn’t include socialists when I wrote, “To care for and properly respect your family is not exclusive to white or Christian people, it's been the bedrock of literally every society for all of human history.”

I actually was pretty clear in what I was saying and it reads to me like you decided to respond to some boogieman residing in your mind rather than me so I’ll try not to take too much offense at your unkind words.
 
Yup. Just watched it happen in San Francisco. London Breed (yes that's her name) is well known for being shady and her major opponent is a decent long time SF politician.

But she ran hard against the "white old boys" club which is absurd in this city and she pulled it out, barely, because the idea of a black female as mayor was more important than qualifications.

Enjoy, racist regressive goofs.

Ftfy.. But you were really close.
 
I think you'll find a lot of communists/socialists have their family values, but those family values are very much also subject to a notion of the state taking primacy above the nuclear family unit. It's the whole "it takes a village" mentality which can come into conflict with family values.

Also, and this is the crux of my original point, "family values" in the U.S. is coded European/Western. You go abroad and you'll find core elements of what you consider to be family values to vary greatly beyond the Judeo-Christian structure. You ask a guy from certain areas in India what he means by "family values" and he might rattle off a bunch of things you agree with - and then say something about age of consent or arranged marriage that will have you screaming "pedophile!" because the what your tribal group identifies as family values are quite contrary to his. He would be immediately dismissed from a U.S. election because his "family values" don't match the ones that the White men running on a "family values" platform for centuries now have done.

Ironically, that you're so quick to judge those who have other views on the role of family than what you perceive as normal as "substandard people" plays directly into the point I'm making here - that there is one script of "family values" that holds primacy in the Western political dialogue, and it is central to/shares space with all sorts of notions of consent, marriage, who can labour, who earns the paycheque, and any number of other things. This is a core element of tribal identity - and you jumping to "well, those who don't hold an approximation of the view I do are substandard people" while recognizing that there are other ways of doing it makes my point ring even more clear - that the "family values" angle is part of a distinctly Western tribe, as American politicians have played it.

Is there crossover between many different cultures' and philosophy's versions of "family values"? Of course. The differences are what draw tribal lines though, and American politics certainly has a very, very Western version of family values, and a tribe surrounding and defending it.
Well the West won and built the best society by most measures on its family values. The left's insistence that the structure that lead to great society had nothing to do with anything is offensively backwards, anti-intellectual, and cultish to follow.
 
You are misunderstanding my question. I didn't ask how many existed, i asked how many were alternatives.
I exist. That doesn't mean i am a potential member of parliament.

How many alternatives were presented to voters?

Actually, yes, you absolutely are a potential member of parliament (assuming you meet the legal requirements). You just - I assume - have no interest in it, no aptitude, no opportunity, so you choose not to pursue it. The problem I am pointing at in my earlier posts is that there could have been any number of qualified, intelligent, capable people of colour and women who would have *loved* to be members of parliament who would have never been allowed to be presented to the masses and, if they had, would have been dismissed outright due to sex and race.

So yeah, when you ask "How many alternatives?" - the answer is "Many - but they weren't allowed to because it was a sexist, racist society which wouldn't tolerate people outside of certain tribal groups/subsets being in positions of power
Well, no. It is not "mincing words". It is establishing definitions. Words mean things. If we are going to engage in discourse, it helps if we agree on, or at least understand the other party's definitions of the terms we are using.

Would you argue against the idea that, on balance, "family" is objectively good thing?
I am not necessarily talking about the nuclear family either. I don't think i could manage it personally, but i think strengthening the extended family is better for everyone.

Yes, words do mean things. To "mince words" means to speak vaguely or indirectly. You know how you asked above "How many alternatives were there to white christian men?" and then came back with this line?

"I didn't ask how many existed, i asked how many were alternatives.
I exist. That doesn't mean i am a potential member of parliament.
"

This is an excellent example of mincing words, dancing around interpretations of "alternatives" and applications of "potential" to delve into a bunch of semantic justification of a tenuous point. So yeah, it seems you like to mince words.

In light of this semantic detour, I get a very strong sense that you're not arguing in good faith, and are instead arguing with an ideological stance to push. I look forward to seeing I am wrong.

But yes, to reiterate, yes, "family man" is, in this case, absolutely a matter of semantics. The East Indian guy who believes his son should be earning an income by 8 and his daughter should be married off in her pre-teens via an arranged marriage absolutely believes in "family values" - but he would be ridiculed off of a ballot in an American election preaching his family values as "family values" in the sense that American voters accept. As such, the notion of "family values" which dominate American politics, a staple of the American politician, are, absolutely, tribally located.

Also, to answer your question of this:

"Would you argue against the idea that, on balance, "family" is objectively good thing?"

Please give some sense of what "on balance" means. Simply put, I think it's blatantly obvious that family is, itself, only a subjectively good thing. A wishy-washy term like "on balance" seems like it's added in there so you can prevaricate some more to arrive at some "gotcha" point..
 
Back
Top