Do you know any poor white people?

[Yank2133]

Oh God, I hate these comments and the poor white-hating done.

Yes, absolutely.  This is plain ignorance.  This is why Democrats have no hope of winning West Virginia.  This is why Matt Bevin is governor of Kentucky.  This is what is the matter with Kansas.  This is why George W. Bush won in 2000.   

This forum is hilarious. How many different groups of people are constantly bashed here? Yet like clockwork, the second anyone takes aim at the hicks, droves of people start hyperventilating about how mean, insensitive, and cruel you are. lol

As for your post, GOOD! I don't want WV/KY in the Democratic coalition. Democrats being angst ridden about those places voting Republican is about as silly as if Republicans were angst ridden about not being able to appeal to socialists in Vermont or far left hippies in San Francisco. Oh wait, that wouldn't happen, since they're not retarded. If anything, bashing those places helps fire up their base and improve where they actually need to.

So true.

Anyway, poor Appalachians/Southern whites are never going to vote for us. Some Democrats just need to accept that reality and it is fine, we don't really need them to win. However, this doesn't mean Democrats should just ignore them policy wise and they don't.

[Yank2133]

I challenge anyone to drive through Eastern Washington or Northern Idaho and claim that the people there enjoy any kind of "white privilege." The intersectional-heavy rhetoric you see from the campus left and Salon-esque sources these days are dangerous not because they prevent downscale whites in the South from voting Democrat - that ship sailed decades ago - but because they color the policy prescriptions offered by progressive politicians who, outside of (to his credit) Bernie Sanders seem desperate to be never seen helping rural voters (middle-class, urban liberal whites have all kinds of policy demands Democrats are quick to cave to including but not limited to higher minimum wage, rent control, mass transit, social policies, etc. All of which I am supportive of, but still).

It should also be pointed out that there are plenty of poor or downscale whites who don't live in Appalachia but in cities and suburbs who are not culturally "poor white" as many modern progressives think of it, and these men and women certainly don't suffer from any privilege themselves.

I've literally lived in poor, rural, 99% white areas all my life so I think I'm entitled to my opinion. You, however, apparently drove through Idaho once and now you think you're the God appointed defender of working class whites, which I guess says everything anyone needs to know about this forum.

And when NY said that attitude was much more condescending then anything he said he was telling the truth.

I live a few miles from the Idaho border and have spent considerable time there, nor am I "defending" poor whites. I'm not attacking them, either, nor did I at any point attack your opinion. Jeez.

Yeah, yeah you are. Let's be clear about this. When you blame "intersectional-heavy rhetoric you see from the campus left and Salon-esque sources" for "[coloring] the policy prescriptions offered by progressive politicians" you're both being incredible condescending towards and defending poor, rural whites at the same time.

You're being condescending because you're saying that maybe if we use slightly different words to couch our policies there will be some great proverbial come-to-Jesus moment where rural voters will start voting in progressive politicians, like people in Appalachia, or the south, or Idaho, or wherever are all just that ing stupid and don't have informed, deeply & sincerely held conservative beliefs about what's right for America.

These people are conservatives. If you put a white, male left-wing farmer on TV and have him couch everything in conservative buzz words it won't change anything. As long as he holds the same sets of policy positions as other Democrats, he'll still lose. You, and other people in this thread, have no idea how ing condescending it sounds to act like poor, rural whites are not just as informed and educated in voting in the politicians they vote in as you lot in the suburbs. They are.

You're defending them, because by blaming "intersectional-heavy rhetoric you see from the campus left and Salon-esque sources" for "[coloring] the policy prescriptions offered by progressive politicians" you're letting them off the hook for the things they say, do, and support. If they vote in racist, vile politicians like Donald Trump, or God knows how many other examples, they have no responsibility. It's all the fault of the "campus left" (you know, the Democratic base) and their "intersectional-heavy rhetoric" for alienating them, for not sucking up to them hard enough, or it's societies fault, or whatever. Of course, no one has to pander to the nasty "campus left" to get them not to vote in vile people...

It might sound crazy to hear this from a Democrat, but I do believe in a degree of self responsibility. I do understand how hard it is growing up in rural areas, in trailer parks, and I hope to God the Democratic party represents the interests of poor, rural whites, even if they don't vote for us (and they never will.) HOWEVER, I do not believe in always letting people off the hook for their actions. These poor, rural whites are ideological conservatives, they're educated, they know what they're doing, and a lot of them are great people. I've known racists who were great husbands, brought their wives flowers every weekend, great fathers, volunteered, ect.

Again though, a lot of them are racists. A lot of them are sexists. And they are ideological conservatives. And in those respects, they're vile. It's not the Democratic party's fault, or anyone else's responsibility when they vote in racist, sexist, conservative politicians. The voters who elect these politicians are responsible for them. And they have to be called out, they have to be criticized. And I'm sick to ing death of seeing Democrats, in the Democratic ing party, which is supposed to stand up against racism constantly bending over backwards to make excuses for these people. Just, please, stop.

Rant over.

Bingo.

To paraphrase a great political philosopher of our time. "Rural voters know exactly what they are doing".

The only thing Democrats should do is not cut them out of the loop when it comes to policy(which they don't, for example Kentucky and West Virginia are two of the biggest benefactors of Obamacare), that would be immoral and wrong. But there is no need for us to pander to them and give them a "pass" for their racism and bigotry.

[Yank2133]

Oh God, I hate these comments and the poor white-hating done.

Yes, absolutely.  This is plain ignorance.  This is why Democrats have no hope of winning West Virginia.  This is why Matt Bevin is governor of Kentucky.  This is what is the matter with Kansas.  This is why George W. Bush won in 2000.  

This forum is hilarious. How many different groups of people are constantly bashed here? Yet like clockwork, the second anyone takes aim at the hicks, droves of people start hyperventilating about how mean, insensitive, and cruel you are. lol

As for your post, GOOD! I don't want WV/KY in the Democratic coalition. Democrats being angst ridden about those places voting Republican is about as silly as if Republicans were angst ridden about not being able to appeal to socialists in Vermont or far left hippies in San Francisco. Oh wait, that wouldn't happen, since they're not retarded. If anything, bashing those places helps fire up their base and improve where they actually need to.

You Hillary supporters are working hard to shrink the party.

Shrink the party? They are a dying voting block that have chosen social issues over economic issue. Seriously, some of you guys need to wake up, they are never going to vote for the Democrats.

[Yank2133]

Oh God, I hate these comments and the poor white-hating done.

Yes, absolutely.  This is plain ignorance.  This is why Democrats have no hope of winning West Virginia.  This is why Matt Bevin is governor of Kentucky.  This is what is the matter with Kansas.  This is why George W. Bush won in 2000.  

This forum is hilarious. How many different groups of people are constantly bashed here? Yet like clockwork, the second anyone takes aim at the hicks, droves of people start hyperventilating about how mean, insensitive, and cruel you are. lol

As for your post, GOOD! I don't want WV/KY in the Democratic coalition. Democrats being angst ridden about those places voting Republican is about as silly as if Republicans were angst ridden about not being able to appeal to socialists in Vermont or far left hippies in San Francisco. Oh wait, that wouldn't happen, since they're not retarded. If anything, bashing those places helps fire up their base and improve where they actually need to.

You Hillary supporters are working hard to shrink the party.

Shrink the party? They are a dying voting block that have chosen social issues over economic issue. Seriously, some of you guys need to wake up, they are never going to vote for the Democrats.

Maybe they saw that there wasn't much difference between the parties on economic issues after NAFTA and welfare reform, so they might as well just vote on social issues.

You make it sound as if these people stopped voting for the Democrats the minute Clinton was elected.

[Yank2133]

Anyway, poor Appalachians/Southern whites are never going to vote for us.

Never is a strong word given that, for instance, rather a lot voted for Al Gore even.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lmao

Which party wants to protect the majority of the programs that many of these people benefit from? It sure as hell isn't the GOP.

[Yank2133]

chosen social issues over economic issue.

It's interesting that this is so often treated as such an obviously bad and stupid heuristic. In reality the issue is more likely simply that the views on social issues in question are seen as objectionable (some of them obviously ARE objectionable, of course; others are more debatable). You don't see this argument getting made against rich social liberals who vote for Democrats.

I am not demonizing them at all for making that choice. Personally, I think it is silly, but for some voters, social issues are just more important then economic issues.

[Yank2133]

chosen social issues over economic issue.

It's interesting that this is so often treated as such an obviously bad and stupid heuristic. In reality the issue is more likely simply that the views on social issues in question are seen as objectionable (some of them obviously ARE objectionable, of course; others are more debatable). You don't see this argument getting made against rich social liberals who vote for Democrats.

I am not demonizing them at all for making that choice. Personally, I think it is silly, but for some voters, social issues are just more important then economic issues.

Well, simple: there's no such thing as "social" and "economic" issues.

Yeah....no.

[Yank2133]

This idea that poor Appalachian whites are not only racist--which many or most are--but so racist that the only way to win their votes is to be seen to be screwing over minorities is, uh, it sure is something.

It is not just racism though, it is the majority of the Democratic platform that a lot of them just don't agree with.

The Democrats would have to shift to the right on many key issues like gay marriage and gun control to get their votes and even that is questionable seeing what happened to the conservative wing of the party the last couple of election cycles.