What current democratic party plank is most "unpopular" with Asian voters?

[Matty]

And by Asian, I mean the whole spectrum: east asians, indians, middle easterners, etc.

I'd have to assume a fiscal issue but IDK.

[Famous Mortimer]

No one cares about fiscal issues.

[Santander]

If you mean actual Asians (i.e. first-generation immigrants), social and race issues probably reign supreme, minus abortion, although for Arab Christians, it's definitely the dancing around Islamic terrorism.

[publicunofficial]

Fiscal issues because asians are smart and have money right? That's the logic?

[Jesus save us]

And by Asian, I mean the whole spectrum: east asians, indians, middle easterners, etc.

I'd have to assume a fiscal issue but IDK.

Affirmative action.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Affirmative action has been the most contentious Democratic Party issue that Asians have a problem with; at least based on my own personal experience.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

wat

[senyor_brownbear]

Treating Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Arabs as one demographic is so laughable.

[Dr. Arch]

Treating Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Arabs as one demographic is so laughable.

It's typical and one of the many reasons why minorities refuse to vote Republican.

[Crumpets]

Depends. West Asians are socially conservative while East Asians are fiscally conservative.

[Cory]

Treating Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Arabs as one demographic is so laughable.

Colloquially speaking "Asian" in American political parlance means East Asian. Not Pacific Islander, Indian, or Middle Eastern.

[Santander]

Treating Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Arabs as one demographic is so laughable.

Colloquially speaking "Asian" in American political parlance means East Asian. Not Pacific Islander, Indian, or Middle Eastern.

South Asians and Southeast Asians are definitely included in "Asian" in American political parlance.

[kyc0705]

I don't understand what voters of, say, middle eastern descent have in common with voters of Japanese descent. Is it because our arbitrary continental definitions have them as being from the same general part of the world? This post is at best fundamentally absurd, and at worst racially and culturally oblivious. I refuse to give it any further thought.

[The Other Castro]

Internment camps probably weren't that popular, but not too many Democrats support those nowadays.

[Cory]

South Asians and Southeast Asians are definitely included in "Asian" in American political parlance.

Fine, I'll be more blunt. I mean "yellow" Asians.

[Jeppe]

Speaking as a Korean-American, gay marriage isn't too popular among older Asian-Americans. Racial movements like BLM aren't looked upon too fondly by them either.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Affirmative action has been the most contentious Democratic Party issue that Asians have a problem with; at least based on my own personal experience.

Well, if you mean they have a problem with themselves over, then yes. It's probably the most effective issue that calls for splitting that demographic.

Anyway probably anything anti-criminalization.

[Santander]

South Asians and Southeast Asians are definitely included in "Asian" in American political parlance.

Fine, I'll be more blunt. I mean "yellow" Asians.

That doesn't make you right? Colloquially speaking, "Asian" in politics includes East Asians, South Asians, and Southeast Asians, except possibly in Hawaii where it's limited to Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Filipino, but simply because they combine for basically 40% of the state's population. Even then, Filipinos are neither "yellow" nor Southeast Asian, so your statement doesn't even work there.

"Asian" does usually exclude Central Asians or Middle Easterners, but they are such miniscule groups that you wouldn't notice if they were included anyway.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I don't understand what voters of, say, middle eastern descent have in common with voters of Japanese descent. Is it because our arbitrary continental definitions have them as being from the same general part of the world? This post is at best fundamentally absurd, and at worst racially and culturally oblivious. I refuse to give it any further thought.

I agree with this, which is why I always find the notion that there is an identity group called "peoplez with colours" (which purports to include all these groups as well as others), is absurd.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Treating Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Arabs as one demographic is so laughable.

It's typical and one of the many reasons why minorities refuse to vote Republican.

Because not knowing the difference between different Asian nationalities is just a Republican thing.

[MarkD]

Anybody, no matter their race, who takes a "plank" in a party platform (in the United States) seriously is embarrassingly gullible. The party platforms for the political parties in the US are the most phony kinds of campaign promises that there are. They intend to mislead the public into thinking that the party is unified behind all of the messages in the platform. But nobody can ever make all members of the party adhere to and support every plank in the platform. The only way to know whether Democrat Adams, Baker, Campbell, or Dillon is pro-choice or pro-life, whether they are pro-gay-rights or anti, is to ask them, or investigate the candidates' own platform. Every candidate actually runs on a platform of their own.

[Dr. Arch]

Treating Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Arabs as one demographic is so laughable.

It's typical and one of the many reasons why minorities refuse to vote Republican.

Because not knowing the difference between different Asian nationalities is just a Republican thing.

Not at all. But Republicans embrace it as part of their party identity.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

I don't understand what voters of, say, middle eastern descent have in common with voters of Japanese descent. Is it because our arbitrary continental definitions have them as being from the same general part of the world? This post is at best fundamentally absurd, and at worst racially and culturally oblivious. I refuse to give it any further thought.

Agreed, especially since different Asian American groups have vastly different outcomes (even if you only compare "East Asian" groups or "South Asian" groups):

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/04/sullivan-new-york-magazine-model-minority-racism/

OT: I would definitely say race-based affirmative action. That's the main reason I dislike it, even more than the action of screwing over Asian-American applicants (and I say that as an Asian-American person myself). It drives a wedge between Asians and other racial minorities at a time when we really, REALLY need inter-group solidarity against racism and white privilege.

Then again, I don't think affirmative action is an especially "Democrat" thing these days. The University of California system is banned from doing this, for starters.

[Santander]

OT: I would definitely say race-based affirmative action. That's the main reason I dislike it, even more than the action of screwing over Asian-American applicants (and I say that as an Asian-American person myself). It drives a wedge between Asians and other racial minorities at a time when we really, REALLY need inter-group solidarity against racism and white privile

Imagine if you said the same thing about "white solidarity".

[KingSweden]

Treating Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Arabs as one demographic is so laughable.

Seriously. "Asia" really should be viewed in subcontinental terms due to its massive size and population. Indian programmers and Korean manicurists will have wildly different political views/agendas (apologies for painting with a very stereotyped brush)