Which is the more socially progressive wing?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Clinton and Sanders supporters are not "wings" of the party.

If you're asking about Clinton or Sanders primary voters in 2016 then obviously Sanders voters due to age and race.

[Kingpoleon]

I can safely say the Hillary wing of 2008 was a different beast entirely to the 2016 Hillary wing.

The Hillary wing of 2016 united the Obama wing to defeat the bros. It's glorious to witness true unity in the party, unlike the Bernie bros that keep reckoning by saying WE are the PROBLEM. The attacks on women and POC from the Chapo-Bernard crowd is shamefully and should be condemned for anyone who cares an inch about social justice.

I think that my favorite gay rights activist has to be Coretta Scott King.

[nclib]

The wing that doesn't say, "Black people don't want to go to college".

Who said that.

For the poll, Sanders but not by much.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Clinton and Sanders supporters are not "wings" of the party.

Yeah I am really sick of this dichotomy.

[YE]

There's more diversity in the Clinton wing among economic issues  and more diversity in the Sanders wing among social issues.

[Dr. MB]

Bernie Sanders wing.

[Murica!]

I have the sudden urge to beat myself to death with literally any book

[wxtransit]

Probably the Sanders wing, but not sure

[bagelman]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

What do you call it when the rebels come? Simple slaughter?

[vanguard96]

Of course neither are for the individual and both support the victimization movement in all its ugliness.

[James Monroe]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

[JA]

I can safely say the Hillary wing of 2008 was a different beast entirely to the 2016 Hillary wing.

This

Hillary's 2008 campaign was filled with racist dog whistle politics and divisiveness, which her cult would prefer we forget.

• The Drudge Report claimed the infamous photo of Obama in Somali garb was passed on by a Clinton staffer. The head of Clinton's campaign even said, “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed.”
• Hillary Clinton suggested that White voters were more important when she said that Obama's support among "working, hard-working Americans, White Americans" was weakening and "how Whites in both states who had not completed college" supported her.
• Clinton's criticism of Obama over Reverand Jeremiah Wright, which the right-wing quickly co-opted.
• Clinton's continuous demands that Obama "denounce" and "reject" Louis Farrakhan's endorsement.
• Clinton's doe-eyed statement that there was nothing to suggest Obama was a Muslim, "as far as I know."
• Clinton suggested to reporters that McCain was more qualified for President than Obama in March '08 because he would bring "his lifetime of experience" while Obama would "put forth a speech he made in 2002."
• The Clinton campaign pushed the story of Obama's connection to Weather Underground in February '08, before the McCain campaign tried it, and even said, "wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue."
• Clinton repeatedly cited the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race despite falling far behind, which implied there was still time for Obama to be assassinated before the primaries ended.
• 15% of Clinton supporters switched over to vote for McCain against Obama in 2008, while 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump.
• Hillary promoted her husband's 1994 Crime Bill by saying of African American children, "they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators.' No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
• Hillary ardently supported and characterized her husband's welfare reform that eliminated Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as late as 2008 as a success, which imposed a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance and barred undocumented immigrants from licensed professions, among other things.

MUH SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES

[Intell]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

This is making me laugh.

[Deblano]

Why are there still Hillary cultists in 2017?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

This is a tempting thing to believe but dumb.

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

Although this is far dumber. Are you doing a "bit"?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

This is making me laugh.

It really depends.

[bagelman]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

This is making me laugh.

It really depends.

It does depend upon how discrimination is defined. Rich people internalize their privilege over time, seeming themselves -implicitly or explicitly- as high in the social hierarchy. As such they're more likely to notice petty acts of disrespect or "microaggressions" than normal people. They're used to be being privileged and fawned over. Poorer people don't notice because they've internalized their lower status.

So you could make the argument that rich people can feel more oppressed than the poor, because they're more apt to notice petty disrespect. The poor can't afford to worry about petty disrespect when they need the fortitude to brush off much worse. For example a poor person may have to grin and bear being sneered at or even openly insulted by other customers or the staff for using food stamps at a grocery store. A rich girl, meanwhile, will get offended and tweet about how the otherwise polite cashier falsely implied the soccer ball she's buying was for her kids/husband/whatever and not herself in an attempt to make small talk.

[AtorBoltox]

Undoubtedly Sanders due to the youth and the lack of deeply religious southern African Americans in his coalition. Although as others have pointed out the differences are jd redo my overblown

[AtorBoltox]

And yeah interesting IceSpear would like us to forget Hillary actively courted the ‘deplorables’ in 2008

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

This is making me laugh.

It really depends.

It does depend upon how discrimination is defined. Rich people internalize their privilege over time, seeming themselves -implicitly or explicitly- as high in the social hierarchy. As such they're more likely to notice petty acts of disrespect or "microaggressions" than normal people. They're used to be being privileged and fawned over. Poorer people don't notice because they've internalized their lower status.

So you could make the argument that rich people can feel more oppressed than the poor, because they're more apt to notice petty disrespect. The poor can't afford to worry about petty disrespect when they need the fortitude to brush off much worse. For example a poor person may have to grin and bear being sneered at or even openly insulted by other customers or the staff for using food stamps at a grocery store. A rich girl, meanwhile, will get offended and tweet about how the otherwise polite cashier falsely implied the soccer ball she's buying was for her kids/husband/whatever and not herself in an attempt to make small talk.

That's not the point. Upper middle class Muslims, for example, often face vicious bigotry daily in some parts of the country, whereas working class men may not. It is difficult to objectively quantify this.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

Do you not have the capacity to understand that wealth making life easier does not magically mean that no one with money can face any sort of societal oppression or discrimination?

[Intell]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

Do you not have the capacity to understand that wealth making life easier does not magically mean that no one with money can face any sort of societal oppression or discrimination?

They can face discrimination, but by being rich they can never be opressed.

[White Trash]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

Boy I wish this was true!

[bagelman]

Most likely the Clinton wing is the wing that is more likely to emphasize social issues while the Sanders wing is more likely to emphasize economic issues.

Separating "social issues" from "economic issues" is a fool's errand, but yes, the Clintons of the Democratic Party do tend to ramp up the cultural warfare in their rhetoric in comparison to the party's populists. Of course, once the former actually get into office, they end up doing zilch to end mass deportations or police brutality, and, needless to say, put no effort into passing social democratic policies that improve the material conditions of the working class. (in particular it's non-white, non-male segments)

In order to separate social concerns from economic anxiety, one needs to see the treatment of rich black people such as Lebron James are treated by white society. Lebron house was grafted by racial slurs and he's the richest player in the NBA, don't see how having tons of cash will erased racism. The economic populism doesn't take into consideration that much of the country is deeply ingrained in racism. If a single payer health care system is established it wouldn't be easy to see how the Deep South would forbid immigrants from having health care, or blacks even. Blacks or other minorities, not matter the class, will face the same struggles in their daily lives, therefore it's condescending to hear rich white people say social democracy would be better for them when they have the weakest power in Scandinavia nations.

Rich people cannot be "oppressed" regardless of race.

People of marginalized background can be discriminated regardless of income. Rich women and POC face more discrimination in their daily lives then poor white people.

This is making me laugh.

It really depends.

It does depend upon how discrimination is defined. Rich people internalize their privilege over time, seeming themselves -implicitly or explicitly- as high in the social hierarchy. As such they're more likely to notice petty acts of disrespect or "microaggressions" than normal people. They're used to be being privileged and fawned over. Poorer people don't notice because they've internalized their lower status.

So you could make the argument that rich people can feel more oppressed than the poor, because they're more apt to notice petty disrespect. The poor can't afford to worry about petty disrespect when they need the fortitude to brush off much worse. For example a poor person may have to grin and bear being sneered at or even openly insulted by other customers or the staff for using food stamps at a grocery store. A rich girl, meanwhile, will get offended and tweet about how the otherwise polite cashier falsely implied the soccer ball she's buying was for her kids/husband/whatever and not herself in an attempt to make small talk.

That's not the point. Upper middle class Muslims, for example, often face vicious bigotry daily in some parts of the country, whereas working class men may not. It is difficult to objectively quantify this.

I don't doubt that Muslims may face discrimination. But are they in a worse position, systematically, than people who live here or here? No. For every racist against them they have two social progressives on their side within their communities if they live in progressive areas. (and one if they don't)

An upper middle class Muslim or whatever can get enough food to eat every day. They can depend on clean water. They can afford luxuries. They can afford lawyers if they encounter official discrimination, which is unlikely. They can afford to go to good doctors, and they can afford to worry less about affording necessitates that would distract them from education and leisure. They can afford to go to the best schools and have an easier time affording loans.

Any systematic discrimination that theoretically exists against Muslim Americans is, in the case of the upper middle class or even the regular middle class, crushed by the huge structural advantages in favor of money.