Mangy Jay Profile picture
17 Feb, 11 tweets, 3 min read
Is it that hard to just say "white?"
jacobinmag.com/2021/02/the-po…
There are a lot of things that are wrong with this piece, but to name a few:
WWC voters leaving the Dem party is not a new phenomenon but part of a longer trend that was briefly interrupted by 2008. The trend restarted in 2012, which was why Dems were freaked out about PA.
A lot of this is about "culture" (ahem, racism; abortion) which should be blatantly obvious given the WWC hemorrhage began in the post Civil rights era. What is relatively new is that higher ed voters are re-aligning at a faster pace than they were previously.
Not so far. Last I checked, the Biden administration is advancing an aggressive defense on behalf of unions (they like him!). He's also proposing anti-poverty measures & childcare policies that would be revolutionary for women (who are workers too, you know).
Now, if Biden seemed to be sacrificing racial justice, labour rights, & the fight for greater economic justice for the whims of white suburbanites, I would understand the concern. But that's not actually what's happening & I don't understand why people keep claiming it is.
Both swings and absolute turnout among base members matter. You can't use a significant swing in white college ed voters to minimize the importance of a surge in Black turnout.
Excuse me?
In any case, some on the white left don't just mount bad analyses (& neglect to say "white" when that's what the mean by "working class"), they seem more committed to mourning what they *want* their coalition to look like rather than accurately examining what their coalition is.
At this moment in time, the coalition is an increasing % of white college ed voters, a small % of white non-college voters, a huge majority of Black & Indigenous voters, & somewhat fluctuating majorities of Asian & Latino voters. That's the coalition that won in Nov & Jan.
And so far, those wins do not seem to be resulting in mandates dictated by the white college ed voters alone. They are resulting in pro-Labor, anti-poverty, pro-women, pro-environment, pro-LGBTQ policies. Nothing to mourn there unless these aesthetics bother you.
For the billionth time:
There are many POC in the working class
The Atlanta suburbs are not all white

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mangy Jay

Mangy Jay Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @magi_jay

18 Feb
I deleted a thread about Yglesias's "One Billion Americans." From the excerpts I read, I believed that Yglesias was arguing for mass immigration regardless of country of origin &/or ed background. I have now learned he uses the phrase "better immigrants," which is indefensible.
My view: more immigration is good, as is expansion of the safety net. Immigration should not be based on educational background, language, or country of origin. Lots of immigration=good. Any argument that invokes "good" immigrants=bad.
I apologize for having defended a book that uses the term "better immigrants." This terminology is contrary to my understanding of the arguments based on excerpts I read. I regret having defended a work that uses this terminology, which I find very offensive.
Read 5 tweets
18 Feb
This isn't a plausible characterization at all, on multiple levels. It's not a good description of Clinton's campaign and, perhaps more importantly, it's not well supported by data indicating much of Sanders' 2016 support was less ideologically leftist & more anti-Clinton.
I don't know how you can look at how Sanders lost support in Iowa, MI, New Hampshire, & even Vermont in 2020 and come to the conclusion that he was specifically harmed by some kind of "identity politics" campaign in 2016.
If anything, the more reasonable conclusion is that HrC was harmed by "identity politics" (if we must use that term), such that misogyny seemed to help her male challenger. I'm not saying that all Bernie supporters are misogynists, but it's pretty clear that was a factor for some
Read 5 tweets
18 Feb
Daily reminder that "Europe" is not one place. Also: racism exists in all European countries, though the nature of racism & how specific groups are targeted converges in some areas and diverges in others.
Typically, when people say "Europe," I think they mean Western Europe. Or, when they're talking about healthcare, they might mean Northern Europe. They rarely mean Eastern Europe. regardless, even though there are w/in region correlations, countries are still quite distinct.
Such that, for example, political dynamics in France may correlate more w/ other Western EU countries than w/ Poland or Hungary, but French political/social dynamics are still in many ways distinct from political/social dynamics in Germany or Italy.
Read 5 tweets
18 Feb
I'm not sure what "racialized worldview" means in this context, but it doesn't really matter. What we're talking about here is what is empirically true vs. false. Class realignment is occurring *w/in* white voters as a group. Working class POC vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
If you count POC w/in the working class (& I don't know why you wouldn't, unless you have some other agenda), working class voters, as a group, vote for Dems. cnn.com/election/2020/… ImageImage
(These are 2020 exit polls, so the typical caveats apply. They paint a broad brush, so should be viewed carefully. That said, these exits line up with the broader empirical trend we saw both in 2020 & longitudinally)
Read 4 tweets
14 Feb
A central tension in our politics is this we have 1 political party that cares about upholding democracy, whereas the other party's aims can only be achieved thru undermining democracy. This is coupled w/ the fact that 1 party cares about people's well-being & the other does not
These 2 facts lead to a situation in which, in order to both uphold democracy & advance well-being, 1 party is dedicated to a functional gov't & the other party is well-served by a dysfunctional government. Such dysfunction is both instrumental & ideological (anti-government)
And then, of course, we have gerrymandering + a cap on the House of reps, 2 Senators per state, & the electoral college. A set of circumstances that gives massively disproportionate power to the anti-democracy & anti-well-being party.
Read 9 tweets
14 Feb
I don't think that "Democrats were cowards and couldn't stand up to McConnell" is the correct framing. Dems clearly made a political calculation. Plenty to potentially criticize about that calculation, but it was informed by factors unrelated to generalized "fear of republicans"
What we largely know now:
-There would never have been enough GOP votes to convict
-GOP had the power to hold up *all* Senate business & that means COVID relief (Dems would have been blamed for this hold up)
-Witnesses were uncooperative & would have had to have been subpoenaed
So I think the correct framing is that Democrats made a political calculation that the benefit of adding witnesses (who would not change the outcome) was not worth the political & moral cost of holding up COVID relief, as well as important confirmations. . . .
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!