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
Finally, it's a bit grating to consistently hear Clinton characterized as leaning too heavily on "identity politics." What she did was champion Civil rights. In terms of her own identity as a woman, she worked very hard to suppress that & rarely referenced it.
I'm not saying this is what she should/shouldn't have done, but it's quite clear that any female politician faces disadvantages (either too weak or too strident; too serious or too silly) & we know from Clinton's own accounts that she tried hard to thread these needles.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.
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/…
(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)
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.
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.
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. . . .