2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Where was the sympathy for Bush voters [View all]BainsBane
(54,792 posts)To fight against voter disenfranchisement in order to enable more people to vote. I understand some politicians benefit from a whiter and more affluent electorate and have an interest in making it more so, but I believe it important to stand for equal rights rather than to cater to those who oppose them.
There has been little attention to widespread voter disenfranchisement in the past election period other than by Tom Perez.
I'm also confused how working class has come to be defined as white men making over $100k a year while the less affluent voters, women and people of color, who make up the lion's share of the workforce of those earning less than $75k a year, are somehow not working class.
That some politicians choose to focus on conservative white voters over the disenfranchised is a reflection of their own values. I do not happen to share the view that white male votes are more important than the millions of Hispanics and African Americans purged from voting lists.
If Republicans decide they no longer want a white supremacist government, I welcome their support. They, however, did chose to vote for Trump, and the assertion that they didn't know what they were supporting is condescending. If there is one issue Trump was clear about, it was hostility toward anyone who wasn't white, male and Christian. Supporters at his rallies made themselves clear by shouting racial and gendered epithets, including JewSA. I see no reason not to take them at their word.
You did not address my question. Presumably Democrats thought it a good idea to win more votes after defeats to Bush and Reagan, yet we didn't hear those voters championed. The only difference I can see is they didn't have Bernie telling them what to think.