3 ms·

> Gee, how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections as not

> Gee, how would anyone look at a Republican administration whose first Supreme Court appointee penned a seminal decision on LGBT employment protections as not trying to turn back LGBT rights? One wonders. Sure, Obergefell and Bostock were good, but op was talking about the country, not just SCOTUS. You can't ignore things like bathroom/locker room bills, the Don't Say Gay bill, book banning, etc. You're narrowing to things that support your position. > (Roe) is unpopular with women in its full scope—specifically, Roe’s guarantee of elective abortions in the second trimester. This is a right-wing talking point that (predictably) ignores the facts, narrowing to data that supports their position. It's very hard to poll about abortion because it's so nuanced, and most Americans are really uninformed. Couple of things here: If you look at Gallup's results (the poll Town Hall et al reference) [0], you'll even see majority support for abortion in the third trimester. 75% of respondents believe abortion should be legal when the woman's life is endangered, and 52% when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. You'll also see that 56% of respondents oppose an 18 week ban, which is well into the 2nd trimester. The reason the right centers on the "second trimester" talking point is that a different question shows way lower support (65% think it should be illegal), but when they drill down, support in various scenarios (life of the mother, etc.) increases. This is similar to polling about the ACA: if you asked people about Obamacare they hated it; if you asked them about the policies in Obamacare (no lifetime caps on care, no preexisting conditions) they loved it. It's an old, disingenuous trick. > Social progressivism is an overwhelmingly white movement. This is super untrue, but it's not that surprising since you're using Warren's primary campaign which, again, is a very narrow measure that supports your position (the demographics of the states she competed in are "overwhelmingly white" [1], so what you said applies to every candidate until Super Tuesday). The quick rejoinder is "then explain BLM", but something more substantial is the demographic breakdown of the Democratic vote in the 2020 Presidential election [2]. Quick synopsis is Biden/Harris won: - 63% of Hispanic and Latino voters - 87% of Black voters - 68% AAPI voters - 65% of Indian American voters - 68% of American Indian and Alaska Native voters - 43% of White voters (38% men, 44% women) Maybe you'll quibble on Biden/Harris not being a progressive campaign? We can look at the last Quinnipiac poll from before the Iowa Caucuses [2] where Sanders' and Warren's non-white supporters made up 41% of their vote shares. Sure they don't match Biden's 70%, but they're decidedly not "overwhelmingly white" (might want to look at the Buttigieg campaign for that one). [0]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx [1]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/01/31/just-how-demographically-skewed-are-the-early-democratic-primary-states/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/01/31/just-ho... [2]: https://poll.qu.edu/Poll-Release-Legacy?releaseid=3651 https://poll.qu.edu/Poll-Release-Legacy?releaseid=3651 [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Voting_patterns_by_ethnicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...

rayiner 5y ago
The right focuses on the second trimester issue because Roe mandates the availability of elective second trimester abortions, which people oppose. And the left demonizes Republican abortion laws like the one in Mississippi which contains exceptions for health of the mother and the baby. Your polls only confirm that where public opinion lies is something close to the Mississippi law (which incidentally isn’t dissimilar from the law in France or Germany). As to your other point, you can’t use support for Democrats as a proxy for support for “social progressives.” My parents vote straight ticket democrat, but they’re not the least bit socially progressive. I’m not talking about democrats who support DACA. I’m talking about the ones who say “LatinX.” These are the ones driving the ideological rigidity PG is talking about. These folks are overwhelmingly white: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/ https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/ (“progressive activists” are 79% white, the same as “traditional conservatives”). You have to appreciate that white people vote Democrat for different reasons than POC. Matt Yglesias has written about this at length. For example, Muslim Americans supported Bush in 2000. Post 9/11, Iraq and the anti-Muslim rhetoric on the right pushed many to Democrats. But Muslim Americans are still very conservative within their own communities: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progress/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres.... Additionally, many are alienated by the right not because it’s religious, but because it’s Christian specifically. Thus they may support democrats out of support for pluralism, not because they agree with Beto that we should strip tax exemptions from Catholic churches and mosques. Indeed, one of the starkest differences between white and non-white democrats is that white democrats overwhelmingly believe that religion isn’t necessary for morality, while about half of non-white democrats believe it is: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo... The right focuses on Warren’s primary run because it allows them to disentangle the “we like Obamacare Democrats” like my parents, from the socially progressive intersectional democrats like Warren. Indeed, even Sanders is a bad point of comparison because remember the Warren progressives attacked him as “racist and sexist.” Sanders is popular among Hispanics because social democracy is a broad lane among Hispanics. And Warren shows just how unpopular “socialism plus intersectionality” is with POC. You cite the Iowa Caucus, but 91% of democrat Iowa caucus voters are white. The POC there are basically all college students. I don’t know why you didn’t cite the Super Tuesday results, which is when the diverse parts of the Democratic Party actually vote. Warren got crushed among POC. Among Black people in Virginia, for example, she got 7%, losing to Bloomberg: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/super-tuesday-14-states-democratic-primary-election-live-updates-stream-2020-03-03/ https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/super-tuesday-14-states.... Among Hispanics in Texas she got 8%. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-boosted-sanders-super-tuesday-lesson-biden-campaign-n1149511 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-boosted-sanders-... All told, Warren’s support in Super Tuesday was 80% white, in an electorate that was only 50% white. Warren was, in fact, never even a viable candidate in a diverse Democratic Party: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/elizabeth-warren-book-persist-campaign-memoir-2020.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/elizabeth-warren-boo.... We were subjected to her for a year because she’s incredibly popular among the highly educated white people who run the media and everything else. It hasn’t been lost on me, as a person of color, how many of the loudest voices talking about race over the last year in elite circles were both white and Warren supporters. There’s other data points too, such as Eric Adams winning Blacks and Latinos in the NYC primaries, and Yang winning Asians, while white progressives decried both.

rayiner 5y ago

The right focuses on the second trimester issue because Roe mandates the availability of elective second trimester abortions, which people oppose. And the left demonizes Republican abortion laws like the one in Mississippi which contains exceptions for health of the mother and the baby. Your polls only confirm that where public opinion lies is something close to the Mississippi law (which incidentally isn’t dissimilar from the law in France or Germany). As to your other point, you can’t use support for Democrats as a proxy for support for “social progressives.” My parents vote straight ticket democrat, but they’re not the least bit socially progressive. I’m not talking about democrats who support DACA. I’m talking about the ones who say “LatinX.” These are the ones driving the ideological rigidity PG is talking about. These folks are overwhelmingly white: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/ https://hiddentribes.us/profiles/ (“progressive activists” are 79% white, the same as “traditional conservatives”). You have to appreciate that white people vote Democrat for different reasons than POC. Matt Yglesias has written about this at length. For example, Muslim Americans supported Bush in 2000. Post 9/11, Iraq and the anti-Muslim rhetoric on the right pushed many to Democrats. But Muslim Americans are still very conservative within their own communities: https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progress/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/28/us/lgbt-muslims-pride-progres.... Additionally, many are alienated by the right not because it’s religious, but because it’s Christian specifically. Thus they may support democrats out of support for pluralism, not because they agree with Beto that we should strip tax exemptions from Catholic churches and mosques. Indeed, one of the starkest differences between white and non-white democrats is that white democrats overwhelmingly believe that religion isn’t necessary for morality, while about half of non-white democrats believe it is: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo... The right focuses on Warren’s primary run because it allows them to disentangle the “we like Obamacare Democrats” like my parents, from the socially progressive intersectional democrats like Warren. Indeed, even Sanders is a bad point of comparison because remember the Warren progressives attacked him as “racist and sexist.” Sanders is popular among Hispanics because social democracy is a broad lane among Hispanics. And Warren shows just how unpopular “socialism plus intersectionality” is with POC. You cite the Iowa Caucus, but 91% of democrat Iowa caucus voters are white. The POC there are basically all college students. I don’t know why you didn’t cite the Super Tuesday results, which is when the diverse parts of the Democratic Party actually vote. Warren got crushed among POC. Among Black people in Virginia, for example, she got 7%, losing to Bloomberg: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/super-tuesday-14-states-democratic-primary-election-live-updates-stream-2020-03-03/ https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/super-tuesday-14-states.... Among Hispanics in Texas she got 8%. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-boosted-sanders-super-tuesday-lesson-biden-campaign-n1149511 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-boosted-sanders-... All told, Warren’s support in Super Tuesday was 80% white, in an electorate that was only 50% white. Warren was, in fact, never even a viable candidate in a diverse Democratic Party: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/elizabeth-warren-book-persist-campaign-memoir-2020.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/elizabeth-warren-boo.... We were subjected to her for a year because she’s incredibly popular among the highly educated white people who run the media and everything else. It hasn’t been lost on me, as a person of color, how many of the loudest voices talking about race over the last year in elite circles were both white and Warren supporters. There’s other data points too, such as Eric Adams winning Blacks and Latinos in the NYC primaries, and Yang winning Asians, while white progressives decried both.