"Once you get off of the social issues abortion, gay rights, guns and into the economic issues,"

[ehrnst]

he says, "there is a lot more agreement than the pundits understand." Bernie Sanders, July 9, 2015
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/weekend-with-bernie-sanders-20150709

Get off? "social issues" and not "healthcare and basic employment protections that are integral to any economic justice?"

Some of us have been known about his POV for years.

“These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues,” Sanders told Schultz. “They’re getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together: Defending Social Security, defending Medicare, making sure that Medicaid is not cut, that veterans’ programs are not cut.” Bernie Sanders 2013

ttp://www.rawstory.com/2013/10/bernie-sanders-tells-ed-schultz-southern-democrats-are-tired-of-being-abandoned-by-the-party/

"Getting hung up?"

Is that really any kind of support of economic issues specific to LGBTQs and women?

[shenmue]

1. Sorry, human rights are non-negotiable

[kentuck]

2. the pyramid of needs.

[mercuryblues]

4. where is

the need to have control over you own body? Without that all other needs are moot for women.

[Kber]

11. Physiological needs.

Physical safety and bodily integrity.

i.e. The base of the pyramid. If you don't have that, everything else is academic.

[Hekate]

33. Bingo

[ehrnst]

17. Women, LGBTQs and people of color

are somehow expected to wait fpr their basic needs to be met until white working class men feel better about their lives and their earnings.

Not happening.

[Honeycombe8]

31. He didn't say "white" working class. He's talking about working and middle class.

He's not saying to stop supporting the social issues or working on them. He's talking about focus.

I do think the Dem Party has neglected basic economic matters in recent years. For example, the Obama Admin. (which I thought highly of and vote for twice) didn't really address the loss of jobs due to the trade agreement(s) or outsourcing or offshoring. It didn't address the economic hardship that the ACA brought to the middle class. Yes, it did great things for millions. But it did create a hardship for many middle class, which wasn't even acknowledged, for the most part.

The Repubs are going to go after Social Security and Medicare big time. This is a high risk time for those programs, and for health care.

The tax plan is to shift the tax burden to as many middle class and poor as possible; the only way to get that passed w/o a deficit-killing budget is to take money from SS, Medicare, and the ACA. And they won't stop until they get it.

The Dem Party has done a great job furthering its social issues agenda. It's not unreasonable for it to shift its focus to the economic issues, now. But that does not mean giving up ground on the social issues or stopping support of them.

[Caliman73]

39. I disagree.

You can focus on both. Conservatives use social issues as a wedge and that is their problem. Democrats need to focus on both. Social issues and economic issues are inseparable. Sanders needs to blend his message not talk about being "hung up" on anything. It is the wrong message.

Most jobs have been lost to technology not necessarily to outsourcing. The larger loss to outsourcing is capital, meaning tax revenue. The problem with trade agreements is not that they take jobs overseas. Those jobs would have gone overseas anyway. The problem is that the Republicans failed to keep up their end of the bargain with vocational training and shifting the focus to new jobs. They also keep moving the goalposts on infrastructure.

Sanders sounds tone deaf on the "social issues". He can walk and chew gum at the same time. He isn't going to get the white Trump voter back. They don't want women and Black people to get any kind of help to even up the playing field.

[Honeycombe8]

52. I disagree.

Vocational training and "shifting focus to new jobs" doesn't mean squat. A 52 year old laid off Ford worker is not going to become well employed in another field after vocational training. He can shift his focus, all right, but it won't matter. A study shows that taking the time to "vocational train" after a layoff leads to long term unemployment or low wages more so than trying to find another job doing anything.

The trade agreements were one-sided and ENCOURAGED American cos. to move to Mexico and other countries. Super low pay, no money spent on environmental protections, no OSHA or safety to worry about, and no disincentive on top of all that = jobs flew to other countries.

I wasn't speaking just of technology. It was widespread. Auto mfrs, gizmo manufacturers, plants and factories of all sorts. The list is neverending. Mexico became a vacuum that sucked jobs from the U.S. If one of them does it, the competitors have to then move, as well, or they can't compete.

The Dem Party has done a great job with social issues. Now let's see some beef for the economy of the working and middle class. The engine of the country.

Focus should be on the economy, for a change, while still supporting social issues. Good economics for the middle and working class = a better life for most Americans. The Dem Party has been over-focusing on social issues, IMO, to the detriment of economic issues. Also, you win elections on economic issues mainly. You may have noticed that the Dems are in the minority in both houses in Congress, and the Exec Branch, as well. They need to start winning more elections. Which helps the social issues. And you don't have to fight so hard...since most of Congress would be Democratic.

[athena]

24. So let's push those women and minorities who happen to be at the top of the pyramid

down several levels so that we can bring a minority of straight white males one or two levels up from the bottom.

And why? Just in case those working-class white males will decide to vote Democratic next time, and that women, LGBTQ, and minorities will have no choice but to keep voting Democratic.

I don't think so.

[Vesper]

26. We're actually the ones whose base of the pyramid needs are being sacrificed so that

white men like the regressive Mello and his supporter Bernie can achieve their top of the pyramid goals.

These are life and death matters they're playing with, and the response here is esoteric rhetoric and some really bad spin.

[Vesper]

25. Bodily integrity falls within physiological and safety needs, Mello attacks those.

[athena]

27. Excellent point.

I can't believe I missed that. Just goes to show how ingrained sexism is, and how even feminists must watch ourselves all the time to avoid engaging in misogynistic ways of thinking.

It's amazing that people are saying in all seriousness that being able to trust that one will not be forced against one's will to undergo nine months of pain and illness followed by a painful and dangerous medical procedure that is likely to leave one with permanent health issues is not a physiological and safety need.

Thank you for making this point.

[Vesper]

32. Even worse, what this right winger has proposed is a 20 week abortion ban.

That's about the time amnio and ultrasounds show problems with the fetus, and it's extreme right wingers (like Trent Franks and Ted Cruz) who want to force women to carry no matter what by banning procedures. Even that "compromise" (that's the spin Mello and his supporters are using) is pure BS, goes into "partial birth abortion" a literal lie made up by anti-choicers on the right to attack the medical community.

What I'm seeing is people who are trying to disguise their hypocrisy by playing the purity game, and going on and on about pretty much everything under the sun, to downplay the dangerous nature of this man and the legislation that he's sponsored.

I don't know what the hell Bernie was thinking, but he's exposing a really scary and negative aspect to his politics that many of us did not trust and that many slowly being disenchanted with.

There is no excuse for the level of ignorance or uncuriousness that would allow him to waste the funds, attention and the time of the DNC to support a MAYOR with this kind of background while dissing an actual progressive running for a House seat.

He's failing at his job and no one gave him the authority to decide who and what is a progressive, if Mello is Bernie's version, I want no part of them.

[kcr]

69. Hahahahahaha!

I mean, why does any political party anywhere in the world bother with anything else? What a waste of time and money when it's just that easy. All anyone really wants is a cave, a pot to cook in and a water source when it really comes down to it!

[NCTraveler]

3. He summed up...

Justification for bigotry, racism, sexism, and the lack of a yearning for a just society in one quick soundbite. Well done. He should join our party. Our platform would make him better than his current stances and rhetoric.

[ehrnst]

10. In other words

He expects that the Democratic party change its platform to meet his specifications, rather than creating a party of his own, about him and in the service of his ideas. And that way he doesn't have to do the work of building one.

Ralph Nader said Sanders was a genius to jump onto the Democratic party for a national run, because otherwise, he would have ended up like Nader - huge stadium filling crowds, but nothing that translated to votes.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_next_20/2016/09/ralph_nader_and_the_tragedy_of_voter_as_consumer_politics.html

[NCTraveler]

14. I think one of the things I'm trying to say...

Is the guy will support people who hold a major position most of us would deem to be a right wing position. Said person will be decidedly left on all other levels of the spectrum outside of certain positions on women's rights.

Now that said, I don't question Sanders cincerity with his stand on a majority of the issues we are faced with. He is a bit of an outsider(by choice) for my taste but it's worked for a whole career. He normally comes from a solid position and one I can favor.

He falls within the bounds of the Democratic Party. Sanders needs to start saying he is a member of the party. He meets the criteria. Is bs that he doesn't.

[ehrnst]

18. Refusing to join the party, but wanting to run its platform is BS.

I don't doubt his sincerity that he feels he is absolutely, inarguably, unquestionably right on every issue.

He is known for believing that he is the smartest person in the room, which doesn't promote listening and learning, let alone teamwork.

"the spectrum of positions outside of certain positions on women's rights" - you mean like dismissing basic women's health care as a "social issue?"

Look, if he even gave a quarter of an inch on certain economic ideas that are decidedly like his on all other levels but the function of certain payment mechanisms for universal health coverage, he could talk about other people "being flexible" - but he is most decidedly not.

His outsider status has worked for a career representing in a tiny, overwhemingly homegenous, white rural lefty constituency. His priorities are those priorities. The fact that he wants the platform to revolve around him says that he doesn't see the Democratic Party as worth joining, except temporarily when he wants to run for president, says that no, he's not interested in any party but one with him calling all the shots.

[Hekate]

41. Very well said. Your last paragraph is spot on.

[58Sunliner]

64. BS is now BS to me.

[Skittles]

5. LOL

when they're not wearing the white sheets, they are OK folk!!!

[jaysunb]

6. +1 n/t

[ehrnst]

7. Bingo. (NT)

[Orrex]

80. Nicely put!

I've been mulling over a reply, but yours was a better zinger than anything I'd have come up with.

[RedWedge]

8. Why anyone thinks this clumsy, outdated message -- touted by someone who isn't even a Democrat --

should be the path for the party is beyond me.

[Cha]

56. It's going to BackFire

on him.. it's not the message of our Democratic Principles.. We're Inclusive..

"Once you get off of the social issues abortion, gay rights, guns and into the economic issues"

Also Known As Women's Issues Women and their pesky issues.. same with Gay Rights!

“These are guys getting hung up on gay marriage issues,” Sanders told Schultz. “They’re getting hung up on abortion issues. And it is time we started focusing on the economic issues that bring us together"

Hey BS! We can multitask, ya know

[kcr]

66. I hope that will happen soon

He just doesn't seem to go away and there are still so many who will defend him no matter what. I'm sick to death of hearing about him and how he's the leader of all things Dem and progressive and unifying, and you're smeared as divisive if you say boo about it.

[Cha]

73. Because the M$M is invested in the Controversary..

They had a big stake in making sure Hillary lost to drumpfuck, too..

Sure they like their tax cuts.

[ananda]

9. OK, here's what I think he's getting at.

If you deal with the economic issues .. strong regulations,
decent minimum wage, hourly and overtime protections,
workplace safety, environmental protections, affirmative
action, equal opportunity, affordable healthcare, and so on...

... then the social issues also fall into place. When people
have eonomic security, the stressors behind their hates
disappear ... and they don't need to blame the others
for their problems.

[JHan]

12. you cannot avoid it, prejudice shapes how resources are shared.

"affirmative action" and "equal opportunity" are under "social issues". The social issues did not take care of themselves during times of prosperity as the 50's showed us ( and other periods)

[ehrnst]

16. Hear, hear

The golden era of "economic boom" for white men in the 50's was built on the backs of people of color and women doing the low paid work, and tolerating wage inequity.

Yes, there were good civic jobs for people of color and women, but they didn't get access to the full American dream. They were denied even higher education in some fields.

[Kber]

13. Except my African American step dad still gets stopped in my mostly white town

Even in his new Mercedes.

Just saying.

[ehrnst]

19. Yah, you'd think that when people have money, the social issues would have fallen into place.(nt)

[Hekate]

44. That's the central flaw in classic Marxist philosophy. "Identity" doesn't disappear...

Half the population will still be female, and will still need a full spectrum of health care specialized to our needs or women will die.

X% of the population will still be infants and children, and women will still overwhelmingly be responsible for their every need, from food to education to medical care -- and this will impact every day and every year of their paid working lives.

X% of the population will stll be "minorities" and visibly so, and they will still struggle for a full place in education, society, and the workplace even if the minimum wage is $15 an hour.

It goes on. And on.

[JHan]

37. Right? And no matter how affluent you are as a PoC, you get "the conversation" as a kid.

[ehrnst]

15. "... then the social issues also fall into place."

Trickle down social justice. That's where Bernie gets it wrong.

So why haven't those social issues fallen into place in Socialist leaning European countries? Strong wages, affordable health care haven't gotten rid of nationalism, sexism, racism, xenophobia.

We also had a whole lot of the economic boon in the US post World War 2 - but there was rampant sexism, racism, xenophobia - and the violence toward the civil rights movement sure didn't come from nowhere.

And in fact, nationalism can flourish when people have the time and money to worry about if they really wanted a diverse neighborhood. Believe me - in my neighborhood, some of the people with the most money are the ones disparaging the "brown faces looking out from the school yearbook" as a sign that there are "illegals" here.

“[It’s] a kind of liberal myth,” Pippa Norris, a Harvard political scientist who studies populism in the United States and Europe, says of the Sanders analysis. “[Liberals] want to have a reason why people are supporting populist parties when their values are so clearly against progressive values in terms of misogyny, sexism, racism.”

The problem is that a lot of data suggests that countries with more robust welfare states tend to have stronger far-right movements. Providing white voters with higher levels of economic security does not tamp down their anxieties about race and immigration — or, more precisely, it doesn’t do it powerfully enough. For some, it frees them to worry less about what it’s in their wallet and more about who may be moving into their neighborhoods or competing with them for jobs.

Take Britain’s Labour Party, which swung to the populist left by electing Jeremy Corbyn, a socialist who has proposed renationalizing Britain’s rail system, as its leader in 2015. The results have been disastrous: the Brexit vote in favor of leaving the European Union, plummeting poll numbers for both Corbyn and his party, and a British political scene that is shifting notably to the right on issues of immigration and multiculturalism.
.........................................................................

Ironically, that could be because the European left is the victim of its own success. Ronald Inglehart, an eminent political scientist at the University of Michigan, argues that the combination of rapid economic growth and a robust welfare state have provided voters with enough economic security that they could start prioritizing issues beyond the distribution of wealth — issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and, most crucially, immigration.

So it’s not that European social democrats failed to sell their economic message, or that economic redistribution became unpopular. It’s that economic issues receded in importance at the same time as Europe was experiencing a massive, unprecedented wave of nonwhite, non-Christian immigration.

That, in turn, brought some of the most politically potent nonmaterial issues — race, identity, and nationalism — to the forefront of Western voters’ mind. How comfortable were they, really, with multicultural, multifaith societies?

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/13/14698812/bernie-trump-corbyn-left-wing-populism

No, I won't tolerate the rights of women and LGBTQs being put aside in the interest of getting conservative, government hating white male to "buy in" to neosocialism, especially when there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of upset at the ongoing similar situation of women in the workplace, especially women of color, or working class people of color.

The rest of us don't want to return to the 50's, thanks.

[Hekate]

45. "Trickle down social justice" is a wonderfully accurate phrase.

I'm impressed.

[betsuni]

54. +1

[athena]

55. It's "trickle-down economics", too.

Let's just help the straight white male Trump supporters, and eventually, women and minorities might also benefit.

[lunasun]

34. Like wealthy republicans who have gay hate? Think all women belong at home

and want to stop pro choice? Never have a racist action?
I don't think wealth and opportunity (giving economic security) wipes out ingrained prejudices and hate just disappears like he thinks.

This isn't just a minority's issues , woman’s issue, gay issue etc it’s a societal issue that only stops us all from progressing

[Vesper]

43. That's a great utopia, but these hates have always been there

as well as violence towards women, misogyny and all the other things that are very much at play today. Ignoring these things won't make them go away and appeasing white men doesn't ever work.

[yardwork]

46. How do economic stresses cause homophobia?

[kcr]

51. He has made that claim before, only more elegantly.

So he is capable of not sounding like a complete jackass. But either way, he's wrong.

[58Sunliner]

63. If you have to read between the lines then what good is his word? Making assumptions

for the subtext seems to me to be a failure on BS. Just like DT. Believe what he says. And if he can not be bothered to address specifics, then he is being disingenuous or is truly out of touch. Lives are at stake. I don't believe that we change implicit bias because we are fat and happy. I can paint a scenario where having to share control and resources will bring out the worst in people. Even in times of plenty. Just look at the south. Thinking lack of economic stress will be the determining factor of people's behavior is called denial. BS is in denial. White male privilege denial.

[boston bean]

20. He has been saying this same exact thing since 1968.

When will people believe he means what he says.

[Cha]

57. Maybe it will

Finally Backfire!

[NastyRiffraff]

21. I'd say this was unbelievable

but this is nothing new for Sanders. And it's total bullshit. Others in this thread have said it well; we cannot have economic equality without social equality. I can't believe any liberal buys into this crap, but many apparently do.

[Starry Messenger]

22. Interesting fact--Northern Ireland is covered by the NHS

but women there still have to fly or sail to England for abortions and have to pay for the whole thing out of pocket.

Women who can't afford that, and attempt to self-abort and are caught are treated as criminals.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35980195

So it is perfectly possible to have what looks like a person-neutral social benefit which is still dogged by discrimination, because it wasn't dealt with too. No, you cannot work on one without working on the other.

[JHan]

38. excellent point ++++++++

[athena]

23. This is incredibly offensive.

I can't fathom how any woman, LGBTQ person, or member of any kind of minority -- i.e., anyone who is not a straight, white male -- can support this position.

It's so offensive that I wish I hadn't seen this. I might have been able to enjoy the rest of my evening.

[Honeycombe8]

28. He's not saying give up those issues. He's talking about focus.

I think he has a point. Gay marriage, abortion, etc., can still be worked on and supported. But I do think the Dem Party has been sidetracked into focusing more and more on the social issues, to the detriment of focusing on basic economics, as well as Social Security and Medicare.

This is one reason why the Dems lost some votes in key states (if they DID really lose those votes).

The Dem Party can walk and chew gum at the same time. By all means continue supporting the social issues, but start focusing on the bread and butter more. The economic issues greatly affect everyone, and they have been somewhat put aside.

There's nothing wrong with saying we should increase the focus on economic issues. Gay marriage - it's legal, now. Abortion - tenuous, and being chipped away at. This can become a focus when a bill is passed attempting to restrict or abolish it (and there will be). LGBT - The Dem Party has gone above and beyond supporting the LGBT issues.

But coming up soon will be an enormous attack on Social Security, Medicare, health care, taxes. The Dems had better be focused like an arrow on those things, or we could all lose big.

[Vesper]

40. So we need to focus on medicare and social security and basic economics

while the right wing attack our basic human rights?

How do social security (which helps those over 65) and medicare (which is for the same population and which doesn't even cover half of the medical expenses of the over 65), affect pay equality (they're based on payroll taxes, get paid less, get less coverage later in life)? How do they protect you or your 12 year old from being shot by the police or people motivated by their "economic issues" who think your dark skin and funny accent makes you a target?

How does focusing on these programs address people like Mello who seek to prevent you from accessing medical care via telemedicine, or access to abortion, even when the pregnancy you wanted proved to be non-viable at your amnio at 20 weeks? How does that help us as a party to focus only on old people while ignoring all the massive inequality that the non-white, non-male portion of the citizenry have to deal with on a regular basis. If we wanted to belong to a party that will ignore us, and seek to harm us and tell us it's all our fault for not keeping our legs together or because we were acting funny etc. we'd join the GOP.

The Dems lost key votes because people kept telling them that vague shouts were policy, that their ignorance of how elections work was justified by screaming about "rigging", fostering anger and hate towards a party and a candidate by echoing right wing smears fed to them by foreign entities masquerading as news. Call a spade a spade.

There is a lot wrong with forgetting that things like reproductive justice, race and gender issues are somehow NOT an integral part of economic issues. Gay marriage is legal now because of progressives, liberals and DEMOCRATS who have been fighting for decades, my marching and taking each painful step, by recognizing that state's rights don't trump the rights of citizens to have their legal marriage recognized federally. We're still fighting the daily attacks on abortion access, the literal war zone that Planned Parenthood clinics are, and the brave doctors, nurses and clinic personnel who risk their lives and that of their families ever single day to provide care to poor men and women in their own neighborhoods.

Apparently the silence of the MSM has lulled some into complacency, there are bills being introduced on a daily basis that seek to harm women, endanger doctors, deny access to care. DAILY. We're not going to wait "until a bill is passed" so that we can pay attention to it AFTER THE FACT. AFTER they pass bills to delay care, to make the murder of doctors a justifiable homicide, after they kill women like Savita Hallapanavar (a woman denied necessary abortion care who died as a result of an overwhelming infection that was 100% preventable).

The Democratic Party has not gone above and beyond anything, marginalizing women, LGBTQ, and minority communities saying this condescending and asinine thing is ludicrous.

We're already fighting off an enormous attack on women, on minorities, on the LGBTQ, we're focused like an arrow on things that affect us, not just the senior citizen crowd who don't give a flying fig about what's happening to the rest of us.

I'm thankful that people who believe this are in the minority and will not be relegating us to the Handmaid's Tale section while they pretend that issues that affect women and minorities need to take a back seat to old people stuff, as if that's not all based on the issues some would like us to ignore.

[Vesper]

42. So we need to focus on medicare and social security and basic economics

while the right wing attack our basic human rights?

How do social security (which helps those over 65) and medicare (which is for the same population and which doesn't even cover half of the medical expenses of the over 65), affect pay equality (they're based on payroll taxes, get paid less, get less coverage later in life)? How do they protect you or your 12 year old from being shot by the police or people motivated by their "economic issues" who think your dark skin and funny accent makes you a target?

How does focusing on these programs address people like Mello who seek to prevent you from accessing medical care via telemedicine, or access to abortion, even when the pregnancy you wanted proved to be non-viable at your amnio at 20 weeks? How does that help us as a party to focus only on old people while ignoring all the massive inequality that the non-white, non-male portion of the citizenry have to deal with on a regular basis. If we wanted to belong to a party that will ignore us, and seek to harm us and tell us it's all our fault for not keeping our legs together or because we were acting funny etc. we'd join the GOP.

The Dems lost key votes because people kept telling them that vague shouts were policy, that their ignorance of how elections work was justified by screaming about "rigging", fostering anger and hate towards a party and a candidate by echoing right wing smears fed to them by foreign entities masquerading as news. Call a spade a spade.

There is a lot wrong with forgetting that things like reproductive justice, race and gender issues are somehow NOT an integral part of economic issues. Gay marriage is legal now because of progressives, liberals and DEMOCRATS who have been fighting for decades, my marching and taking each painful step, by recognizing that state's rights don't trump the rights of citizens to have their legal marriage recognized federally. We're still fighting the daily attacks on abortion access, the literal war zone that Planned Parenthood clinics are, and the brave doctors, nurses and clinic personnel who risk their lives and that of their families ever single day to provide care to poor men and women in their own neighborhoods.

Apparently the silence of the MSM has lulled some into complacency, there are bills being introduced on a daily basis that seek to harm women, endanger doctors, deny access to care. DAILY. We're not going to wait "until a bill is passed" so that we can pay attention to it AFTER THE FACT. AFTER they pass bills to delay care, to make the murder of doctors a justifiable homicide, after they kill women like Savita Hallapanavar (a woman denied necessary abortion care who died as a result of an overwhelming infection that was 100% preventable).

The Democratic Party has not gone above and beyond anything, marginalizing women, LGBTQ, and minority communities saying this condescending and asinine thing is ludicrous.

We're already fighting off an enormous attack on women, on minorities, on the LGBTQ, we're focused like an arrow on things that affect us, not just the senior citizen crowd who don't give a flying fig about what's happening to the rest of us.

I'm thankful that people who believe this are in the minority and will not be relegating us to the Handmaid's Tale section while they pretend that issues that affect women and minorities need to take a back seat to old people stuff, as if that's not all based on the issues some would like us to ignore.

Just this weekend I met a group of ladies and gentleman over the age of 65 who did not share this "narrow focus" on issues that affect only themselves, they were dedicated older and wiser warriors who were fighting for us, their kids, grandkids and younger people who were not even related to them. They understand what the Democratic party is about, and they know where the focus is, even if they were white, wealthy and older, they were fighting for me, a person who isn't white, who they vaguely remembered as a face at their granddaughter's high school graduation way back when. Thank goodness for real liberals/progressives/Democrats who know the importance of the fight and who are upset at the old white men shouting ridiculous things who don't seem to understand what's going on beyond the end of their noses.

[Honeycombe8]

50. Focusing on economic issues is not any more narrow than focusing on social issues.

Economics affects everyone. It really matters....to everyone. It can ruin one's life. Not having health care or a decent income can even kill you.

Social issues matter very much, but to smaller groups of people.

"It's the economy, stupid," as the saying goes.

I will give your own words back to you, but in a way that is more true:

Thank goodness for real Democrats who know the importance of the fight of fair economics and who are upset at people who do not happen to be old or white shouting ridiculous things who don't seem to understand what's going on beyond the end of their noses.

You will find out in time how important Social Security and Medicare are. Before those programs, the majority of seniors lived in poverty and had no health care. We all get old. But only some of us ever want an abortion.

We can walk and chew gum. We need to prepare to fight against the big wrecking ball aimed at Social Security, Medicare, health care, and income of the middle class and working class.

Example: The tax plan aims to RAISE taxes on low income single parents, while hugely lowering taxes on the wealthy. Would you think the low income people would care more about that...or more about whether Sally down the street can get an abortion? When the kids need food, and she can't pay her daycare bill for the week, and she's sick but can't take a day off work without pay....do you think she cares more about money or whether her transgender friend can use the women's bathroom at the mall?

All issues matter. But it's time to focus on economics, for a change. If we want to make the country better for its citizens and win elections, that is. Economics is day to day life, what is necessary, and affects everything and everyone. No need to give up supporting social issues, though.

The economy, BTW, was the main thrust of Obama's 2008 campaign. He won bigly. That was also his main focus in 2012. He won bigly again. "It's the economy, stupid," as they say.

[JHan]

53. Prejudice shapes how resources are distributed

We are looking at wage disparities, tax benefits and recognition of gay couples under tax law ( only happened last year I think, but I could be wrong) wage theft, maternity leave, reproductive rights which are economic, discrimination in the work place, allocation of resources and funding by extension affecting which communities benefit and which do not. I could go on and on. To assume that economics fixes everything assumes that we live in a colorblind, gender neutral, society - we do not. You have people in this country resistant to single payer healthcare and benefits because "moochers" will be taking tax payers money and there are politicians still using welfare queen dog whistles.

Furthermore democrats have never not focused on the economy , I don't know where these myths are coming from but it's a narrative not based on facts.

[Honeycombe8]

61. You can't legislate against prejudice. Laws address discrimination already.

Wage theft = the upcoming tax plan. Focus. Economics. The tax plan = stealing from the middle and working class and giving to the rich.

Maternity leave - done. All mid-size and large businesses provide it. Most small businesses can't afford to pay for it.
FMLA - done.
Abortion rights - done. It's continually under attack. What else is new?
Discrimination - done. That's illegal. (You can't legislative what people think, only their behavior.) If you want to work on discrimination, join w/the rest to rail against economic disparity, and thoughts will change. Not just behavior.
Gay marriage - done.

To pose the argument that the Dem Party is fighting to gain these rights is wrong. We have them, for the most part. Now we need to focus on economic issues, while watching and fighting to ensure we don't lose ground on the social issues.

Everyone is affected by the economy. Every single person. I care if I'm called "Babe" at the office or my boss hits on me. But I care more about economics, when I can't pay for daycare or take a day off with pay when I'm sick. Or if my Social Security is being cut. Or Medicare is being cut and I don't have tons of money in my retirement account to pay for the illnesses that seniors get.

Economics affects everything. Yes, work on social issues. But focus on economic issues. That's also what people vote on. More Dems elected = more people to vote for the social issues.

All the energy spent on that Mello guy for being anti-abortion, for example. I didn't find anything to tell me he's anti-abortion as regards others. Only that he personally is. That law he sponsored was weird and iffy...but it required a dr only to tell the patient that she had the rt to get a sonogram. Stupid bill. But it didn't force her to get one, which IS an anti-abortion bill and rape by an object, as far as I'm concerned (since consent is not required). So much ado about nothing, to me. More to the point...why was Bernie campaigning for a mayor? That's a low level official. Maybe he owed him a favor.

[JHan]

65. Yeah everything is "done"

it's been so done, despite our laws, people still suffer from discrimination and laws are constantly being attacked, and attempts to roll back on those laws but for activism.

No one is arguing to not focus on economics - why were social justice arguments framed as either or? No one I know of or read has framed it as an either or situation, yet claims there are some who wish to separate the two or give precedence to one over the other are projected onto those of us involved in social advocacy - so wtf is going on?

Social issues and Economic issues are intertwined, it is baked in the history of the U.S.A- if no one was fighting for "social issues" which are also connected to economics, these issues would be ignored.

Moneyed interests which profit off people voting against their self interests have shaped atitudes about how resources are allocated - and until you bring awareness to those attitudes, nothing changes. Until you PROTECT the vulnerable from attempts to roll back their rights, nothing changes. These battles have yet to be completely won.

Black Lives Matter was the first group to make criminal justice reform a focal issue in an election campaign - this is connected to economics as well for reasons I should not need to explain.

This is the first time I'm seeing these distinctions being made in an election in my lifetime and it is incredibly bizarre.That it has to be constantly repeated after an election where Trump was elected using dog whistles speaks volumes about the obliviousness where these issues are concerned. We have brown people right now being deported in waves, voter suppression, and gerrymandering designed to marginalize the dem base ( often communities of color) and it's just "economics will fix everything"?

And the reason people have latched on to Mello is the disingenuousness of a progressive who castigated pragmatism just last year but is less stringent about purity tests when it comes to reproductive rights and gun rights. "maybe he owed him a favor" - yeah, of course.

[Honeycombe8]

76. We'll have to agree to disagree. nt

[Vesper]

67. The social issues are not separable from the economic issues.

That's what people keep missing, and they're not about "smaller groups of people". Not having healthcare because Republicans blocked your access to a necessary abortion can indeed kill you. Not getting equal pay because you're female (a "small group of people" who make up the majority of the population) can also kill you, especially if your lower paycheck is why you had to wait so long to afford the out of pocket costs for an abortion and all the other hoops that the GOP makes you jump through if you're poor, in a rural area etc.

Yeah, it's the economy stupid, and that involves things like gender, race etc. which is part of that stupid economy for "small groups of people" that together make up the majority of the population. Dismissing us insignificant and stupid really is a bad look for those pretending to be populists and seeking economic equality or progressive/liberal credentials.

I don't need you to "give my words back to me" they were true before they were condescendingly deprived of truth and facts before they were handed back to me.

As I stated, Social security and medicare are based on payroll taxes, so women and minorities are at a greater disadvantage when our issues are silenced by condescending people who don't seem to understand truth when it's handed to them in the first place.

Democrats can indeed walk and chew gum at the same time and we don't need de-truthed words handed down to us from those who aren't so much doing what Democrats have always done, fight for basic human rights, understanding that economic issues cannot be separated from gender and race issues.

I have given you back my own words putting the truth back in them, I'd suggest another attempt at understanding that truth.

I'm not sure why you think low income people, single parents, married parents or anyone else is dumb enough to think that reproductive freedom, which they have to deal with on an everyday basis is not about them, but only about "sally down the street and her abortions". Honestly, the tone deaf ridiculousness of silencing people and the sheer ignorant condescension is appalling. Do you not understand that low income people are planning their families, worried about their pregnancies, wanted and otherwise, and concerned that "Sally down the street" is their friend, daughter, sister or cousin?

They know that "Sally down the street" is in the same predicament that they are where their employers won't pay for birth control, will fire them if pregnant and that they can lose their health insurance with pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, so how do you think she's going to take a sick day, or a day off work without pay, when she's pregnant against her will and still has kids to feed and parents to take care off and can't afford daycare?

I don't even know what to say about that attack on poor people and the condescending thing you said about how they're selfish and don't care about transgender people literally being beaten to death and raped in bathrooms. It's almost like it's a foreign concept that these are our friends, family members, co workers and neighbors and that we don't think dismissing their basic human rights is something that poor people are wont to do.

it would appear to some that all issues do not matter, and that they project their own carelessness about the realities that many are facing, where their literal lives and health are in danger on a daily basis don't signify to some, who are only concerned about their own social security and medicare, not about how that's going to affect anyone else at all. I guess if one doesn't care if those poor people with unequal pay and who will be killed for going to the bathroom or unplanned pregnancies that kill them at higher rates than their wealthier white neighbors, or whose planned pregnancies go horribly wrong, won't live to be 65 when apparently they will matter, sorta.

It's time to figure out that economics includes parts that are uncomfortable for some older people to think about.

We do actually want to make the country better for its citizens, that's why we can't use those right wing talking points about "sally down the street" to dismiss the concerns of actual citizens of this country and not just a small group of people we think matter while dismissing all those groups that we condescend to.

Obama didn't ditch the social issues, he knew they were part and parcel of the economy, it's why he won "bigly". The economy is more than just social security and medicare and old people, stupid, as they should say if they want to give words back to people, in a way that's ACTUALLY true, and is being dismissed through a filter of Republican talking points. "Sally down the street" is a huge part of how we deal with the economy, Obama understood that bigly, it's why he wasn't stupid enough ignore the aspects that make up the economy.

[pnwmom]

68. We WERE focused on economic issues, along with equity issues. That's why 75% of blue collar workers

voted for Hillary.

The 25% were probably among DT's deplorables -- racists or sexists who don't like to see non-white-males make progress.

[killbotfactory]

29. The daily two minutes hate.

I never knew only white men were part of the working class, and that no women or minorities oppose choice or the rights of the lgbtq community.

[Cha]

36. Talk to BS.. it's his quote.

[killbotfactory]

72. I'm glad context isn't a thing anymore.

[Hekate]

48. Ridiculous. Go back and read Bernie's very own words. Forget the campaign: the man has been...

...remarkably consistent throughout his life. You could completely excise the primary campaign from his record and have decades of quotes before then to work with -- and going on a year of quotes from after the Convention till now, and he sounds the same.

So what we are doing at DU in the Here and Now is talking about that record, especially since November 8, 2016.

It's Bernie himself who consistently identifies the working class as being composed of white men whose mining and manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Bernie.

Meanwhile, most women and minorities are in the category of workers who mostly never got into those formerly well paid jobs in the first place. They predominate in the service sector, where wages have always been crap. Are they not "working class"? Bernie never mentions them, except to insist minimum wage must be a certain dollar amount across the country, regardless of the cost of living in different regions.

Incidentally, those jobs are largely about to disappear as well, due to a variety of factors, from Amazon to Automation. Will Bernie then talk about the collapse of the retail market and untold thousands of mostly-women who will then be out of work? Or will they still not be working class?

I'd like to know his answer.

Seriously, talking about the "two minute hate" just doesn't cut it. It's not about you.

[killbotfactory]

70. 15 minimum wage laws only target white men who lost manufacturing jobs?

Free tuition only targets white men?
Single payer, or Medicare for all, or the public option, AKA the ONLY way to guarantee healthcare for all, only targets white men?

Bull fucking shit

[pnwmom]

71. Then you should be pleased to know that 75% of blue collar workers supported Hillary and the Dems.

The remaining were most likely "deplorables," who responded to DT's campaign of hate.

[killbotfactory]

75. If only anybody knew the electoral college existed.

What a fun wildcard surprise for everyone involved in getting a presidential candidate elected.

[pnwmom]

77. The electoral college didn't overturn the popular vote a SINGLE time in the entire 20th century.

Then in 2000 Gore lost the EC, though he won by 500,000 votes. And then we had 2016 -- which Hillary carried by 2.9 million votes. Never in US history had someone won by such a large margin and not won the EC.

Yes, we should realize now that population patterns, gerrymandering and voter suppression made this possible. Thanks to the EC, our candidate could win by 10 million votes and still lose the EC.

What do you think we should do to solve that problem?

[GulfCoast66]

30. The man has lived in Vermont for the past 50 years and has been in office for 35 years...

Some outsider.

He was involved with civil rights activities, some at person risk when a young man. But being raised in Brooklyn and living in Vermont his entire adult life makes for a pretty cool life. And perhaps sheltered.

He has 25 year on me, but I was raised in the deep south to a family who has been down here for like 300 years.

You can not separate racial, gender or any other oppression issues from economic issues. My Grandparents and uncles were pretty comfortable in the 50's and 60's. Easy to do when you can afford a gardener, maid for your wife and other services really cheap because the people doing those jobs were forced to work at substandard wages and live in ghettos so you can be middle class and have servants. And if they object? Well they couldn't vote and there was always, let's say, informal justice. Minimizing that is fucking disgusting.

My family loved all those government programs and voted straight ticket for the Democratic Party. Until the Civil Rights Act, that is.

We cannot allow our party to be crucified on a cross of Economic Populism.

[Cha]

35. Pesky Human Rights.. FTS!

Maha-lo, ehrnst!Shine the Light

[tonyt53]

47. After reading the posts, it is very clear that many people have no idea what cost HRC the election.

Democrat will always back the protection of social issues. However, it is very clear that most on here would rather attempt to protect those social issues and ignore the economic issues. They do that because most are new to the Democratic Party and do not understand that the Party will always protect social issues, and that goes without saying. But to place those issues before the economic issues affecting middle class white Democrats aged 45-65, is the same as signing a death warrant to their votes.

The DNC platform address some about the economic issues, but not much more than raising the minimum wage. It addressed nothing that would protect the economic standing of that group I mentioned, nor would it help create new good-paying jobs or support their creation.

I'll take it a bit further than Sanders. Some in the Democratic Party are willing to sacrifice the Party if it means them getting their voices heard. That sure sounds a lot like the tea party people. It doesn't mater if they lose, as long as they get heard.

Is this really any kind of support of economic issues specific to white middle class voters, male and female?

[betsuni]

49. In nearly every swing state, voters preferred Hillary Clinton on the economy.

Clinton did talk about jobs. The media chose not to show it. They let Trump speak for himself and as an afterthought they told us about Clinton, usually something negative. An excellent explanation by Samantha Bee:

Democrats in the Wilderness:

[58Sunliner]

59. " most are new to the Democratic Party and do not understand that the Party will always protect

social issues" BS. Most of us are old timers. Maybe you lack the years. Maybe you just lack the truth.
"Is this really any kind of support of economic issues specific to white middle class voters, male and female?" The poor white people, of which I am. LGBTQ, I personally know a lot of Whites who feel just like I do. And they would call BS on you.
Isn't there another site for this reasoning and racist protectionist attitude? Oh there is. "That sure sounds a lot like the tea party people".

[emulatorloo]

62. The majority of people whose biggest concern was the economy voted for HRC.

The majority of people whose biggest concern was immigration or terrorism voted for Trump.

Those are the facts taken from the exit polling. Dem party needs to be re-tooled but we have to be grounded in facts to do so.

Also FWIW, I have never seen a poster on DU who wants to ignore economic inequality. IMHO most every DU'ers is on the left and share the same core set of beliefs.

[pnwmom]

74. Well, you're one of those who doesn't understand.

Nate Silver has explained that the single most important thing affecting her election were the two Comey letters. Those letters cut her edge over Trump in half in the 10 days before the election, while people were early-voting. After the first one, her edge dropped from 6 points to 3 -- and she ended with 2.1% more than DT, very close to her 3% lead in the final poll.

Another factor was the third party vote. If Jill Stein's voters had voted for the only progressive with a chance to win -- Hillary -- then Hillary would be President today.

And then there was the Russian hacking of election systems, and targeting of voters with fake news stories. That had an effect too.

She DIDN'T lose because of economic issues. She was FOR a $15 minimum wage, FOR jobs and jobs training, FOR free college for families with incomes up to $125K; for improved Obamacare and expanded Medicaid; and for unions.

And so 75% of blue collar workers voted for her. DT's campaign of hate probably appealed to the remainder.

[nikibatts]

78. Yeah, when you can't get a job because you are black, can't work outside the home because

you have small kids you didn't want to have, and when you might get shot on your way to work, and when you lose your job because you are gay--after all that we have a lot in common.

[Cha]

58. Why should BS "captain the Democratic Ship"..anyway?

I want someone I can look up to who doesn't try to divide.

[LexVegas]

60. Jesus.

[JustAnotherGen]

79. Those issues are REPUBLICAN issues

Their igrnorance, stupidity and selfishness demanded a response.