Current Events > Leaked Memo: DACA Amnesty Is Critical Component of DNC's Future Elections

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.scribd.com/document/368752696/Memo-On-Dreamers

The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Partys future electoral success. Donald Trump and the Republican Party continue to jeopardize the futures of millions of Dreamers and their families and throw up roadblocks to meaningful legislative reform, and it is up to Democrats to stand up for them.

...

If Democrats dont try to doeverything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats electoralchances in 2018 and beyond. In short, the next few weeks will tell us a lot about theDemocratic Party and its long-term electoral prospects.

Yikes
---

For Democrats, the risk is that Latinos fail to see them as a true ally, and as a result sit out crucial elections. A September poll by Latino Decisions found that 91 percent of Latinos want Congress to pass a Dream Act with a path to earned citizenship. But public support for Dreamers extends far beyond Latinos. For some context, a fall Washington Post-ABC poll found 86 percent of Americans support protecting Dreamers. Similarly, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that only 15 percent of Americans believe that Dreamers should be deportedthe ultimate result of Trumps decision and continued congressional inaction.

Dreamers may not be equally represented in every state, but Latinos are a critical part of the progressive coalition and progressive leaders have to step up and fight for them. If Democrats cant even stand up to Trump and Republicans in defense of Dreamers whose moral case is unassailablethey will leave a lot of progressives wondering who Democrats will fight for. At that point, Latinos may not be the only constituency within the Democratic base that becomes dispirited and disengaged. If Democrats dont try to do everything in their power to defend Dreamers, that will jeopardize Democrats electoral chances in 2018 and beyond.

This seems entirely reasonable, and surprisingly so coming from CAP
---

"Latinos are not going out to vote for us, fix this shit"

Sure, reasonable.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

"Latinos are not going out to vote for us, fix this shit"

Sure, reasonable.

Yes, very. The point of having an electoral system is to ensure politicians seek public approval (in the form of votes). "If we don't hold strong on x issue, y group of voters will disapprove" is how political logic works.
---

I don't think most democrats are racist, but I do find it strange how often they like to take entire minorities, label them as one group as if they all have the same political leanings, and then act like winning "the vote" is what will get them the white house.
---

Leaked Memo: Democrats actually mean what they say
---

s0nicfan posted...

I don't think most democrats are racist, but I do find it strange how often they like to take entire minorities, label them as one group as if they all have the same political leanings, and then act like winning "the vote" is what will get them the white house.

@s0nicfan Do you think this is exclusive to democrats? Or perhaps a long standing political norm?

Also, do you see any issue with making a group statement complaining about grouping people?
---

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I don't think most democrats are racist, but I do find it strange how often they like to take entire minorities, label them as one group as if they all have the same political leanings, and then act like winning "the vote" is what will get them the white house.

Do you think this is exclusive to democrats? Or perhaps a long standing political norm?

I don't think it's exclusive to democrats, but if they're going to claim republicans are racist, then I expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to this kind of stuff.
---

s0nicfan posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I don't think most democrats are racist, but I do find it strange how often they like to take entire minorities, label them as one group as if they all have the same political leanings, and then act like winning "the vote" is what will get them the white house.

Do you think this is exclusive to democrats? Or perhaps a long standing political norm?

I don't think it's exclusive to democrats, but if they're going to claim republicans are racist, then I expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to this kind of stuff.

How do you equate the two forms of racism? Targeting demographics politically seems different than racial discrimination, for example. Which is to say, that isn't why democrats call republicans racist.
---

Shouldn't it hurt republicans more? Really the democrats are doing what they can to keep DACA alive and shouldn't be blamed if they can't.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I don't think most democrats are racist, but I do find it strange how often they like to take entire minorities, label them as one group as if they all have the same political leanings, and then act like winning "the vote" is what will get them the white house.

Do you think this is exclusive to democrats? Or perhaps a long standing political norm?

I don't think it's exclusive to democrats, but if they're going to claim republicans are racist, then I expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to this kind of stuff.

How do you equate the two forms of racism? Targeting demographics politically seems different than racial discrimination, for example.

I equate them because the entire concept of "targeting demographics" based on skin color is the same thing as other kinds of racism. "We need to win the working class" isn't racist, but "the black vote" kind of is.
---

s0nicfan posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I don't think most democrats are racist, but I do find it strange how often they like to take entire minorities, label them as one group as if they all have the same political leanings, and then act like winning "the vote" is what will get them the white house.

Do you think this is exclusive to democrats? Or perhaps a long standing political norm?

I don't think it's exclusive to democrats, but if they're going to claim republicans are racist, then I expect them to hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to this kind of stuff.

How do you equate the two forms of racism? Targeting demographics politically seems different than racial discrimination, for example.

I equate them because the entire concept of "targeting demographics" based on skin color is the same thing as other kinds of racism. "We need to win the working class" isn't racist, but "the black vote" kind of is.

Two questions then.

One, how is that racism? I'm especially interested in your answer here given your heated defense of traditional definitions.

Two, how do you equate trying to appeal to certain demographics based on those demographics voting prefferences to, for example, not letting a person of color shop at your business? Or do you mean to be more specific with the term "other kinds of racism".
---

NadYobWoc posted...

One, how is that racism? I'm especially interested in your answer here given your heated defense of traditional definitions.

It's racism because it's stereotyping based on skin color. It assumes that you can appeal to "black people" as a single demographic when in reality you're talking people across all different demographics. A smaller point, but related: it also doesn't pass the sniff test, in that if someone said they were going after "the white vote" you'd probably assume they were racist.

Two, how do you equate trying to appeal to certain demographics based on thoss demographics voting prefferences to, for example, not letting a person of color shop at your business? Or do you mean to be more specific with the term "other kinds of racism".

By other kinds of racism, I was primary talking about stereotyping, profiling, etc. It's closer to things like "the gays like X" or "black people are criminals" because it judges an entire group based on a genetic component. Again, the issue is "black" isn't a demographic with regard to policy unless you're being racist. Policy, by definition, can't discriminate based on race. If your argument is that you're appealing to "black people" as a politician, there's no way to define what that actually means without being racist.
---

s0nicfan posted...

NadYobWoc posted...

One, how is that racism? I'm especially interested in your answer here given your heated defense of traditional definitions.

It's racism because it's stereotyping based on skin color. It assumes that you can appeal to "black people" as a single demographic when in reality you're talking people across all different demographics. A smaller point, but related: it also doesn't pass the sniff test, in that if someone said they were going after "the white vote" you'd probably assume they were racist.

Two, how do you equate trying to appeal to certain demographics based on thoss demographics voting prefferences to, for example, not letting a person of color shop at your business? Or do you mean to be more specific with the term "other kinds of racism".

By other kinds of racism, I was primary talking about stereotyping, profiling, etc. It's closer to things like "the gays like X" or "black people are criminals" because it judges an entire group based on a genetic component. Again, the issue is "black" isn't a demographic with regard to policy unless you're being racist. Policy, by definition, can't discriminate based on race. If your argument is that you're appealing to "black people" as a politician, there's no way to define what that actually means without being racist.

How does this fit the traditional definition of racism? That being the supremacy of one race oved another? I'll point out that I don't believe that definition should be or is strictly followed, I'm just hoping to help you see your conflicting views.

To the second point, it means appealing to causes black people tend to vote for. It isnt based on genetics, it's based on polling and voting history.

Policy, by definition, can't discriminate based on race

This is odd. I'm interested to hear why you think policy can't be made to discriminate against race.
---

NadYobWoc posted...

How does this fit the traditional definition of racism? That being the supremacy of one race oved another? I'll point out that I don't believe that definition should be or is strictly followed, I'm just hoping to help you see your conflicting views.

To the second point, it means appealing to causes black people tend to vote for. It isnt based on genetics, it's based on polling and voting history.

Definition 2 of racism from the dictionary: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Still fits the traditional definition. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but my issue in the other topic was less about meanings changing, but more the misguided attempt to eliminate words from conversation based on the thought that it would have ANY impact on racism.

Relating to the second point, what causes do "black people" tend to vote for? You'll see what I mean when you spell that out.

EDIT:
NadYobWoc posted...

This is odd. I'm interested to hear why you think policy can't be made to discriminate against race.

Correction: Policy SHOULDN'T discriminate against race. You're correct it can and has been in the past, but nobody is arguing that's good policy, and I'm SURE that's not what Democrats are claiming in terms of what their policy does.
---

People's voting habits aren't implied to be an inherent characteristic of their race, but the result of various social factors. It is not racist to suggest that black people tend to vote more liberal than whites.
---