I think this is a really thoughtful analysis! I think it's fair to say that there are some male voters, including Black male voters, who are always going to find a reason to not vote for Kamala Harris because she's a woman, and a Black woman in particular. That they would find Trump a reasonable alternative speaks (disturbing) volumes. But I think it's also fair to say that there are some voters who saw what Obama's presidency did and didn't do for their communities, and are now more skeptical of someone making similar claims of kinship. And to conflate those two, or assume that the latter will make the same voting decision as the former, is disingenuous.
Thanks for engaging on this! I missed the speech and the initial news around it (been trying to protect my peace a bit), but in the past week I've seen three Substacks I follow address this specifically and everyone is making really good points. Anyways, at the end of the day, if Kamala loses, it will have nothing to do with whether Black people showed up for her and everyone else needs to sit with that. It wasn't us in 2016 and won't be us in 2024.
been seeing this a lot with white guys conveniently ignoring the "$100 million net worth" threshold so they can say they can't abide voting for Kamala because of that tax. like, no, dawg, you are worth nowhere near that much. You just don't want to vote for a black woman.
lately there's been a lot of mentions about how Reagan's presidency was the last time the American economy was amazing (I hear this from the same white guys in my family and at my work) -- what I really think the thread is between Reagan and Trump is that they are the last two presidents to make white guys with a decent paycheck feel like they deserve to be the center of the universe. and frankly, as a white guy with a decent paycheck...I don't really want to be the center of the universe at all lmao. there's too many people in this fuckin country to have a center.
I wish I had a really thoughful answer for you, truth is I'm too young to remember the Bush years and the only reason I know so much about Reagan is because his presidency is where the far-right movement in the US started and Trump's is where it (for better or worse) is going to end, so I think about the two in unison a lot.
I reckon that the bookends of a movement always get more run in the history books than the middle points, so that's a big reason for not as much press for the Bushes...but also HW was a failed Republican in the eyes of many because No New Taxes didn't end up bearing out, and W's presidency wasn't defined by the sort of self-loathing rhetoric that Reagan and Trump lean on so heavily in terms of where the enemy is in America (blaming minorities for domestic problems as a way of scapegoating the white men running corporations and experiencing actual upward mobility, thinking there was no other option)...during W's presidency the enemy was so very obviously in the Middle East, and everyone kind of just got behind that together
sounds to me like your just falling for usual racist blather. and seemingly no better than him at it. and damn proud of that. but then thats what a lot of people on substack do. they use it to identify to pinpoint hatred at work.
Pretty much agree, but wonder what your thoughts are on this Obama analysis - https://olurinatti.substack.com/p/is-obama-helping-democrats-scapegoat
I think this is a really thoughtful analysis! I think it's fair to say that there are some male voters, including Black male voters, who are always going to find a reason to not vote for Kamala Harris because she's a woman, and a Black woman in particular. That they would find Trump a reasonable alternative speaks (disturbing) volumes. But I think it's also fair to say that there are some voters who saw what Obama's presidency did and didn't do for their communities, and are now more skeptical of someone making similar claims of kinship. And to conflate those two, or assume that the latter will make the same voting decision as the former, is disingenuous.
Thanks for engaging on this! I missed the speech and the initial news around it (been trying to protect my peace a bit), but in the past week I've seen three Substacks I follow address this specifically and everyone is making really good points. Anyways, at the end of the day, if Kamala loses, it will have nothing to do with whether Black people showed up for her and everyone else needs to sit with that. It wasn't us in 2016 and won't be us in 2024.
been seeing this a lot with white guys conveniently ignoring the "$100 million net worth" threshold so they can say they can't abide voting for Kamala because of that tax. like, no, dawg, you are worth nowhere near that much. You just don't want to vote for a black woman.
lately there's been a lot of mentions about how Reagan's presidency was the last time the American economy was amazing (I hear this from the same white guys in my family and at my work) -- what I really think the thread is between Reagan and Trump is that they are the last two presidents to make white guys with a decent paycheck feel like they deserve to be the center of the universe. and frankly, as a white guy with a decent paycheck...I don't really want to be the center of the universe at all lmao. there's too many people in this fuckin country to have a center.
That’s intriguing. Why do you feel like the two Bushes didn’t make white men with decent paychecks feel that way?
I wish I had a really thoughful answer for you, truth is I'm too young to remember the Bush years and the only reason I know so much about Reagan is because his presidency is where the far-right movement in the US started and Trump's is where it (for better or worse) is going to end, so I think about the two in unison a lot.
I reckon that the bookends of a movement always get more run in the history books than the middle points, so that's a big reason for not as much press for the Bushes...but also HW was a failed Republican in the eyes of many because No New Taxes didn't end up bearing out, and W's presidency wasn't defined by the sort of self-loathing rhetoric that Reagan and Trump lean on so heavily in terms of where the enemy is in America (blaming minorities for domestic problems as a way of scapegoating the white men running corporations and experiencing actual upward mobility, thinking there was no other option)...during W's presidency the enemy was so very obviously in the Middle East, and everyone kind of just got behind that together
sounds to me like your just falling for usual racist blather. and seemingly no better than him at it. and damn proud of that. but then thats what a lot of people on substack do. they use it to identify to pinpoint hatred at work.