I think she is too divisive.

Seems we cancel each other out because I think she would make a splendid governor. Are you kidding me?? After decades of the repuke stranglehold we're going to worry if someone is "divisive"? smh

If you've never heard her in person you should. She's a tremendous public speaker.

... cause he was never well known among any rap scenes or anything else.

he was plucked, this is some messed it crap

Killer Mike "never well known among any rap scenes"??????

... among the many that have been there and known is like damn

And that's not the biggest thing.

If you're talking about commercial success and rap legitimacy in the same sentence, you're either not hearing it or you're not into it or both.

... WTF planet are people living on

.. he's still not hit sales like EPMD, Jay Z, Em, Drake et al

I don't know what point is trying to be made here, KM is and was no well known

That's not the definition of 'well known'. RTJ are very well known.

...seeing the raves for RTJ. Killer Mike has been critically acclaimed. I like his work. For people who get into hip-hop in depth, he's quite high profile.

... any of the other Rap artist who are as equally well known

We pointed out they had topped the hiphop/RnB chart, and suddenly you started talking about last year for no reason. You said, and I quote..

"KM is Random Black guy cause he was never well known among any rap scenes or anything else."

You didn't specify a timescale, or say 'as famous as Em and JayZ' or anything else. You just tried to claim he isn't well known in the scene, which is completely wrong.

Just let it go ffs.

Really...

Take a look at your posts.

I quit reading most of the music commemts with "Drake is legit and Killer Mike isn't."

I'm seeing a lot of red yellow and blue dots on that (w)rap.

I believe even amongst those who had never heard of him before, but believed him to be the arbiter of who was the most progressive candidate, and represented the opinions of voters of color.

Even more so than the Mothers of the Movement.

Killer Mike's endorsement of a candidate apparently proves that candidate has the support of "voters of color," so there, stop saying that the candidate doesn't have that vote, because that's proof they are the most progressive of all the candidates.

I guess.

... go to him as if he has any more credibility than the other rap artist is a typical cred by proxy move

He's pretty much hit and miss there. . . miss this time I think (Nina has been on the wrong side of some issues that are important to our community) but as a rapper it would be a mistake to minimize his influence particularly with young black males.

the young black male vote?

Not vouching for his political skill?

But, given that our national candidates -- without Obama's exceptional qualifications and campaign -- have performed poorly at getting young black males to the polls beginning in 1992 (example, 2016 when we lost 60,000 in voter turnout from 2012 in Wayne County Michigan alone, aka more lost votes than Stein got in the entire state), I would not expect much.

And his influence on young black men stops short of candidates, and indeed can be overestimated.

Apparently.

Are you talking about the candidate he endorsed in 2016 not doing so well there?

meme only applies to anyone who points out one Senator’s shortcomings. What hypocrisy, but not surprising.

Too bad we can’t answer that snark in the manner it deserves. But it’s along the lines of not damaging our General Election nominee.......

Has any relevance to the suggestion that we need to change our approach to black voters if we are to win elections in swing states with large numbers of electoral votes and significant numbers of black voters, as well as states which have large enough percentages of black voters to make them "swing states" even when, historically at least, they have been solid red states (example, Alabama).

At the national level, and in many state-wide races, the success of our party depends on the enthusiasm of black voters and particularly young black voters. We cannot lose 60,000 votes in a city like Detroit (more than were lost to Jill Stein in the entire state of Michigan) to campaigns that do not openly advocate for the UNIQUE interests of young blacks and win (a problem we have had in every election since we abandoned that demographic in 1992, EXCEPT for the two elections where Barack Obama made a concerted effort to speak to them).

Should you doubt this, I point you to Doug Jones' campaign in Alabama where he began with an all-too-familiar values-based appeal founded in Moore's status as a sexual predator, only to find himself falling behind until he made the near-brilliant decision to bring in not merely black Democrats, but those black Democrats who were most respected by the very demographic I described, to talk specifically to them about THEIR issues.

We don't need snark about black Democrats who can speak to those voters and we don't need for them to be judged by people who don't. It's about coalitions, not condemnation.

and the snark about the "ground game" in 2016 wasn't about them.

Black voters remain the base of the party.

The divisiveness of 2016 wasn't about black voters.

I am f'ing black and I have worked on black turnout in urban areas for decades, INCLUDING in Alabama during the Jones election

Black voters are indeed the base of this party.

Black voters are indeed not to blame.

The blame goes squarely on our party for not speaking PUBLICLY about our unique interests.

And what you call "snark" is reality. 60,000 less voters turned out in Wayne County in 2016 than did in 2012. What's more, we saw similar low turnout in Wayne County and similar p[laces in every election except the two when we had a candidate, Barack Obama, who made a PUBLIC appeal to those voters (not just putting line items in our platform).

Instead of trying to set up a straw man by completely misrepresenting what I said, explain why.

your straw man arguments are about who was peddling divisive tripe about both parties being the same. Both Nina and Killer Mike did that. Remember? Don’t blame black voters.

If you don't care that we got 60,000 less votes in Wayne County in 2016 than we did in 2012, say so. If you do, quit attacking black people for pointing that out and start helping.

of 2016 starting with your snark about the "ground game", which we all know who and what that was in reference to.

The "ground game" reference is not about black voters in 2016, and you're not being clever in trying to morph it into that. Black voters are not the reason we have Trump.

GOTV is always a good strategy, though.

Saying that both parties are the same and Democrats and the same as Republicans is not a good strategy. It is just ignorant and divisive. That is why we have Trump.

I'm done trying to convince folks who don't look like us and don't have the first idea why many mainstream candidates aren't inspiring us to start listening to us.

Ignore the numbers, ignore our voices, just don't say it's not your fault when you don't do what we did in Alabama and then end up losing.

“voices” to disparage Democrats, lower morale and all that which discourages voter turnout. Nader tried it also, with disastrous results. IF ONLY we could have had a progressive, intelligent President like Al Gore. It was just a straight up lie to say Democrats are like Republicans.

BTW, Democrats aren’t the one with an “agenda”. Although, yes, GOTV is always a goal.

Common ground appears.

You're right about these public dressing downs of the party that we've seen from, yes, Killer Mike, Stein, and others do hurt morale. I'm over them as well and it needs to stop.

Among ourselves though, we should be able to say that the platform on racial justice needs to turn into our ads and public comments.

Scary thought, but it turns out we are both Democrats.

Please enlighten us.

Just black.

I deal with a lot of young black men through work so I hear what they think but I'm a generation away from the music itself.

heavy rap head, and even I had never heard of him until the 2016 primaries.

K-Dot pub'd "Hood Politics" in 2015. I had clients talking about him long before that.

Who from the ATL had you heard? Big Boi? Anyone?

I'm not getting into the ATL/NY/LA stuff, but never heard of him, serious?

Killer Mike is popular because of 2016? Who do you think is buying his stuff?

Btw, K.Dot was calling him one of the most unappreciated artists in the business back in 2015, but heck, he don't know much

get these fantasies out of the system, learn a lesson and finally figure out what the majority of the voters really want.

Most of his fans, outside of the Bro's who don't really know who he is in the first place, are young and AA. I think what he is doing here is good as it will at least get people looking in the right direction. It's flat out ignorant to think Turner would be good for President. That doesn't mean others seeing him involved is a completely bad thing. I always thought there were solid arguments to support Sanders. No issue there. Turner?

Did "Killer Mike" support Clinton in any way? The only candidate with a full platform to deal with social and economic justice. Any support?

As good as a supporter of Trump in my mind. Specially when talking about such a young demographic who are notorious for not voting. Dude has responsibility if he is going to be involved. He'll learn. Maybe. Still glad he is showing involvement. Better than not.

and realistic, and not at all self defeating.

Yes, his endorsement would be like having Susan Sarandon's.

I doubt she'd be nominated, but nothing but good comes of her running for the governorship.

Thank you for the correction.

n/t.

Cause it's either she or BS

Last edited Sun Jan 14, 2018, 12:48 AM - Edit history (1)

said Killer Mike last year. Shades of Ralph Nader 2000.

onslaught of bullshit lies about Hillary.

Sadly, much of the negative attitude toward her came from progressives.

What a ridiculous thing for him or anyone to say! Look at where we are, one damn year since the beat president of my 59 years finished his term. I'd like KM, Sarandon and their ilk to even try to say this again.

that they probably will say something like that again in 2020, and our buddy Jill Stein will come and pop her head back up to the surface again as she does every presidential year.

Proves they are not serious people, just band wagoners who don’t care about anything but putting on a show for their own ego gratification.

n/t.

and lost. She will never win. I wish Nina Turner would go away...and buddy up with her new GOP besties. After all Democrats have to prove themselves and all...I will never get over what she did...encouraging people not to vote for Hillary.

Hell to the naw.

or only to lefties?

Be they on the right or left.

It is not a difficult concept.

She has burned her bridges with the party.

and water down the brand? How do you feel about them?

thus there will be different viewpoints. We can't hold a majority any other way. It is the reality of our situation...many want to a far left turn in a center left country at best which means...we go down in flames in the states we need to win in 18 which are mostly red states. We need moderate Democrats to run in those states. That is the way it is.

you saw how moderate Susan collins was during taxes. Moderate Democrats are not like the GOP. And moderate Dems voted with the Dems this entire congress...but the so called moderate GOP didn't that is the difference ...if we had oh 30 or so moderate Dems in congress we would have the majority in the house. And if we have three more moderate Senators, we would have the majority... no matter what...you have to have a majority. I also like Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill even though I lean left. Face facts, the wholesale abandonment of Obama in 2010 has lead to a sharp turn right. The important thing is to stop the bleeding and win back the house and hopefully the Senate.

I disagree that looking for "moderate" Dems is the solution. Let's look at a recent candidate who was a moderate Dem: Jon Ossoff in Georgia's 6th district. A moderate by any accounting. Disinclined to raise taxes on the wealthy, or to push for single payer. Pro-business. And in the age of trump, surely a pro-business / socially sane candidate should be a good fit for the upscale suburban Atlanta district, right? Joy Reid herself said that Democrats did everything except run a Republican for that seat.

What was the result? Ossoff under-performed Hillary.

What was it Harry Truman said? "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

I'd say a clear choice is the better option. Selecting and trying to elect moderates--like those who prevented the inclusion of a public option in the ACA--doesn't do the country or the party any favors. It just maintains the status quo. And if a majority of Americans are too strapped to handle a $1000 emergency of any kind, the status quo needs to change. Big time.

I think we need to change a losing game (and don't tell me how Hillary actually won--she did, but she wasn't the only person on the ballot and we lost a thousand other races in the last 8 years too). Doing the same stuff and expecting different results? Oh, yeah--insanity.

That's exactly what she did.

She was a Democratic state senator in Ohio, and when she was offered the role of Green vice presidential candidate, she turned them down because, quote: “"I believe that the Democratic Party is worth fighting for.”

Of more concern than an election we already lost is that, if she DID win the primary, in her last statewide election (as a Democrat, in 2014) she lost to the Republican 35 to 60. I don’t think she can win the next election, either.

But she was appointed in 2008. And I agree with you take on her ability to win a general. I think she has burned to many bridges with Democrats to win a primary.

Do show where or why anyone would say that the only way to fight for social justice is to make sure she's beaten by a white man.

Seriously, I cannot fathom the size of the chasm you pull this shit out of.

But if she runs, her campaign catches fire(as any campaign always could)and then an aggressive anti-Nina campaign starts, will those who take part in that such a campaign still retain any right at all to claim anybody else on this side of the spectrum doesn't care about "social justice"? Would anyone like that still hold any high ground on that set of issues?

I doubt Nina Turner will even run.

She seems to me to have a fairly disciplined notion of tactics and this idea was floated by somebody else, not her(if she was going to run, she'd talk up the idea HERSELF).

But the hostility and derision displayed towards the very idea of her running should make anyone claiming to be "antioppression" at least slightly uncomfortable.

If there were other candidates people simply thought were better, that'd be fine. But there's no cicrumstances in which it would ever be acceptable for people calling themselves progressives to focus their efforts on stopping her.

Mainly, I'm saying that whatever people do on this they need to be very careful on their framing of what choices they make.

And I'm assuming you missed the irony of lecturing a former Sanders supporter about how unacceptable it is to make false collective accusations of indifference to bigotry or OF personal bigotry based solely on who people supported in a primary.

The primaries are really over.

It's over.

Your posts don't reflect that.

TIA.

to back it up?

attacking the Democratic Party as well. I would not vote for her in a primary...if she ran as a Democrat, I would vote for her in a general...but it would be a wasted vote she can't win in Ohio...not well liked.

That is the determination? fuck that shit

Make it solely about a positive case for a different candidate...not about her being intrinsically unacceptable.

I doubt she'd actually run-remember, at this point in the cycle, it's customary to hear all sorts of talk about people maybe running for various offices...we were hearing a lot about that earlier this week regarding somebody else, as you may recall-if she'd was actually planning it, there'd have been rumors about some sort of campaign organization gearing up and probably emails being sent out asking what people thought of the idea.

my opinion. But you are stating that I must be shamed into voting otherwise my opinion is about color and gender.

If you want to vote for someone else, vote for someone else. But make it solely about the good you see in that candidate, not the need to thwart her. There can never be a progressive case for framing it as the need to keep her from being nominated. If you've got a better candidate, that person can win by running an entirely positive campaign based on their personal merits and the merits of that candidate's ideas.

(besides which, I doubt she'd run. This was one guy floating an idea. That happens all the time. What bothers me is that somebody started this thread solely to mock the idea of Nina running).

...that is perceived to be about color or gender? I get the feeling you are about to enter into a circular justification argument and I frankly don't have the time or inclination to go there.

Further, a vote against someone is just as valid as any other vote. A vote against Trump would have served the USA very well, but many chose not to participate. I'm not the type of voter that you are trying to describe. That purist thinking has driven the USA into a shithole

bad mouthed WHO and why.

ALL avoidable.

There it is again!