Survey: Fewer black women say that the Democratic Party 'best represents' their interests

[ehrnst]

This is the third survey by the Black Women's Roundtable and Essence, a popular lifestyle magazine geared toward black women, and affordable health care was again the top issue for respondents. The survey, taken in July, is based on feedback from 1,247 women. Because respondents were a self-selected group, as opposed to a random sample, the results are not representative of black women across the country.

But the findings do mirror the discussions among black women involved in social and political activism, who have been critical of the party's focus on white voters who supported Trump.

"Black women have been the most loyal supporters of the Democratic Party, through thick and thin," said Avis Jones-DeWeever, an adviser to the Black Women's Roundtable. She said the party has focused more on wooing back "white male voters who have not supported the Democratic Party for 50 years" rather than "watering the garden in your own back yard."

.......................................................................................................

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton got 94 percent of black women's votes in last year's election, the highest of any group of voters. In June, a group of black women penned an open letter to new Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez noting that he had met with other constituent groups but had yet to hold a session with black women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/09/21/survey-fewer-black-women-say-that-the-democratic-party-best-represents-their-interests/

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I could have told ya that!

Rec!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Yeah, no kidding!! It doesn't help, all this talk by Sen. Schumer and others...

about for every blue-collar Democrat we lose in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin, we pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs.

Not a good strategy, to say the least... all you do is alienate your base.

[ehrnst]

89. The white male left is driving that push to the right.

They are the ones complaining about "identity politics" taking away from their interests.

[brush]

2. Another bogus survey. Why even post such crap.

[ehrnst]

3. Why do you say it's "bogus?" (nt)

[brush]

4. It says right in the Op that the results are not representative of Black women across the country.

[ehrnst]

6. That statement is precisely what gives it credibility.

If it claimed to represent Black women all across the country, that would make it bogus.

And not linking to the full survey report with the methodology would make the story bogus. But here it is:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/power-of-the-sister-vote-report/2556/

Why do you feel that the opinions of a group of black women aren't a worthy subject of a survey?

[brush]

7. You think that statement makes it credible?

I'm AA and I disagree.

AA women are not about to leave the Democratic Party.

That survey is venturing into repug talking point territory.

[ehrnst]

8. Apparently you didn't bother to read the article at the link before refuting what's not even in it.

But African American women are not looking to the Republican Party, with only 1 percent saying it addresses their concerns. This year, a higher percentage said neither party "best represents the interests of black women."

[brush]

9. A higher percentage? What percentage is it? .00000000001%? Come on. It's not worthy of DU.

[ehrnst]

10. So you're not going to own that you didn't even read it before firing off a rant.

And now you're trying to change the topic.

I guess that's "worthy of DU?"

And you won't own up to the fact that your doubledown shows that you were wrong about the article (that you didn't read) said that AA women are "leaving the party."

Your claims on what the article and the survey say are the only "bogus" things in this thread.

Got it.

[brush]

13. I own I read what you posted. There's a paywall.

Do you really think AA women are going to leave the party?

With such a small sample size what's the point of such a survey, that AA women are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party and may leave for the repugs?

We know that's not going to happen.

Venturing too closely for repug talking point material for me.

[ehrnst]

14. Um....

What part of this exerpt was unclear to you?

But African American women are not looking to the Republican Party, with only 1 percent saying it addresses their concerns. This year, a higher percentage said neither party "best represents the interests of black women."

[brush]

15. This is the part you should highlight.

... a higher percentage said neither party "best represents the interests of black women."

Like I said before, with such a small sample size, what percentage higher is it of AA women—000000001%?

Is it even measurable?

Too easy to use as a repug talking point.

[ehrnst]

18. Um...

You said that the article said AA women were "leaving the party."

I highlighted the part that said the opposite.

So you try to change the topic again....

Like I said before... You want to be angry at this post, no matter what it does or does not say, because you clearly don't care what it says, and keep trying to shift away from when you are corrected on it.

Why?

[brush]

21. Can be divisive and used as a repug talking point (Black women unhappy with Dems).

And again, at that small sample size, is it even a measurable percentage?

Some polls/surveys can be made to say whatever the pollster/surveyor wants.

Some are not worth bothering with.

[ehrnst]

25. How would you even know if you didn't read it?

Which your erroneous claims about the survey and the article show, even after you are shown excerpts that say the opposite of what you are ranting about.

Why do you need to rant? Other than it's a doubledown out of embarassment of being shown you were wrong about what the article said.


Not that you would read it, but you can get behind the WAPO paywall by opening the link in an incognito window. But you continued to contradict even what the excerpts I posted said, so clearly the content of the article will likely not interest you.

[brush]

27. What's the higher percentage then? I ask again, is it even measurable?

And does it even concern you that it can be used by repugs?

[ehrnst]

29. You have no idea what you are talking about

in terms of what the article actually says. You have no idea of what this "percentage" you have even seized on as a red herring measures, because you won't even acknowledge that you got the basic conclusion of the article and survey, even the exerpt I shared wrong.

Yet you continue to post.

Is the embarassment of being shown you were wrong really that bad? Are the statements of these women so disturbing to you that you need to attack the messenger?

[brush]

30. Do you really think the premise of the survey is accurate?

And still, what is the higher percentage of AA women who are unhappy?

[ehrnst]

31. Do you even know that the premise of the survey is?

You haven't shown you do. Quite the opposite, even when corrected with the text from the article and a link to the survey itself.

Yet you keep arguing....

[brush]

32. If the higher percentage, as claimed, is not measurable, what's the point?

[ehrnst]

33. Your question makes no sense in relation to the article that you have not read.

It sounds like a desperate attempt to draw focus away from the fact that you have been shown not to understand, or want to understand what is in the article or survey.

But by all means, just keep arguing with that strawman..

[brush]

34. You keep avoiding answering that question.

Here's another. Do you really think AA women are going to leave the party?

[ehrnst]

36. Tell me who said that they were.

That anyone said that they were is a strawman, so your argument is with yourself.

Until your posts address the actual content of the article and exerpts that you have been shown, instead of repeatedly trying to misrepresent them as being what you mistook them for, your arguments and questions are irrelevant to this WAPO article and the survey.

You can post all day, but you can't change the fact that you don't know what the article you are ranting about actually says.

[brush]

39. Didn't your excerpt say that a higher percentage of AA women were not happy?

At such a small sample size is that a measurable percentage?

[ehrnst]

42. Nice try. Tell me where it said they were leaving the party.

And tell me where I said I thought they were.

You have no credibility when you keep on attacking straw men.

But that doesn't seem to stop you from posting, and doubling down on misrepresenting what was in the article you didn't read.

[ehrnst]

79. Still waiting for the answer to where I said "AA women are going to leave the party."

Well?

[brush]

83. I said "AA women are not about to leave the Democratic Party."

Not you. Get it straight.

[ehrnst]

84. Nice try, honey. You need to get it straight.

You know - your posts are right where everyone can see them, don't you?

#7

I'm AA and I disagree.

AA women are not about to leave the Democratic Party.

That survey is venturing into repug talking point territory.

#34

You keep avoiding answering that question.

Here's another. Do you really think AA women are going to leave the party?

So tell us - who were you "disagreeing with" and where did I say I thought that AA women are going to leave the party?

Or just say you got it that wrong, and you have some credibility.

[brush]

111. Is there a comprehension problem? I said AA women aren't leaving the party.

I never said you said that.

And as I said before, others see also that it's a meaningless survey.

[moriah]

46. There's also "open link in incognito mode"...

... to get around paywalls. It's sometimes called "Private browsing", etc. Not all paywalled articles are accessible this way, some are catching on to the trick. This one it works for.

Just your friendly technical advisor.

[ehrnst]

47. I gave him those instructions.

And I posted exerpts - like the one that said black women are not leaving the party.

Yet he continues to post demanding evidence that "black women are leaving the party," and that I am wrong to say that they are, because it's a "repug talking point."

So, I don't think he's going to be reading the actual article, because it doesn't say what he imagines that it does.

[brush]

50. You gave me those instructions?

[moriah]

56. Probably not in those exact words, but you guys were sparring.

I figured it was worth risking my neck to stick it out enough to at least say it in a non-confrontational manner.

Also, some haven't heard about the trick and I believe the "instructions" were phrased as though you would already know about them.

Carry on, I'm gonna pull back in and do my turtle impression again....

[brush]

61. Thank you again.

[ehrnst]

59. Yes. Another post you clearly didn't bother to read before replying to.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9620430

[brush]

48. Thank you. I'll try it.

[pnwmom]

66. Because no self-selected group can be viewed as representative of anyone

but themselves.

[NobodyHere]

67. "Why do you feel that the opinions of a group of black women aren't a worthy subject of a survey? "

Did you hurt your back building that strawman?

[elehhhhna]

62. Self-selected survey participants equals bad results that are not meaningful

take a class in statistics or look it up and get with the program . I am however in no way trying to pretend that the DNC and is reaching out to Black women. The DNC in my opinion only seems to reach out for money, and I blame them, among others, for the rightward shift in the party.

[brush]

64. I agree that the survey is not meaningful and that the small sample size makes the results...

unmeasurable.

[ehrnst]

68. You insisted it said that AA women were "leaving the Party."

Which makes your analysis less meaningful than someone who read the article.

[brush]

70. Give it a rest. You see I'm not the only one who thinks it's not meaningful.

[ehrnst]

71. I'm not the one on this thread buying Strawmen by the dozen, and didn't even read the article.

You can't own up to being so embarassed about your numerous kneejerk posts that showed you had no clue what was actually in the article.

And now you're telling other people to "give it a rest."

As though credibility is suddenly something you have any interest in.

[brush]

75. Embarrassed? By a meaningless survey, hardly.

Maybe someone should be embarrassed for posting it.

[ehrnst]

76. Gonna stonewall that you had no clue what was in that survey when you fired off rants about it.

I'm going to bet you still haven't read it.

So, you still haven't told us who here said that AA women were "leaving the party."

[brush]

77. Don't have to. Your excerpt was enough to show that the survey claimed an unmeasurable percentage.

[ehrnst]

82. Nope. You claimed it said that AA women were leaving the party.

Despite the exerpt that said they weren't.

Still trying to tap dance around the fact that you were loaded for bear before you had any idea what you were responding to.

So go ahead - show me I'm wrong - where did I or this article claim AA women were leaving the party?

Your reply #7 You think that statement makes it credible?

I'm AA and I disagree.

AA women are not about to leave the Democratic Party.

That survey is venturing into repug talking point territory.

Your response #34)

. You keep avoiding answering that question.

Here's another. Do you really think AA women are going to leave the party?

I think you're just agreeing with anyone who disagrees with the article... when you have no idea what is actually in the article, or maybe even what they are saying - other than "it's not really meaningful."

So, tell me. Where did I say I thought "AA women are going to leave the party?"

Answer that, and you have some credibility. Otherwise you are doing the discussion equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU...."

[ehrnst]

69. They are claiming that this shift is "leftward."

Because it has been determined that "identity politics" aren't making white men on the left happy, so this step backwards towards white men is "left."

It's not the donors, it's those on the left who think that the party is "leaving white men behind."

[ehrnst]

72. The article addresses that.

And listed some of the characteristics in the population surveyed:

A majority of the women who took the survey — 60 percent — also said they believe that civic activism is important. Most said they were active in their communities and places of worship.

Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said she was pleased that 98 percent of the survey takers said they were registered to vote.

And that it reflects the experience of the women there in their conversations with other AA women:

But the findings do mirror the discussions among black women involved in social and political activism, who have been critical of the party's focus on white voters who supported Trump.
...............................................
Melanie Campbell, convener of the Black Women's Roundtable and president of the National Coalition of Black Civic Participation, said the survey reflects the concerns she's been hearing in conversations with African American women in the past several months.

She thinks the drop in the percentage of black women saying the Democratic Party best represents them "relates to what we're hearing across the country, which is we're past being sick and tired and shifting the way we're operating."

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. While this isn't a scientific poll, the point it makes is one the party can't afford to ignore.

[kcr]

96. Non scientific poll means it's pointless. n/t

[WhiskeyGrinder]

98. Anecdotes are not data, but having heard the same sentiment from black women within and

sympathetic to the party, there are voices that should be heard.

[kcr]

100. Their voices should be heard, as should all voices.

And surveys from self-selected groups do not yield meaningful data. Both things are true.

[Lonestarblue]

11. What is the DNC doing?

Almost everything I get from them is a request for money. I just don’t see that Perez is being an effective leader. Not meeting with all constituent groups, including black women, is just stupid. Focusing on the white working class that will support Trump no matter what he does will not get us votes. We should be focusing on the independents and the Democrats who did not bother to vote. A lot has been said about the lack of communications and messaging, and a perfect example is the DNC website. If you have time, go to the RNC website: patriotic red, white, and blue; articles on how well Trump is doing; what’s happening around the country. Then go to the DNC website. Dark blues and greens, dull looking, nothing about how Democrats are fighting for healthcare or anything else. If you scroll down, you’ll see a link to the 2016 platform. If each of those planks had a current article about what Democrats are doing to support the goal, it would be far better than the bland stuff that’s there. Plus, I follow the DNC on Facebook, and they are barely a blip. Where is their social media team? The time to begin building a message and an image is now—not 2020.

[ehrnst]

17. I had no idea that this would turn into a critique of the the DNC website color pallette...

And yes, I think the DNC is going the wrong direction with appeasing white bros at the expense of the current base, however, they have a press release page that I keep up with.

https://www.democrats.org/more/press

And politics is often bland. And the role of the DNC in the party is primarily administrative.

It's the job of State Dem parties, so their websites are where most of the news and the calls to action are, because they only have to keep up with what Dems in their state are doing.

https://www.cadem.org/take-action

http://vademocrats.org/

[Sunlei]

12. for 2020 I would love to have woman run for Pres & VP and set the Pres/VP team very early primary.

enough of this bullshit politics, surveys set by men and DNC party led by men and media empires reporting news led by old white men republican (economic terrorists).

[ehrnst]

19. But then if you get someone who jumps in later.....

even someone that wasn't a Democrat until they jump in, the party is accused of "rigging the system."

[Sunlei]

24. doesn't matter. Ds need someone NOW helping push back against Rs currently elected.

Have a good team on media now, a team of Ds who say they're running in 2020 & starting now to push out Rs & work within the system to stop Rs today.

Its to late to just talk about 2020 and have people wait until actually elected to try to change back bills & policies Republicans are fucking up today.

[ehrnst]

35. Campaign finance laws and rules kick in the minute you announce

so doing it too soon can cause problems.

[Blue_Tires]

16. It doesn't help that the only voters who are worthy of media attention

are the fabled rural/Middle American white folks with "economic anxieties" and the Dems have talked about nothing in 2017 except how to win their votes next time and how we can't rely on "identity politics" (whatever the fuck that means)...

It also doesn't help that some of the more, shall we say, fanatical elements of the party/pundit class have been pissing on Obama and his legacy and criticizing him for things that Trump somehow gets a pass for.

So of course some of us are feeling left out...

[Eliot Rosewater]

102. .

..

[Demsrule86]

20. Again, I say this to all who attack the Democratic Party or feel it is not 'good enough',

there are two choices:Republicans and Democrats. If you think the Republicans represent your interests, than you are sadly mistaken and will pay a terrible price if you elect more of them.

[ehrnst]

22. Which is why the AA women are still with the party,

because they understand what is at stake.

[Demsrule86]

23. They have a brain unlike others I could but won't mention.

[Eliot Rosewater]

103. You mean even though of all groups the DNC does NOT represent as well as they should

black women, that even though white men get FAR more respect and deference, that black women will STILL stick with the party and vote for Democrats NO MATTER WHAT?

[rock]

28. I agree

The Democratic Party does NOT 'best represent' their interests. It does, however, 'better represent' their interests. I could say the same thing about my interests. You are not going to find perfection in Politics.

[IronLionZion]

37. It's time to elect one to shatter some glass ceilings

[ehrnst]

38. She's alreading being savaged by the brocialists with NEVERKAMALA

all over social media.

[IronLionZion]

40. Who cares what they think

The nail that stands tallest gets the hammer

[ehrnst]

41. Yeah, we saw how that worked with HRC on the far left. (nt)

[angrychair]

49. To be fair

Who are these people specifically? I would suggest that any comments on any social media sites are suspect.
Russian intelligence services and mafia continue to work to undermine our nation’s stability, there was a very recent series of efforts tied to them.

I watch twitter posts by trump family members and aligning interests and there has been a significant uptick in “support” posts for their posts and if you deep dive many of them you realize quickly that they are very suspect and many have a very disturbing posting history.

I would strongly advise to take anything you see on social media with a significant discerning eye.

(FYI, it is now a known fact that a not insignificant amount of the “BernieBro” posts and faux outrage of HRC on social media was actually Russian intelligence operations that was often, knowingly or not, working in concert with right wing media to create and/or exaggerate divisions in the Democratic Party)

[ehrnst]

57. If you follow the hashtag

neverkamala, you can see.

And while such campaigns may be started by bots, they are eagerly swallowed and spread by very willing real people.

http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick

And these articles aren't by bots: (note - I am not bashing Kamala - quite the opposite. I am showing evidence of her being smeared on the left)

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-01/kamala-harris-being-aggressively-manufactured-2020-wealthy-clinton-donors?page=1

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/we-dont-have-time-for-this-shit-4280ddf219c9

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/29/kamala-harris-inc-democrats-cant-afford-to-be-corporatists/


https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/6osk4o/well_i_guess_we_know_for_sure_kamala_harris_is/

[angrychair]

74. I dont dispute it exists

I just advise a questioning eye.

I would also humbly ask that we, as Democrats, discern the difference between what is reasonable criticism or questions and what is doxing or slander.

The “The Week” article linked above by Mr.Cooper has an unnecessarily inflammatory title and it steps out onto thin ice of opinion versus facts but it pulls back a little in making a very specific criticism of Ms. Harris and some of her decisions as the California AG. I admittedly know nothing of the criticism but that specifically seems to fall into legit grounds as a question. Also, to be fair to Mr. Cooper, he actually closes out his discussion of Ms. Harris as a presidential candidate on a positive note as the best of the current options.
Mr. Cooper is definitely more to the left than some and skimming through his past articles I agree with some and disagree with some and I am more to the left than many but I am far from a “berniebro”. I supported and campaigned for HRC and would do it again despite her and I not not completely seeing eye to eye on certain issues. I don’t expect or need the perfect candidate, just one that works toward Democratic Party ideals.
I didn’t read the other links, I typically avoid reddit and counterpunch and have never heard of the other two.

[Eliot Rosewater]

105. Yep, I ran across it at an alleged liberal youtube chat for a liberal (alleged) host.

They have influence and are working hard to tank D party AGAIN.

[angrychair]

55. My leading contender right now

I need to see more and I would love to see her to start to take some more leadership roles, officially and by choice, to see how she manages it.

I would love to see her stand out more in the healthcare debate and the upcoming “tax reform” debate.

I like what I see so far.

[lunasun]

43. Not surprised. I have heard grumblings since a large group of dems have

hyper focused attention on only one demographic and let it be known they are willing to cater to the whims of the most fickle while ignoring faithful voting blocks
And it's the double whammy of not just being ignored , but being blamed for losses
The identity politics is bad BS is also pushing people away and not just black women

[Hortensis]

44. Of course trust has lessened, disappointment huge that they came through with 94% (!!!)

vote for Hillary, but for naught due to conservative and far-left Democrats who voted Republican, or not at all.

But the header is dishonest. It implies that an alternative to the Democratic Party is being considered by large numbers but doesn't exactly name what that would be. Are large numbers of black conservatives going to register Republican perhaps?

There's certainly nothing new in feeling the party has not come through for them as they would wish, but no one always knew that better than these particular women. Seems like the larger danger after this severe setback is that the alternative for some will be not bothering to vote, or agitating against both from outside, like the fringe lefties who voted Green.

Collapse of hope for the power of a unified black bloc operating through the Democratic Party would be a great victory for the right.

[ehrnst]

45. The article clarifies that they are not leaving the party, but they feel that neither party

is really looking out for their interests anymore.

But African American women are not looking to the Republican Party, with only 1 percent saying it addresses their concerns. This year, a higher percentage said neither party "best represents the interests of black women."

[Hortensis]

53. Wouldn't have to read it to know that. :) The dishonest header is what I spoke to.

It is deliberately misleading.

Oh, well. They do know they're only 13% of all Americans, but they voted very hopefully in much larger percentage than white Democrats, and it's perfectly understandable if some are feeling angry at the party they supported and not just the Republicans and the increased percentage of fellow POC who refused to vote.

[ehrnst]

95. Here's an alternate header on the survey from The Root

https://www.theroot.com/more-black-women-are-realizing-that-the-democratic-part-1818650231

[Hortensis]

97. Lol. Sorry, even more dishonest. But funny.

[haveahart]

51. Just had this discussion with my daughter. It's mostly black women under 60 who feel that way.

Once agains the millennials come into play. They don't know or even understand history and follow the pied piper. They do not understand what their moms faces and how much they had to sacrifice to get them where they are now.

And to of all them, especially the Nina Turner admirers, I ask them what do they suggest. Sitting home again or voting for a third party that is doing nothing but helping the GOP?

We had hoped to teach our children how to think critically and strategically. We failed.

[all american girl]

52. Mmmmm, can we now quit with thinking that white dudes are going to

save us. Can we stop with demonizing "identity politics"...when we all told certain folks this, we were slammed...I'm done with this crap. I stand with black women!!!!!!!!

[Me.]

54. Sadly True

[nycbos]

58. Re: "white male voters who have not supported the Democratic Party for 50 years"

This white male says THANK YOU .

The obsession of winning back white male working class voters is a fantasy.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he is better than the best colored man he won't notice you picking his pockets."- LBJ


Well they haven't noticed for 50 years.

[elehhhhna]

63. The party is confusing their white male donors with the white male base

[ehrnst]

65. What do you mean? (nt)

[ehrnst]

73. Still waiting for a clarification on what you mean

are you saying that the donors are telling the Democratic party to do what makes AA women feel as though they are not being listened to?

Because the shrinking (now minority) white male base is having an outsized say on what the Democratic party is messaging right now.

[Bettie]

60. Focusing on white people who voted for Trump

is a losing game.

Some of them will vote against him next time, but a larger portion will continue to vote for him because they care more about his desire to harm others than they do their own bottom line.

[kimbutgar]

78. Bs on this poll and article

[ehrnst]

88. Nope. Not Bs at all. (nt)

[kimbutgar]

110. As a black women I took offense to the article

Even though it came around at the end.

[treestar]

80. The Electoral College map is the problem

have to get enough of those white voters in the swing states in order to have the power to further the black women's interests.

Also the Senate with the disproportionate power it also gives to rural white America.

The system is rather undemocratic in its set up. So I guess we do need to appeal to enough of those voters to get those states.

[ehrnst]

87. How does that impact how AA women feel about the Democratic party

representing them in messaging, and in the leadership meeting with AA women groups?

[treestar]

90. We have to win the states

in Presidential elections and Senate seats to have any power. I'm sure black women get that. The Democratic party should get as many votes as possible.

[ehrnst]

91. So you think that they don't understand what is going on

when they say that the party has focused more on wooing back "white male voters who have not supported the Democratic Party for 50 years" rather than "watering the garden in your own back yard."

And Perez could meet with AA women groups, but has not. Why would "needing to win elections" prevent this from happening?

[treestar]

92. Well if he has to meet with them to keep them

then he should.

We need other votes too. I mean the way the country is set up we have to get some rural white voters to get any power. Unfortunately, the system is undemocratic. I doubt all the rural voters haven't voted Democratic in 50 years since we have won the Presidency a few times in the last 50 years. So we do have to go after them too.

Unfortunately for us, we liberals of all races and genders are packed together into the cities. The founders made a system that favors rural voters.

[ehrnst]

94. No one said that the Democrats would lose AA women if Perez didn't meet with them

but that it sent a message that they were not a priority, and they are the most reliable voting bloc.

A bit of a strawman there...

Just that it's not a good idea for Perez to ignore the most consistent Democratic voting demographic. Why would he need to in order to reach out to "white voters?"

And no, not all AA women live in urban areas....

[treestar]

99. Most of us do

I don't know how much time Perez should spend with each type of voter. Expert opinions would vary on that. No Democrat can ignore the black vote, or other minorities, or white liberals.

Donald and the Rs win because of the disproportionate power the constitution gives rural voters. So whoever they were that voted blue in 2012 but red in 2016 or didn't vote, they need to be pulled back in.

I don't know why you believe I think all black women live in urban centers, but I bet a majority do.

[ehrnst]

101. "I don't know how much time Perez should spend with each type of voter"

I would say that the AA women are not just any "type of voter." The most reliable Dem voting "type" is AA women.

And I would say that "no meettings at all," is certainly not the "amount of time" that one would expect to give such a "type" of voter.

You keep saying that rural voters are important, so more effort needs to be made there - which is why maybe AA women should "understand" the priorities of the party that don't appear to include them. I pointed out that AA women live in rural areas as well.

And I think that you will find that rural areas with AAs are heavily gerrymandered to dilute the collective voice.

[Eliot Rosewater]

106. The one thing I bet a months salary on is you will NEVER hear black women say this:

"If you want my vote you have to earn it"

"Dont take me for granted, I just might vote for .... if you dont satisfy my needs"

_________________________________

We all know the comments from our history, dont we, these are more, I will eat my hat if I ever hear a WOC say this.

[SweetieD]

85. Everyone calling this thread bs is sticking their head in the sand about this isssue. I said

Before the election that many black people, especially younger people, were not enthusiastic about voting for Clinton and especially Trump. Of course people flipped out. But unlike a lot of yall, I am actually a black woman and I was just gathering the feeling from other black people I talked to but I didn't get into the anti Dem topic too deeply as it might violate some DU rule.

[ehrnst]

86. It seems to be much easier to dismiss the opinions of AA women as "not being meaningful"

unless proven so somehow.

And as the article mentioned these women were seeing this mirrored in other AA women that they knew.

[Eliot Rosewater]

107. And yet black women did the right thing, they showed up in DROVES and all voted for Hillary

almost all of them.

and when I say the "right thing" I by no means want to say I am deciding what is right and wrong for WOC, just that as opposed to a lot of whiny white middle class voters who sat on their ASSES or worse

[SweetieD]

113. People didn't show up in droves. Overall black voted turn out was down. Of the people who did

show up, yes we overwhelmingly voted Clinton.

[BainsBane]

93. Certainly there is a concerted effort

to ensure the party does not represent African American women, or anyone who isn't straight, white and male. Of course they don't see it that way. They assume that the concerns of anyone but themselves are "divisive," "wedge issues," and "identity politics," while there demands are "for everyone." But the fact is they've been told repeatedly that their concerns are not universal, and the fact they continue unaffected by any of those critiques suggest the exclusion is deliberate. It's the sort of argument the GOP made just a few years ago, but now it's championed under the pretext of "progressivism," despite its overt calls to revert--to regress--to the mid-20th century. If only we were the party of "FDR," a man born into the aristocracy, who worked as a Wall Street financier, and drew the majority of his campaign funding from Wall Street, then the Democratic party could be great again. Pointing out that the Democratic Party of the New Deal was also the party of the Klan and Jim Crow, and that FDR refused to take action against lynchings out of fear of offending White Southerners, has no impact on the evocation of that past as ideal. Given all that, it seems to me perfectly logical that black women would worry that they are being even further marginalized.

[Weekend Warrior]

104. Good read. Thanks for sharing.

Many people have been saying just this. We are paying attention to the direction of the party when it comes to campaigning.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

108. If demographic groups within the party

are asking "What are you doing for our group?" that is itself a big problem. Democrats used to ask: "What are you doing for workers" or "What are you doing to help people get into and stay in the middle class?"

[Gothmog]

109. I am not surprised

The party has been making concessions to groups who are hostile to the interests of this key segment of the Democratic Party

[WinkyDink]

112. Success and money can change people, as the songs go.