2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI don't get this whole PoC discussion...
As if Clinton is offering some secret sauce that only PoC can understand.
Right now it appears as if she is surviving on name recognition alone. As the primary dates get closer.. that all changes.
Suddenly the actual MESSAGE will matter.
I don't see how Clinton's weak sauce, stay the course approach is a good message for PoC and how it is superior to raising the minimum wage, universal health care, free public colleges, etc.
She has a lead b/c she has NAME RECOGNITION. That's it. That will only last for so long.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)So I ask the same question again.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)fixing the justice system, education, health care and a fair playing field are the ones that are tone deaf. Claiming someone needs to support Clinton based on race, sex or anything else is not only idiotic but patronizing. I wish the ones doing it on DU would knock it off.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Not that they don't want them.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)but POC not at all. And they do not feel beholden to her at all. And neither do women. In fact, Hillary should have been beholden to all of us but she wasn't. She let us down and supporting her would be folly.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The black skepticism of Sanders, at least right now, is not an illusion though.
I haven't heard that argument at all
I have, lots and lots of times.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)do what he says he will. I understand that. We have all been let down by politicians and POC have suffered the most from it.
However, most people after hearing him (and yes, we play Bernie directly for them) and seeing his record find him quite genuine and honest. The fact that he has so many earnest supporters vouching for him helps too.
sheshe2
(97,532 posts)African American Group? I suggest you do. There are all different supporters there. All tolerated and excellent discussions. They are one of the most tolerant groups on DU.
Go quietly and listen, sssssssh, listen. Listen to their needs and please do not 'splain to them, listen.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)outspoken about police shootings and racial injustice. We were on the same side then. I am still on the side of racial justice. As far as I am concerned, those of you supporting Clinton and her private prisons left the cause. And that same group took over the AA group. So no, I don't think I need to go and quietly observe.
sheshe2
(97,532 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)And been told I can not have an opinion as I am not AA.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)legislation. Education and jobs will get young people of all races off the streets and give them hope. Learning and working together goes along way in undermining racism. Millennials are far less racist than previous generations.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)even wanting to engage in talk of racial profiling, disproportionate imprisonment that not only ruins the lives of people imprisoned for decades for minor drug offences into prison-for-profit systems that destroy families left behind? And, much of the time, that person's ability to re-integrate fully back into society with all the rights they should have. This is all deliberate, anyone who doesn't believe so is hiding their head in the sand, imo. What about the POVERTY that causes much of this in the first place in many areas, also, deliberate and calculated, again and imo. You also have to RECOGNIZE the programs that helped make this all so much worse and WHO was responsible for them.
We have institutionalized racism up here too. We know what we've done to First Nations Peoples and it's very hard for many to face. We're a nation of immigrants from all over the world, yet our own First Nations people are treated far worse. All we can do now is TRY to address the things that just MAY help reduce the poverty (and hopelessness) in inner-cities, on reserves and northern posts - access to health-care, employer-hiring benefits, restoring the mandatory long-form census that revealed actual stats on poverty and the need for social programs to address, fairness in law-enforcement, etc. etc. - by listening to committees of their representatives and gov't officials to implement those changes needed. All of this takes vision and concrete steps by those who know the causes, the effects and WANT to see change for all those affected.
How exactly do you begin to help those who ARE victimized by it if you purposely ignore someone with concrete ideas to help people in real terms, and encourage others to do the same? Yes, institutionalized racism is very real ....... No, it won't be affected in one single, tiny way by denying those must vulnerable to it a chance at decent health-care, higher wages, fairness in law-enforcement, eliminating the prison-for-profit system that targets them, and on and on and on. WHY do you not want POC to even consider Sander's proposals? It doesn't even make sense. Everyone should have all information from every possible source when it's their own and their children's lives at stake, literally.
This post may not even make sense, I'm tired, but I just don't get this seeming disgust of him here by those saying he'll never be able to help POC, and when there's so much opposition posted against him even having the chance to bring forth the proposals he does, and always has, believe will improve so many lives? It's just fucking weird.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)Makes lots of sense to me. 
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The last time our country made real progress with regard to racism was with the Boomers - who actually fought it. Since then, we've been using this "color blind" philosophy, which hasn't had any effect on it at all.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Much as I Posted elsewhere:
POC don't generally give the same level of "importance" to the various economic inequality issues taken up by Bernie Sanders that white liberals do--- BECAUSE they are more worried about getting home at night without getting SHOT by police, or about their children getting home safe at night without being arrested or SHOT by police-- and when you are feeling that kind of threat upon your very life, and the lives of those you love, by the very institutions of government, then it is very understandably hard for you to get too excited about some politician who says he wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, or make your health insurance 'better', or make sure billionaires pay their fair share of taxes-- you're more interested in knowing "what are you going to do to keep cops from killing me or my kids on the way home from the grocery store?"
That's one of the major concepts I took out of the long discussion here over the #BlackLivesMatter protests. I think that just about cuts-to-the-chase.
It doesn't matter if you're black or white: everyone's "number one issue" is STAYING ALIVE, and people of color have much more reason to be fearful, when it comes to staying alive. This is because of 'institutionalized racism', the institution in this case being The Police.
Every other issue is secondary to that one. Since white people don't have as much to worry about in that regard, they tend to forget about it-- and place their primary importance among any of the lessor issues you are bringing up here.
It is true that Bernie has sought to address that, but I'm not so sure it's been getting through to the country at large, as of yet.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)stress while campaigning on the streets. There is a huge difference between Bernie's and Hillary's platforms on justice reform and it needs to get out. Bernie was one of the first to speak out of about the Industrial Prison Complex. I do undertand that and have been fighting it for a long time.
So given that Bernie wants to see kids get home safely, get educated, get jobs and have a sustainable environment in which to live, there is no valid reason to vote against him. In fact, I view a vote against Bernie as a vote against our children of all races.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)condescending, patronizing or dictatorial about how people of color "should vote",
and avoid trying to tell them what their "best interests" are,
since they would know better than anyone else, and they resent it.
They DO want to know about our candidate, and not necessarily including references to our perceived shortcomings of any other candidate.
It is their vote, and their decision to make, for whatever reasons they want to base their decision on, just like everyone else.... and like most other people,
they resent being told "what they should do".
Any reason they believe they have to vote against Bernie,
IS a "valid reason", because it's their vote and their choice.
Like yourself, I hope that many of them will decide to support Bernie,
but whatever individuals decide must be respected.
(Not speaking primarily to you here, but to "the choir" out there...)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)But whatever color the preacher is, I will not give in to their pretense that POC or women or anyone else must vote for Hillary because of a false narrative that she has ever done anything for them when she hasn't. And I find telling anyone how they should vote due to their race, sex or anything else to be pretty damn condescending.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Hillary supporters are only marginally tolerable.
Neither candidate speaks to me.
There are black Bernie supporters.
There are black Hillary supporters.
I belong to neither camp. I was learning Bernie especially because I loathe the Clintons. But Sanders' fanatics are really disturbing, and they are turning me off to him.
Plus, I still don't think he gets it right on race vs. class.
He's got until April to convince me before I go to the voting booth.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I hope you base it on the candidates themselves and not on your perception of supporters.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)but he hasn't sold me yet. The race issue is still #1. Electability is #2. How he can get his agenda through Republican-dominated Congress and work with Democrats that he has bashed is a third concern--one that he has not addressed adequately in my view.
I know that's difficult for his supporters to understand or accept.
At the same time, I hate Hillary Clinton.
I may not vote for either candidate, leaving that office blank on my ballot and just supporting the down ticket.
Bottom line: Sanders has to earn my vote.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)issues of police violence and the justice system when he talks about African American issues. So what's he supposed to do? You say he only talks economics, Nutter says he only talks about law enforcement issues. It's sort of like whatever he says or does some will take issue with it because they are his political rivals isn't it?
John Poet
(2,510 posts)That was a complaint/perception by some POCs posting on this site, back during the discussions on the BLM protests.
A former mayor condemned Sanders for talking about issues of police violence?
I'd take that with a dose of salts. That's the kind of attack a Republican would make.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)needs to talk about. Can't please everyone apparently....
John Poet
(2,510 posts)He won't be able to sell that kind of talk to BLM, so it may help Bernie more than hurt him.
Glamrock
(12,003 posts)Thanks for the education! 4th paragraph sums up where I'm at. Appreciate you letting me know where you're at.
Peace
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Way way way more POC die due to lack of economic opportunity than are shot by racist cops. The biggest threats are economic.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)And so that might account for some of the support.
And Hillary is counting on that support. But I think it's presumptious of her to count those chickens just because because.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Clinton has told some whoppers about him wanting to "tear up the ACA and start over", but that's just false.
If that's really it.. protecting the legacy.. this seems like it is an easy hump to overcome.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Gothmog
(179,648 posts)In the real world, problems are solved with real world solutions and not by relying on a hoped for revolution to change things
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)futility. Taking money from the enemy is never a good idea.
Gothmog
(179,648 posts)I found these observations from Barney Frank to be very appropriate http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/three-reasons-why-things-will-get-harder-for-bernie-sanders-213591
Nor does President Barack Obama escape. While he does not explicitly attack the president, nowhere in Sanders’ campaign rhetoric is there any positive assessment of his record. His listeners do not hear that the Affordable Care Act was a great advance and must be protected as he and others try to go beyond it. They don’t hear that getting the top tax rate back up to where it was before Bush lowered it meant a real increase in tax fairness.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/three-reasons-why-things-will-get-harder-for-bernie-sanders-213591#ixzz3zcHVQSYQ
This hits at one of the main reasons why Sanders is not doing well with African American and other democratic voters There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democrats are not supporting Sanders.
Franks' article also explains why Sanders is not appealing to African Americans and other groups of democratic voters. I believe that President Obama's achievements are meaningful and should not be dismissed
oasis
(53,663 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)is a good thing.
Gothmog
(179,648 posts)Sanders wants to throw away President Obama legacy and go a different direction
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)He never said he wanted to throw it away. Making stuff up isn't productive.
Gothmog
(179,648 posts)If single payer can not work in Vermont, then there is no chance that it will be adopted in the entire country http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xciq2Nj5
Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.
“It is not the right time for Vermont” to pass a single-payer system, Shumlin acknowledged in a public statement ending his signature initiative. He concluded the 11.5 percent payroll assessments on businesses and sliding premiums up to 9.5 percent of individuals’ income “might hurt our economy.”
Vermont’s outcome is a “small speed bump,” said New York Assembly member Richard Gottfried, who’s been pushing single-payer bills for more than 20 years. But opponents says it’s the end of the road.
“If cobalt blue Vermont couldn’t find a way to make single-payer happen, then it’s very unlikely that any other state will,” said Jack Mozloom, spokesman for the National Federation of Independent Business.
“There will never be a good time for a massive tax increase on employers and consumers in Vermont, so they should abandon that silly idea now and get serious,” Mozloom added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711#ixzz3xdKH1mGn
Sanders is proposing a skeleton of a plan (not a real plan at all) that has no chance of passage. The refusal of Sanders to answer the question was an admission that even Sanders knows that this plan is not real.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)Bernie, like Obama, had a brain in his head and did not vote for the IWR.
Hillary is more of a hawk.
amborin
(16,631 posts)derailed his foreign policy objectives
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/key_members_of_hillary_clinton_team_lobbied_for_bills_she_now_touts_as_nati
plus, she pushed Obama to support syrian rebels, disastrous results
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)His legacy is Hope and Change / Yes We Can. Her pragmatism takes that back a step.
I think Bernie's - A Future We Can Believe In honors President Obama's legacy - Yes We Can.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
Who knows.
All I know is they are going to throw the general with this idiotic nonsense.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)but your post is insensitive.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That's all I know.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)
Right now she is a flipping train wreck.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)What is 'reasonable' to one is 'unreasonable' to another.
Just because you don't understand a specific dynamic doesn't mean that other people who do are being unreasonable, weird, stupid, or any other adjective people like to toss around. It just means you and they are not seeing things from the same angle.
basselope
(2,565 posts)My high school was 50% white 50% PoC (mostly black) and I maintain friendships with many of the people I went to high school with...
Every single one (without exception) is supporting Bernie. Now granted these are your NY PoC, so maybe they have different concerns and I have posed this question to them and they don't find it tone deaf and their answer has been... give it time, they'll come around.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)the youth vote in the black community can be had a lot easier than the elder vote.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Can you answer that?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)older PoC, and not just African American, feel safer with a known quantity, even if that known quantity has issues. And the economy of the 1990s was good for the community as well. They will not turn out and vote for the unknown until they feel that unknown has a change of upsetting the known quantity.
And yes, many of these same folks know about the history of mass incarceration... they are just not sure at the moment this new comer (like 2008 mind you) has a chance. Once they see he has a chance, the pattern will break. In fact it is starting to slowly develop shatter lines.
In some ways, many AAs of the moses generation identify with Bill Clinton who was treated as an outsider by the DC establishment, almost a country bumpkin, and he also spent a lot of years building relationships with the leadership.
But sings of trouble are ahead. Ben Jealous breaking for Sanders is just one of the many endorsements to come, and not precisely for the Clintons.
The kids... well they are far more cynical about politics in general, but that is an "issue" millennials have. Getting their vote will not be easy, but whoever wins it, will keep it. And yes, this generational break is stark.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Hardly the "youth vote".
So, again, other than name recognition, what is it that Hillary is offering that has earned their support.
tblue37
(68,431 posts)has a better chance of winning in the GE. I think if they come to believe otherwise, Bernie will win some over.
basselope
(2,565 posts)She is doing worse in all head to head polling AND her enthusiasm numbers are through the floor.
What makes her more electable when she has everything working against her?
tblue37
(68,431 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)And is cherry picked quotes from "some" African Americans representative of all PoC?
tblue37
(68,431 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)
Squinch
(59,486 posts)people of color just don't understand.
And therein squats the toad.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... campaign isn't going to reach PoC!!!??!
Really??!?!?
we're that marginalized even on DU?
sigh
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)On which issues is she better, if any?
Is it because of his ethnicity? There must be some reason. Please explain.
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #29)
jillan This message was self-deleted by its author.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... and not hit on the issue of why PoC (blacks AND Hispanics AND Native Americans) aren't feeling the bernt
Come one man, ...
Why are people interested NOW!!?!?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Hmmmm....
RobinA
(10,478 posts)but I'll answer your electability question for myself. And I'm not saying I agree that these are valid reasons for not voting for someone, but I think they are reasons in many people's heads.
Why Bernie isn't Electable According to a White Middle-Aged Female:
Claims to be a Socialist
Too Old
Doesn't look Presidential
Now, ideologically I am closer to Bernie. I could not care less if the next President is a women, a man, a black, a brown, or a white. Whoever I vote for in the primary, if I vote, will not matter because I am from PA. Had I had the chance I would have voted for O'Malley in April, but he's gone. IF by some freak of electoral weirdness the candidate is not decided by time my primary rolls around I will vote for who I think is electable at that time. Right now when I close my eyes and picture Bernie Sanders I see George McGovern and sometimes Walter Mondale, and not in a good way. In the General I will vote for the candidate.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I think it is fair to point out that this is what was asked of you, and your answer had nothing to do with Hillary at all. It's all about stuff you see when you close your eyes and not a bit about why you support your candidate.
What are the reasons to vote for Hillary? Is it all about loathing Bernie because of these visions you have?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)He won 1 state- his home state of MN.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)think lots of utterly ludicrous things. I note that you also failed to state why you want to vote for Hillary, just as RobinA failed to do so. You both use the 'I see visions' deflection. Seems you could put more effort into these evasions.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)This, coming from the same group of people who throw down phrases like "race card, race baiting, and race nagging," without even batting an eye.
NOW they're all interested in their concerns??? 
Just thinking back to July. Quite the turnaround...
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)isn't actually diverse. WTFF?!?!
Honestly some of this shit sounds like it is coming from Stormfront.
If people can't handle discussing demographics without getting angry, maybe you forgot your humanity somewhere along the line. The resentment is thick. I have seen some sick attempts at scoring points here lately. Losing a lot of respect for people here.
lunasun
(21,646 posts) Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)their God. No fucking thanks!
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)not every PoC has joined you, and some of those exact same PoC on this board have reacted quite badly when told that you do not speak for all PoC by other PoC.
So if there is marginalization, I think it is quite self inflicted.
By the way, I did enjoy greatly having my own personal minority status discussed by some off this site, becuase on this site, at least I can hope that would be shut down... and hope is just that, hope.
Right at the moment, I see a similar pattern started to develop as it happened in 2008, and it is starting in the same exact same corners at least in my local communities of color. Unlike you, I will not say a single one... I know better.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... about what was happening with Sanders from nearly half a year ago and now people are acting like they've not heard one thing we've said at all.
Looks like HRC has a 20 - 30 point spread in SC with PoC... I'm not talking about just blacks either
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that if members of that particular crew tell me that I live on Planet Earth in the solar system, I will discount those words.
I fear I am not alone.
Many of us now hear you guys as mere background noise, and you built that.
JudyM
(29,785 posts)There's more to it. I have been trying to understand it, a lot of us have. It's more subtle. Different perspective from different life experience.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Is it top secret or something?
Hekate
(100,133 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She is a right wing Democrat. Right wing has devastated the country and especially POC. I don't get it and I am getting no answers. Her supporters don't bother touting her positions on anything. I don't what any non right winger would see in her.
brush
(61,033 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Now perhaps you can explain it?
brush
(61,033 posts)Please stop. Are you that insensitive? You're losing Sanders votes each time you post.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I'm single handedly destroying the election by asking questions. Cool story bro!
brush
(61,033 posts)Get a clue.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)POC are not hypersensitive crybabies dude. It's that simple.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)RobinA
(10,478 posts)If someone's vote is that fragile it probably wouldn't have lasted 'til November anyway.
brush
(61,033 posts)were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome in not backing Sanders. That created considerable uproar on this very board and pushed some into the Clinton camp. It might not seem much to you but POC don't like being patronized and talked down to.
The poster I responded to, IMO, is just as insulting in using the phrase that Black people have to "stop this nonsense" and back Sanders.
That is horribly insensitive, tone deaf and insulting.
And Sanders supporters wonder why there is such a backlash against their over-the-top shenanigans.
Try posting that stuff on the AA group and see what kind of reaction you get.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)discuss if we should even call ourselves PoC... now talk about alienating.
I still vote on policy, not supporters, but those supporters I have absolute contempt for their racist discussion.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'Clinton supporters'. Many Sanders supporters railed against it in the thread, including me. What I notice is that those who are still bringing it up leave out the fact that it called out LGBT every single time and also fail to mention the great number of Bernie supporters who objected to it. It's patronizing, dismissive and dishonest. Easing the victims.
I consider that to be exploitative, and similar to the Stockholm thread itself.
brush
(61,033 posts)What I got from that OP was the message that those, alleged progressives (including blacks, LGBT and others), not embracing Sanders were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
We both agree it was insulting, right?
Do you also agree that the OP that used the phrase that Black people have to "stop this nonsense" and back Sanders is just as insulting, which was the point of my response?
BTW, what does "easing the victims" mean?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)A lot of people are very afraid of losing to a Republican in the fall.
Some believe the GOP is such a clown car, that any Dem will be able to trounce them.
Some believe that Hillary, as a well-known candidate with a lot of financial and political backing, is the safest choice.
Some believe this is a change election, Sanders has the right message for the times, and it would be the height of folly to support a status quo candidate like HRC, especially with the FBI investigation looming in the background.
However strongly anyone feels they "know" what the right answer is, that's their personal belief. We won't know the consequence of nominating candidate X until November, and we'll never know what would have happened if we'd gone with not-X.
I personally don't think HRC is a good choice, but it's true that Sanders' candidacy flies in the face of conventional political wisdom. Sanders needs to work hard to convince people that not only will he represent their interests, but that he's the Democratic Party's best choice for victory in November.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)First I have ever seen on this subject
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Gothmog
(179,648 posts)There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democratic voters are not supporting Sanders.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Obama has accomplished a lot, but his one sided deals with the Republicans damaged the country IMHO.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Name recognition has seen the top, it's all down hill from here.
Bernie comes across as honest and trustworthy, and his People message is being heard loud and clear. And he is anti-establishment without being radical like Trump.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)BERN TIME.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Then the flood gates opened and they ran to his side. Sanders isn't Obama obviously, but I think he'll keep earning their support bit by bit.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... over for HRC and she wouldn't admit to the end that her IWR vote was a mistake.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Clinton has declined, despite being in town at that time.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that this will be a repeat of 2008. I told a poster here in a PM a month or so ago, that this observer was seeing Bernie slowly rebuild the Obama coalition.
The internals for polls (and exit polls tonight) tell me the firewall is starting to crack, like it did in 2008. Nevada will tell us a lot by the way.
So same stale talking points.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)of us who are afraid it's 1972. Or 1980.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)running for both party nominations and doing well.
Yup
On the dem side this has more of a parallel to 2008, on the repub to 1964
It will be an interesting year. And dang it, I was hoping for a dull primary coronation on both sides.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)to PoC but not with a message that is being heard.
Clinton has a relationship with PoC and not someone who is the bane of the community which is someone who drops in, promises and bunch of free shit and then has no means of coming through with it.
The CNN group of SC voters was very telling, they went undecided just for that ...
The reasons why Sanders isn't reaching PoC has been well outlined here on DU... no need to rehash
John Poet
(2,510 posts)so he was evidently getting through to them there.
brush
(61,033 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)if my memory serves correctly. Broadly I guess that translates to somewhere between 10,000 to 14,000 roughly without hunting down a calculator...
Are they of no importance, because there are "not enough" of them? Or because they happen to vote in New Hampshire?
How many would be "enough"?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Sanders earned 48+% of non white vote in New Hampshire.
artislife
(9,497 posts)One. Check your tone, it is extremely deaf.
Two. If you read here, and want to know why, READ the answers they give.
Three. It was best said by one poster eloquently that they vote strategically. I am Latina and I look at whether the candidate wants to build a wall on the Southern border or just send children back to Central America. Those are big issues.
If you are aware, you will notice that there are a lot, hundreds, thousands of African Americans dying while being Black. They buy skittles and they die. They have a cell phone and they die. The forget to use a turn signal and they die.
This is an extremely hostile environment to live in. It is so dangerous to be Black in this society. They are looking at what will be the best (and I get the feeling they are not looking The BEST but less dangerous scenario) for them and their loved ones. They are not convinced Bernie can win. He beats Hilary and they fear they will get President Trump or Cruz or someone else who will not even pretend to care about the genocide that is going on here in this country.
Their number one issue, for the most part as I can tell, is SAFETY.
You don't get it. Aren't you lucky. But first step is to respect that what someone else is looking for in a candidate is different that yours. Second step is to try to understand why.
This is not hard for me to understand why they stay with Hillary. I had the same conversation in 2008 with a Black friend from Atlanta. She wasn't convinced about Obama because she didn't think he could win. She was pretty nervous for most of the campaign season. Of course, it was sweet when he won.
So don't ask why and don't ask why is such a condescending manner. The experience of living in this country is different for everyone.
brush
(61,033 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Anybody (and it has not predominately been people of color) that brings up that they don't think Bernie can win is easily won over when I point out that the majority of people in this country are not likely to vote for anyone in the clown car.
This has to be one of the easiest races ever to win against the GOP. It is our chance to change history and get a real progressive in. We cannot blow it by voting for Hillary which will certainly lead to a Republican win the next go around if they are ever able to get their act together.
artislife
(9,497 posts)And it is again said in a reply to a thread right here. This is not the first time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251&pid=1189387
Post 65.
Besides the umpteenth times it is posted not to talk down and try to explain.
I have certain buttons, put into my make up by my upbringing and how the world reacted to me. They may seem silly to those who don't have buttons that get pushed when certain scenarios come up. But it doesn't make it untrue or silly. It is what it is.
I am fully on board with Bernie. But I try to keep it on why I like him. My main issue is this planet's health. I don't believe in incremental change at this stage of the meltdown. There are those who want to get into fights that leave nothing of merit and I have jumped into plenty of them, sadly. But I won't jump into this one.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I just haven't seen that while talking to people on the streets. Maybe California is different.
And yes, climate change is the most important issue. I love that Bernie gets that.
artislife
(9,497 posts)were posing back in the summer. And how many were being fed OPs to post...
I am in the Seattle area and I swear, I have only seen ONE hillary sticker. We also have more donors by far to Bernie than Hillary
Lets win this thing!
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Hillary were to get the nomination, it would be a landslide for Trump or whoever the Repubs nominate. If they nominate Trump, his populist message would pull in all the so-called reagan democrats and many more; union members have painful memories of nafta and china's admission into the wto. trump's message resonates; but not as much as Bernie's. if Bernie is our nominee, they will vote for him. If hillary were the nominee, republicans would vote in massive numbers; i sometimes read some of their websites and articles to try to get insight; they absolutely despise hillary and would come out to vote in droves. there is just no way hillary could win the ge and, fortunately, more people are realizing that
artislife
(9,497 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)are you bothered by Hillary's connections to the private prison industry? That bothers me. As a prison reform activist, I have visited many prisons in this country, and I am well aware of the racial stratification in them. I am also well aware of conditions of imprisonment; I have read 12,000 + letters from prisoners. I am also well aware of the actions that President Bill Clinton took that resulted in higher imprisonment, and I am aware of the video clip showing Hillary Clinton referring to AA youngsters as predators who must be "brought to heel."
ecstatic
(35,074 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)You know how a bill is just not one thing.
No candidate is perfect. No one.
He is just the best one in my mind. YMMV
artislife
(9,497 posts)So I agree that I believe he would be a better candidate at stopping the mass incarceration.
What I would post is what he has said about this, how he backs it up.
There has been so much using of minority votes on this site and many others and it probably will always happen. But sometimes it really feels like we are a brick that is used to smash the other candidate's window. And that sometimes the candidates want us because of the votes and not because of what we bring.
That's all.
I was here during the whole Netroots and beyond. I posted in the Bernie groups trying to get some of the posters to calm down and not talk at the Black community and was scorched by quite a few members.
I have been on the internet since 2005 and I learned that it is better not to take other posters too seriously or to heart. And I believe in my candidate, Bernie. However, some of the shit that went on was pretty vile and some of it was innocently vile. People actually meant well but were so tone deaf.
This OP also really means well but is soo soo tone deaf. This kind of OP does nothing to further draw in any votes.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)and Hillary's taking money from private prisons is simply unacceptable.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)To show the fat cats in Washington and on Wall St. what they really think of them by voting for a Democratic socialist.
I have two black boys at home that will be teenagers soon. Maybe Bernie can win, but I'm not inclined to roll the dice.
basselope
(2,565 posts)What dice are those?
The ones where Bernie does better in the polls than Clinton?
The one where Clinton inspires apathy within the party and depresses turnout.
What is her path to victory against Trump, who is polling ahead of her in key swing states?
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)Dice?
Hekate
(100,133 posts)....of the problem.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)Perhaps the fault lies in yourself, and not in all these other people.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Others have actually answered the question asked.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Nevada and South Carolina cannot get here fast enough.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)"One. Check your tone, it is extremely deaf. "
I am sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me. What about the "tone" is deaf? I am asking a question.
"Two. If you read here, and want to know why, READ the answers they give. "
I have, which is why I am asking the question. I do not feel it has been answered even remotely satisfactorily or in a way that makes logical sense.
"Three. It was best said by one poster eloquently that they vote strategically. I am Latina and I look at whether the candidate wants to build a wall on the Southern border or just send children back to Central America. Those are big issues. "
I get this 100% and don't see much daylight between the candidates on this specific issue. If anything Bernie is the one calling more for a path to citizenship for those here so we don't breakup families.
You are then talking about the black lives matters movement, which Bernie has addressed multiple times and met with its leaders to discuss solutions. Between Clinton and Bernie, Bernie has the far better record on civil rights. While Clinton was campaigning for Barry Goldwater, Bernie was on the front lines of the civil rights battle, willing to go to jail for his beliefs.. but, yes, that was many years ago.
So... Clinton is basically promising an Obama third term. All these terrible things happening around the country are happening under Obama's administration AND if you want to trace the source, the growth of the police force happened (in bulk) under Bill Clinton's presidency when the country was stuck in this "tough on crime" scenario. Yes, institutionalized racism has existed forever, but the police gained their power under Clinton.
Every poll right now shows Bernie doing better in a general election against the GOP candidates.
So... I still don't get it.
How is Clinton the safe choice, the "strategic" vote?
What has she ACTUALLY DONE for the community to earn that vote.
That is the question I am asking and it isn't "tone deaf".
artislife
(9,497 posts)I give up.
basselope
(2,565 posts)When you ask a very simple question... and one that seemingly doesn't have a reasonable answer.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Minorities have been talked down to since the beginning. We are told that we should trust that someone will do right by us and we will be taken care of.
Well, I guess most of the Black population at this moment, doesn't trust the words of Bernie vs. the actions of Hillary.
I am a firm Bernie Supporter. Do I want more minorities to embrace Bernie? YES. Do I think questioning their motives for supporting someone who they know and think and hope will win because they are afraid of the xenophobia coming out of the right is productive? NO. NO. NO.
What I am trying to stop is this line of questioning that sounds like " Why are they so stupid?"
And
And I am not convinced that you are not a plant to stir this shit up again. We have had this same OP for months. This is incredibly stupid. If you are really perplexed, I invite you to go to the AA group and ask them. I am sure they will have some enlightening conversations for you, if they aren't already sick of it.
basselope
(2,565 posts)The post you linked to doesn't offer any better explanation than you offered. I am not sure what you think I am "planted" here to do.
I got news for you. No one is coming to DU to try and decide which candidate to vote for and no one is going to make their decision based on a post here. This is a place for people who have already made up their minds to have discussions about campaign related topics.
Now, back to the main topic.. nothing in my original post suggests "Why are they so stupid?" or that anyone has to explain anything to anyone.
In fact, if you actually read the OP you would realize my statement is that the whole discussion seems pointless to me because I believe it is currently all about name recognition and as Bernie focuses his campaign on South Carolina and other minority heavy areas he will earn the votes of PoC, because he has the superior message.
What I "don't get" is why people think PoC are some magic firewall for Clinton. Why other people think PoC are just going to blindly vote for her.
I GET why they currently support her and it is because they haven't gotten to know Bernie yet.
I am confident as they get to know him, MANY of them will change their vote.
I don't have to explain anything to them, nor anyone else. They are smart enough to figure it out.
So.. trying reading the OP again and read what I actually wrote, not what you think it said.
artislife
(9,497 posts)than you intended.
At this point in time, I am done with this OP and giving it a kick. Your title alone needs to drop to the bottom.
basselope
(2,565 posts)"Your title alone needs to drop to the bottom"
We aren't even allowed to talk about the issue on a forum where we are supposed to be talking about the issues.
What I asked, and no one really answer was why should Clinton feel this is a firewall.
I got several dozen people who understood the question and was as baffled as I am and then some people who called the post tone deaf, told me to stop whitesplaining Bernie to people and/or explained how I can't convince a PoC to vote for Bernie by getting mad at them for supporting Clinton.
So long as this concept that Clinton "owns" the minority vote continues to go unchallenged, as if minorities don't have minds of their own, the longer the media keeps repeating and the stronger it becomes.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)It's just like you're going around and around in a circle with the same old discussions. 
artislife
(9,497 posts)and they seem to be spawning. I cannot deny that I think some of these are shit stirrers....and it pisses me off.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Thanks for the laugh, I needed that. 
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)ecstatic
(35,074 posts)It's her track record. Bernie's understanding of African Americans is still very one dimensional.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She has some deep ties for sure.
I wish I could be cool with her being president but I will have a very hard time if I have to vote for her.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)His is ten miles longer than hers.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Many see her as offering a more realistic path toward progress, in reigning in the excesses of Wall Street and passing a more equitable tax code. And in defeating the republican candidate in November. There's tons of articles out there explaining those reasons. You can easily find them and read them.
Many in Congress have endorsed her. By doing so they're saying they're willing to put their job on the line for her policies and for her candidacy. They're saying they will work with her agenda if she is elected. You can read more to learn about why many are supporting her. You can read her web site if you're interested.
I'm not going to list a lot more reasons here because I don't think you have much interest in learning. If you did, you could make a list of reasons already yourself, without even thinking much about it. It's really easy to give five reasons to vote for Sanders and five reasons not to, as well as give five reasons to vote for Clinton and five reasons not to. Pretty much anyone who says they're interested in the left, or the democratic party, or social and economic and political change, should be able to do that. Unless they're just talking within a bubble of 'Yeeehaahs!' and 'Booos.' Or they really don't want to explore any of these questions.
I also don't have much interest in getting attacked with inane questions along the lines of 'Tell me, tell me the reasons! What are the reasons? Oh my god, Hillary sucks!' Followed by further closing, rather than opening, of one's mind to the possibility that someone might actually have considered some of your thoughts and actually looked a bit beyond them. And perhaps formed some of their own opinions that are independent from yet as legitimate as yours.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but if I were, I think I would be insulted if a candidate took my vote for granted just because of my ethnic background. We are all thinking individuals.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... not that Bernie can't connect with the AAs/ PoCs, but that it's their fault for not buying what he's selling.
How insulting do you think it is to suggest that AAs/PoCs are so ignorant and politically naive, their support of HRC is only a matter of "name recognition", and has nothing to do with a well-reasoned assessment of her abilities to be POTUS?
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)about the abilities of the candidates? I would guess it is a pretty small percentage. So there is no reason for anyone to be insulted by the suggestion that lack of familiarity with Sanders is a factor in Clinton's lead among AA/POC. Take that factor, add the many misrepresentations of Sanders' record on issues of race by HRC supporters, and the relentless sweeping generalizations about Sanders supporters behaving in a racist way, and you can account for a lot of Clinton's lead among POC. And that lead has been shrinking as voters become more familiar with Bernie and as the misrepresentations of his record are corrected.
I agree with you that some AAs/POCs, like some whites, simply aren't buying what he is selling. Others no doubt think he can't win in the GE. I am not worried about that sort of voter. I just want Bernie and Hillary to be evaluated on the basis of their actual records, what they are selling, and their electability. Then let the votes fall where they may.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)If you are concerned with what the candidates' supporters are saying, you might also want to consider what BS supporters have been saying about HRC.
But of course, that's different, isn't it?
Bernie supporters, from the outset, have held onto this notion that anyone who doesn't support BS is a low-info voter, is swayed by HRC's "name recognition", is unaware of the candidates' respective records, doesn't believe BS is electable in the GE, etc.
What they don't seem to want to accept is the simple fact that many of us - the majority of Dems at this point - DON'T want Bernie as our nominee.
The cry from day one has been "When people hear Bernie's message, they'll get behind him." Well, guess what? A lot of us HAVE heard his message - and that has confirmed that we DON'T want him as our nominee.
I really don't understand why you can't wrap your head around that fact. Listening to BS supporters is like listening to someone who loves a movie you hated. No matter how many times they tell you that you should love it - but look at the director, look at the cast, look at the cinematography - it doesn't change the fact that if you hated the movie, no amount of badgering is going to get you to love it.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)be more familiar with him. Of course, not everyone who becomes familiar with him will like him more than Clinton. You can pretend that Bernie supporters are somehow unaware of that fact if it makes you feel better. It doesn't matter. Clinton is probably going to win, but there is nothing wrong with Bernie supporters trying to reveal that Bernie's record and message are better than Clinton's in the hopes that the truth will help Bernie's chances. Nor is there anything wrong with Clinton supporters trying to show that Clinton is the more capable candidate. That's called political discourse and it is part of what democracy is all about.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)as being less informed and reacting based on "name recognition alone" is definitely a point in her favor. I can only imagine that if I were a person of color and saw the disrespect with which many Sanders treat them on social media, it would put me off.
And what exactly is this "actual message" that is supposed to matter to them? The message that if only they would become smarter, they would realize that they should do what white "progressives" tell them and quit worrying about trivial matters like racism? That they shouldn't have to worry about any actual policies to address racial discrimination because Bernie has them covered under prison reform (because after all, we know all black people are criminals 
)
They should rally around the people who told black activists they weren't good enough to question someone as superior as Sanders? Who in Seattle shouted that black protesters should be tased for refusing to stay in their place? People who took to social media to systematically attack, insult, and berate African Americans for having the audacity to criticize Sanders, for daring to question white "progressives" who treat them with disrespect? Maybe they aren't persuaded by the argument they should abandon concerns for their own rights, or perhaps they don't buy into the idea that the truly oppressed people in America are middle to upper-middle class white men who feel census data is a nefarious plot that assaults them? Perhaps they are turned off by people who disrespect and insult the first African American president and who insist Obama's only legacy is Bernie?
Or maybe, just maybe, they aren't terribly persuaded by bumper sticker political "messages" and actually care about what a politician is going to to improve the lives of them and their families? Perhaps, unlike the superior white voter who despises Hillary Clinton, they've actually bothered to examine her policy statements rather than believing fabricated internet memes designed to obfuscate and avoid any discussion of actual policy, presumably as a way to make up for the fact they have a candidate who doesn't actually bother to develop policy positions but instead repeats the same talking points every day, without ever flushing out details of how solutions will be achieved.
Maybe they are actually MORE informed than the people like yourself whom you consider so much smarter?
I don't know what it's like to be a person of color, but I do know what it is like to be a woman in this election and to be told I'm stupid, uninformed, and voting with my vagina because I dare to support a person who on every objective level is exponentially more qualified than her opponent. I recognize that the entire discourse that trivializes Clinton to mere body parts is part of an effort to maintain white male supremacy, the white part of it confirmed by the contempt for our current president and for voters of color who have the nerve to believe their own interests and lives actually matter, that they have the right to vote in those interests rather than the self entitled white bourgeois voter who treats the majority of Americans with contempt, who assume themselves more intelligent and informed, even as they prove the opposite at ever opportunity.
I suggest some of you check out the Sanders reddit page. I have noticed that there are some Sanders supporters there who call people out on these sort of posts and talk about how insulting they are. Sadly, we don't see that sort of forthrightness of DU, but it is good to know it does exist among his support base.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The anger is also a turn off.
But the way people assume we need them to inform us.... People post the same links and videos day after day and then when you ask about Bernie, they post it to you like you have not seen it a thousand times. Like somehow you missed it every time it was posted. And they need to teach you.
Call you ignorant. Uninformed. Close minded. Refuse to 'educate' yourself. Voting against your interests. Never met so many people who just thought I was stupid just because. Stupid. Slightly evil, a person to insult insult insult insult until you just say, omg, let me get away from them.
I cannot think of a time I have been called so many names.
Then, they try to bully and make fun of you for wanting nothing to do with that group. Because if I were as smart/enlightened/informed/honorable as they, I'd completely disregard any and all negativity just to be for a politician that I do not think can get anything done. Because he has big ideas!! And will fight for them. And lose. But somehow I should be satisfied with a four year battle for things that will not happen. I am not interested. At all.
BainsBane
(57,751 posts)Be informed by "a better educated woman" and then they link to the "Sane Progressive"! 
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)j/k
bravenak
(34,648 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)If we attend we'd have to sign up for hiking & swimming.
PragmaticLiberal
(932 posts)
betsuni
(29,059 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)JRug
(17 posts)understand. We just see things differently and I try not to insult them by telling them they don't get it or "whitesplaining."
Sometimes I'm embarrassed by things my white friends say to black people when trying to get them to support Bernie. POC aren't stupid and they know better than anybody what's in their best interests. I don't think we help things by telling them over again that they should be supporting Bernie.
We should LISTEN to THEM and find out what their concerns are and then explain why we think that Bernie is better on that issue. And if they don't agree, we definitely shouldn't tell them they're wrong and then repeat the same thing at them only louder. It makes us sound stupid and tone deaf. It's really embarrassing.
This really applies to everybody we're trying to convince, not just black people. But it's especially rude when we do it to people of color because it really does send a message that white people think we're smarter than they are. Like I said, it's really embarrassing and not what we should be doing.
And if we listen to them, maybe we can learn something to help us better communicate Bernie's message and even to help Bernie improve his policies so that more people of color will want to support him. There's always room for improvement since none of us is perfect or knows everything.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...how is telling a black person who I think they should support, different from telling a white/(insert racial identity here) person who I think they should support.
Both statements are the same: Hey, I think you should support Sanders. His domestic policy proposals are designed to help everyone out!
Vattel
(9,289 posts)In my experience, most AA's aren't delicate flowers that cannot handle it when a white person disagrees with them.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)Gothmog
(179,648 posts)There are good reasons why the demographics are not working for Sanders and why many voters including some African American voters are not supporting Sanders. Demographics are important in that this explains one of the big divides between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democratic voters are not supporting Sanders.
I understand why Sanders supporters dislike talking about demographics but the fact remain that Sanders supporters tend to not like President Obama and that dislike affects the amount of support that Sanders is getting from certain demographic groups.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)and you lost points with me. That's the truth. Barack Obama will go down in history as one of the best presidents ever. When Sanders and his supporters downplay Obama's successes and belittle him, that loses points with me and a lot of black people.
Gothmog
(179,648 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...and acquired her husband's First Black President reputation by association. She's said the right things, mostly (a d had some missteps ignored), and has retained the nostalgia vote by being an island of NotRepublicanism calm in the neoconservative storm of the last couple of decades. Perhaps most importantly, she has been publicly reviled by the same forces that most visibly retard progress in racial equality. That iconography is powerful, and won't be overturned by a few months of semi-exposure of Sanders' long record of civil rights activism.
Saying the right things matters, and Clinton has enjoyed decades of nearly free publicity on the subjects of equal opportunity and institutional racism. There's no way around it: Sanders has to do a lot in a few months for his message to begin to register in the national consciousness.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)....The Children's Defense Fund. She made a name for herself nationally litigating and defending children's rights, a concept that conservatives found an abomination. Rightwingers and the religious right believe children have no inherent rights of their own (among other things, parents should be allowed to beat their kids in the name of godly discipline) -- so from the beginning, the RW hated this uppity young lawyer who used her maiden name.
She had to put her own career on hold in service to her husband's political ambitions, but she never stopped working for what she believes in -- human rights, civil rights. That speech in Beijing was not quite authorized, especially the way she gave it. It had impact, though.
DUers get quite exercised about her being on the board of WalMart, but WalMart was not as it is today. The original Mrs Walton kept pointing out to the original Mr Walton that there were no women on the Board, and that is pretty much how Hillary got appointed. She was long gone when WalMart transmogrified into the corporation everybody loves to hate.
When Bill went to the White House, where presidents' wives are expected to be unpaid hostesses and social directors, he asked her to instead use her fine legal mind to help get a Universal Health Care bill through Congress for him -- to sell the plan, to persuade them to bring it to a vote. But the RW already hated the Clintons, including Hillary, and they refused to have anything to do with the health care plan, which would actually have been a fine beginning.
You go on believing she's a nothing if you want to, you go on believing she has no identity of her own and owes it all to Bill.
But there are a lot of us who by gods remember history exceedingly clearly.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)She's terrifically popular for the reasons I listed, and she has accomplishments beyond what you supplied. That translates to a huge advantage over Sanders.
earthside
(6,960 posts)I haven't followed this part of the Clinton campaign strategy very closely, but from what I've heard and read, it certainly sounds conceited on the part of the Clintons.
basselope
(2,565 posts)I still don't get it.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)where you don't know many people. As you walk in there's a guy talking. A bunch of people are listening, hanging on to every word he says. Laughing a little too hard at the guy's jokes. If you don't cheer 'Right on!' or 'You da man!' to everything the guy says, they treat you weird. Like you're an interloper.
You head toward the bar, where you see someone you've known for a long time. You know they aren't perfect. One time when you had them over for dinner they pissed off some of your friends. Another time when you went to the movies they farted and thought it was funny. But they've been to your home, you've shared some good times. You decide to hang out and talk with the imperfect friend.
I hope this helps.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)... churche, neighborhoods, community centers on small and large scales for nearly a generation of Americans?
That has nothing to do with it?
tia
Zorra
(27,670 posts)is existing and surviving in a long established white supremacist oligarchy, which is institutionalized in the system as well as the general cultural consciousness. How some individuals and general majorities of various minorities approach improving their unique situations may be radically different than others.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton eked out a narrow win in the caucuses in Iowa on Monday night but Indian voters on one reservation showed a lot more support to rival Bernie Sanders.
According to the results from the Democratic party, the Senator from Vermont won a whopping 83.3 percent of the vote at the Indian Settlement precinct in Tama County. Members of the Meskwaki Tribe caucused at their tribal center and only gave 16.7 percent of their votes to Clinton, a former Secretary of State and a former Senator from New York.
http://www.indianz.com/News/2016/020265.asp
The truth is that neither one of my parents could ever have dreamed that I would be here tonight standing before you as a candidate for President of the United States.
This is the promise of America, and this is the promise we must keep alive for future generations. What began last week in Iowa, what voters here in New Hampshire confirm tonight, is nothing short of the beginning of a political revolution.
It is a political revolution that will bring tens of millions of our people together. It will bring together working people who have given up on the political process. It will bring together young people who have never participated in the political process. It will bring together blacks, and whites, latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, straight and gay, male and female. People who were born in America, and people who immigrated here.
We will all come together to say loudly, and clearly that the government of our great nation belongs to all of us, not just a few wealthy campaign contributors. That is what this campaign is about, that is what the political revolution is about. So, New Hampshire, thank you again. And, now it's time.
~ From Bernie Sander's victory speech in New Hampshire/
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Let me know how that works out.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)It is called a "whisper campaign".
"I'm not saying Obama hates Gays, I'm just saying he's tone deaf." [font size=1 color=gray]"Also, Obama hates Gays."[/font]
"I'm not saying Bernie hates African-Americans, I'm just saying he's tone deaf." [font size=1 color=gray]"Also, Bernie hates Blacks."[/font]
Same candidate. Same shit.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)That seems to have had an effect.
basselope
(2,565 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)Giving a platform for BLM to speak isn't enough, he apparently needed to sucker punch some white baby in a crib or something else to "Make his white voters uncomfortable."
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)No, just have started a dialogue long time ago...
I don't, he has a lot of ground to make up in SC and the rest of the SEC states IMHO.
Clinton is pulling the Obama card hard and that's smart, she's does the opposite of what dems do in the off years and clinging to the beloved dem president.
Sanders on the other hand has done the complete opposite... he's doing what Grimes did and is having the same effect...
don't understand what he thought would happen
Squinch
(59,486 posts)I'm white and I have no trouble understanding this, and I have no trouble understanding what is wrong with both this comment and the OP.
It really isn't hard.
If Bernie and his supporters can't understand it, its because they don't much want to.
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)Is it like Voldomort? You can't name what it is or what it would entail exactly, but "Something."
Squinch
(59,486 posts)have explained what is wrong with the "name recognition" idiocy and the idea that people of color want some kind of special treatment other than an equal place at the table. Or recognition that they deserve safety as they walk down the street.
I have no desire to argue it again and to watch, again, as people run around with their hair on fire trying as hard as they can not to understand it.
Also, a tip: When you come at someone with nothing but snark, they pretty much know off the bat that you have no interest in any kind of discussion.
If you truly are curious, search DU for "name recognition and Sanders" or "name recognition and people of color." Maybe you'll get something out of it.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Do you follow the polls at all?
Bernie Sanders prior to yesterday, had virtually no name recognition outside of the areas he was already known.
Haven't seen new numbers yet, but I have (as recently as 1 week ago) talked to people in NY who considered themselves political who responded with "Bernie Who?"
There are very few of us (of any race) who follow politics as closely as we do.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/02/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-turn-attention-to-south-carolinas-black-voters/
As PoC become more familiar with his record and his message, Clinton's lead will collapse.
Squinch
(59,486 posts)Just stop! The name recognition argument is based on the offensive assumption that people of color are less informed than white people. And this point has been made a million times, and you are STILL pushing the "name recognition" idiocy.
It's OBNOXIOUS!
And yes, you found a black guy to say he likes Bernie. I get it. But on the whole, the support is not there, they are not less well informed than you are, and they don't like him.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Try reading what I wrote before you sound off.
Let me first correct your assumption. The person I was talking about who had never heard of him was WHITE... A White Jewish Doctor from NY and I asked him his opinion (before the Iowa caucuses) and he had NO CLUE who Bernie Sanders was.. so lack of name recognition is NOT a PoC issue, it is an issue in MANY MANY states where ad dollars have not been spent yet, where the candidates have not been spending a lot of time and where people just aren't that tuned into all of this yet. Not a black thing, not a white thing, not a latino thing... it's called a HUMAN thing and you can see it in poll after poll in state after state, as the candidates move into the state, the gap closes. She had 90% of the minorities in Iowa, but when the votes were done, it was only 2/3. She had a big lead with minorities in NH, but when the voting was done, it was 50/50.
Here in California I run into people all the time who STILL don't know who Bernie Sanders in and after I talk about him they say, "I'll have to check him out". It's not because their ignorant or less informed... it is because they have busy lives and don't pay much attention to the national political news. When the California primary comes around, they will pay attention.
I really don't pay too much attention to much of what people say on this board for the other thing you failed to read in my answer. We here are political animals.. we live and breathe this stuff and we are such a small % of the population that the fact people on this site have formed opinions and know the name of every candidate doesn't translate to ANY population.
What's really OBNOXIOUS is people not bothering to read the post and responding to what they want the post to be.
Again, this is a NAME RECOGNITION ISSUE. That is not passing judgment on any group of people.
Heck, his polling numbers in Mass aren't good right now and that state is 80 something % white. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ma/massachusetts_democratic_presidential_primary-3891.html
Why? because their primary isn't until March 1st, so I doubt they are paying much attention yet.
So please, take the stick out of your behind, b/c it isn't insulting to say this is about name recognition.
Squinch
(59,486 posts)because of name recognition. I responded to that poster and said that arguing name recognition in that sense implies that POC are not well informed.
YOU entered the middle of that conversation.
SO before you talk to me about reading what I am responding to, you might want to follow your own advice.
I reasonably assumed you read the conversation you had jumped into the middle of. Having jumped into the middle of it, I assumed you had read it. Because, as you say, it would be obnoxious of you not to.
Take the stick out of your own ass.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You jumped into this with this gem... "Why don't POC like Bernie and Bernie supporters? This comment is an example of why. As is the OP"
So, you dragged me into this from the very beginning... failing to read the OP in the first place... b/c I'm the OP.
Then you completely misinterpreted the concept of name recognition.
In states where votes have ACTUALLY BEEN CAST, Bernie hasn't done that poorly among PoC. Only 25% behind in Iowa and 2% behind in New Hampshire... BIG difference from the 60% we see in later states.
Why?
Because in the states where he visits, they get to know him. In the states where he hasn't been spending much time, they don't know him yet.
That's called name recognition.
Please, PLEASE for your own sake, learn to read the posts before responding.
senz
(11,945 posts)and the better they get to know him, the more they like him.
Know why? Because he's real and he sincerely cares about people.
Not about himself.
Not about money.
Not about the 1%.
The people. 
Squinch
(59,486 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)lunasun
(21,646 posts)
Hekate
(100,133 posts)...of analyzing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
PoC have unique circumstances that need to be addressed head-on, not shuffled into a heap labeled "Raise minimum wage," or "Free college for all." PoC here and elsewhere have addressed these issues, and I will not speak for them.
Women also have unique circumstances and needs, AND WE ARE OVER HALF OF VOTERS. Younger women may not recognize how important these circumstances are until they are embroiled in holding down a job, caring for children, running a household, and trying to stay connected with a partner ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
Men of any age at all do not get pregnant, period. Women are faced with the possibility every month from early teens to late forties. (Or possibly longer. A pelvic ultrasound revealed a ripened egg follicle when I was 53.) Or not, when they want to.
This issue alone is absolutely not addressed by a speech on the rigged economy, nor is it addressed by promises of health care for all, not when so many Congresscritters are so anti choice they don't even want contraception covered. Nor is it addressed by the notion that got floated that health care for all should be the provenance of the individual states -- some of which turned down federal money for ACA, and many of which are passing laws that effectively overturn Roe Vs Wade, and did I mention they are mightily against nearly all forms of contraception as well?
Clinton's "secret sauce," as you put it is no secret at all. She has been not just an ally but a lifelong activist on women's issues, and she has built enduring relationships (just as, incidentally, she has been a lifelong activist for African Americans and Latinos, and has built enduring relationships in those communities).
So as a woman of a certain age trying to draw an analogy with my personal concerns, let me say that when nonwhite voters speak about their concerns vis a vis Bernie, I think we Democrats ought to listen and learn, not dismiss them. It's their lives and their experiences.
basselope
(2,565 posts)I am talking about this mythology that they and/or older women just support Clinton as a firewall.
We saw it happen in IA and now again in NH. As people get to know Bernie and hear is message.. they realize the weak sauce, stay the course, message that Clinton is selling.
Once they realize that, they jump ship, which is why I find the whole obsession over PoC baffling. It will work itself out, because Clinton isn't up to the job and it becomes obvious every time she debates or speaks.
Jackilope
(819 posts)Somewhat new to posting and basically just glossing over Latest and Greatest posts from home page, I truly stepped in it regarding my perspective and befuddlement over why anyone couldn't love Bernie like I did. I didn't read or realize the whole infamous Stockholm Syndrome thread when stepping on in. Then, after suggestion I shut up and read in the AA forum for a bit -- which I did -- not entire and every post, but did and still do read... could see that my naïve posts were offensive and not helpful at all. It comes off as very condescending to try and sell our candidate as if POC aren't researching and doing their due diligence in voting.
I share your enthusiasm for Bernie. I'm going to knock on doors, make calls, keep donating regularly. Bernie will continue his work in listening and educating himself on needs of all population and I sincerely do believe that he is listening and wants to do right by all. It is counter productive to annoy or insult or lecture -- we all have different perspectives and filters. We all do have areas of common ground and the ability to learn and try to view from other perspectives.
Squinch
(59,486 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)I knew that whitesplainin' to black people would kick up as soon as SC came into focus.
basselope
(2,565 posts)
romanic
(2,841 posts)
LAS14
(15,506 posts)And n/t, nt?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)n/t means 'no text.' Some people write it in their subject line if they don't write anything else in the body of their message.
Welcome here. Have fun!
LAS14
(15,506 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I've been watching Team Hill try to drive a racist wedge through our party for months now, and I see most of them are still busy doing so.
I really hope this is the last time I see such things in our party. We're supposed to be the party of inclusion, of tolerance, compassion and fairness.