Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:07 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

How Bernie Sanders exposed Democrats racial rift

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948

192 replies, 10191 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

192 replies	Author	Time	Post
How Bernie Sanders exposed Democrats racial rift (Original post)	bravenak	Jun 2016	OP
I have said for months that his is a mostly white revolution. nt	LexVegas	Jun 2016	#1
It's not his revolution. It predates his candidacy...	Orsino	Jun 2016	#10
Isn't the nation mostly white?	KPN	Jun 2016	#30
But the Democratic base is not mostly white	Gothmog	Jun 2016	#86
The Democratic party is about 60% white	AgingAmerican	Jun 2016	#145
Is that why the Sanders campaign felt social justice was of secondary importance?	Squinch	Jun 2016	#176
A $15 minimum wage would disportionately help POC.	Ash_F	Jun 2016	#161
They could just as easily wrote: How Bernie Sanders exposed Democrats generational rift	Tom Rinaldo	Jun 2016	#2
This is false on its face, all the early polling showed millennial PoC with Hillary	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#4
Nationwide - not just California. Below 30 consistently favored Bernie. n/t	Tom Rinaldo	Jun 2016	#9
That was not split by race, I've not seen one poll were PoC millienials supported Sanders	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#12
Milienials include those over 30 also.	Tom Rinaldo	Jun 2016	#21
Understood, I still haven't seen any data showing the shift from Feb that PoC Mils were mostly	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#25
You should have kept reading.	TwilightZone	Jun 2016	#16
Actually, early on, Clinton well had millennials until pied piper walked past. Nt	seabeyond	Jun 2016	#39
Disgusting statement denigrating young people. Unrec.	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#151
Not all democrats are young	bravenak	Jun 2016	#5
Nor do all old Americans	Tom Rinaldo	Jun 2016	#11
From the article:	TwilightZone	Jun 2016	#6
It would be good to have newer data	Tom Rinaldo	Jun 2016	#13
You got a link to those? I've not seen one poll split by race after the "southern states"	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#19
I said exit polls	Tom Rinaldo	Jun 2016	#125
Then, I'm sure you can provide proof of your assertions.	TwilightZone	Jun 2016	#23
NBC News May 28 report Sanders won 18-29 black voters 52-47	icecreamfan	Jun 2016	#126
That's based on exit polls. And that is the only place on the entire Internet that I've seen where	Number23	Jun 2016	#159
+1, BOOM Goes the "millennial" support... it was mostly white millennial	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#17
I can buy that. Young folks are influenced by their parents views	KPN	Jun 2016	#31
There are good reasons why African Americans are not supporting Sanders	Gothmog	Jun 2016	#90
people power...	HumanityExperiment	Jun 2016	#3
People power...	Lord Magus	Jun 2016	#27
I'll raise you with....	HumanityExperiment	Jun 2016	#58
Your point?	Lord Magus	Jun 2016	#60
politics is hardball...	HumanityExperiment	Jun 2016	#65
Yes: this election showed that many Democrats are fine with bombing brown people in foreign nations,	cpwm17	Jun 2016	#7
+1, "made a breakthrough with black voters because he lost them ONLY by 35 %.."	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#8
To be very fair	forjusticethunders	Jun 2016	#73
people whose communities have different histories have different ways of viewing the	geek tragedy	Jun 2016	#14
Economic class divisions affect people of all colors.	Armstead	Jun 2016	#42
There are other issues besides economics. Issues many find more important.	CrowCityDem	Jun 2016	#54
You are correct, there are many issues.......It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time	Armstead	Jun 2016	#63
Bernie has always condemned police brutality against Blacks.	raging moderate	Jun 2016	#128
Post removed	Post removed	Jun 2016	#15
Yep. nt	sufrommich	Jun 2016	#22
+1, Wall Street is the boogyman of the privileged and he stoked the anger from economic insecurity	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#26
Right	workinclasszero	Jun 2016	#28
wut?	progressoid	Jun 2016	#49
The "Silent Majority" and "Reagan Democrats", the moderate Republicans of yesterday voted	PufPuf23	Jun 2016	#52
Wrong.	raging moderate	Jun 2016	#171
Wall Street rips off people of all colors	Armstead	Jun 2016	#41
"One of these days that will sink in to those who want to make everything about race. " sigh	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#84
I am not arguing against people having different priorities	Armstead	Jun 2016	#94
Then the dem candidate needs to address those issues relative to constituents, not just back	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#96
Sorry but this will do neither of us any good	Armstead	Jun 2016	#101
You're right, I live on the planet were not competing were a lot of PoC live isn't a good tactical	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#105
+ a gazillion. nt	Live and Learn	Jun 2016	#149
For people who aren't white straight males	dsc	Jun 2016	#177
There is no logic in this -- We can't as a society do more than one thing?	Armstead	Jun 2016	#178
if you're privileged then Wall Street is hardly a boogey man	azurnoir	Jun 2016	#78
Horse shit	Armstead	Jun 2016	#38
Yes. Nt	seabeyond	Jun 2016	#40
God no. What total and complete bullshit. The only thing that made it that way	JCanete	Jun 2016	#82
Weaver and Divine admitted not competing in the "southern states" & Sanders lost by over 4 mil votes	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#87
That has nothing to do with his platform or policies, which would all benefit minorities	JCanete	Jun 2016	#97
Most of the dem PoC where in the "southern states" so if they didn't compete for them how in	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#102
+10,000 nt	Live and Learn	Jun 2016	#150
This pretty much sums it up:	sufrommich	Jun 2016	#18
So very true, I called it a temper tantrum months ago... Weaver and Divine both said they didn't	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#24
It shouldn't be really surprising though if you think back to the animosity	justiceischeap	Jun 2016	#29
Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of Hillary Clinton in his support for gay rights.	cpwm17	Jun 2016	#34
Hold on one fucking minute... I am 59, White, Male and GAY...	Raster	Jun 2016	#35
Here since 2001 and that's how I remember it as well.	QC	Jun 2016	#44
That is total crap	Armstead	Jun 2016	#69
That seemed to have been specifically about Bernie or Busters	gollygee	Jun 2016	#92
+1000	redStateBlueHeart	Jun 2016	#75
very few Sanders supporters are toying with or will be voting for Trump	azurnoir	Jun 2016	#79
Very interesting read (well worth the time to read the entire thing!)	etherealtruth	Jun 2016	#20
Agreed, but I wonder how many actually read the whole thing before commenting.	Garrett78	Jun 2016	#130
I think that was missed in the reading ....	etherealtruth	Jun 2016	#131
Excellent article....	Cali_Democrat	Jun 2016	#32
I had always believed that a populist campaign would appeal to both Black and White voters.	bklyncowgirl	Jun 2016	#33
Economics do not always trump race.	CrowCityDem	Jun 2016	#56
Regardless of race	DemocratSinceBirth	Jun 2016	#64
Economics do not always trump race	GummyBearz	Jun 2016	#72
Republicans and conservatives?	Armstead	Jun 2016	#76
There are other issues that are important to people.	CrowCityDem	Jun 2016	#77
Yeap, ANOTHER post explaining what PoC "best interest" are... nothing new for Sanders camp	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#89
+1, this was talked about ad nausea last year and was ignored then and is ignored now	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#88
But economic issues touch everyone	bklyncowgirl	Jun 2016	#99
Where do you get that? All I'm saying is that there are other issues people find as important.	CrowCityDem	Jun 2016	#103
You have to give a broad range of people reason to vote for you.	bklyncowgirl	Jun 2016	#122
Clinton's message reached a broader, more diverse coalition of voters. That says it all.	CrowCityDem	Jun 2016	#124
The Corporate and Wall St. Barons are equal opportunity exploiters	Armstead	Jun 2016	#74
Is politico one of your now favorite sources?	rhett o rick	Jun 2016	#36
We often believe only that which validates our bias, and conveniently discount all else...	LanternWaste	Jun 2016	#43
I do not care what she had to say. Just because we are both black women, does not mean I must defer	bravenak	Jun 2016	#48
You seem to avoid discussing the substance of what she says.	rhett o rick	Jun 2016	#129
I do not care what she says	bravenak	Jun 2016	#132
And that really sums it up. You seem not to care what the Clinton have done to damage the	rhett o rick	Jun 2016	#133
Bernie voted for it too so....	bravenak	Jun 2016	#134
Voting for a bill doesn't mean you like every thing in it. But you know that.	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#152
But it does make one responsible for their own vote	bravenak	Jun 2016	#154
Arguably yes. But that isn't what you said.	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#168
His vote counted. He voted yes, regardless of his motivations for doing so	bravenak	Jun 2016	#169
Because the executive supported it, and she was part of that and supported it	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#172
More excuses	bravenak	Jun 2016	#179
Your response to my substantive, thoughtful post was exactly as I expected.	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#181
Your post was disingenuous.	bravenak	Jun 2016	#182
How so?	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#183
As I said before	bravenak	Jun 2016	#184
And I explained why the Clintons could have only chosen the good parts if they wanted	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#185
No	bravenak	Jun 2016	#186
You need a 2/3 majority to override a veto, not a 50%+1 majority.	JonLeibowitz	Jun 2016	#187
What has that got to do with anything?	bravenak	Jun 2016	#190
That was comprehensive.	Starry Messenger	Jun 2016	#37
I expect to see much more of this type of article	bravenak	Jun 2016	#53
Post removed	Post removed	Jun 2016	#45
This is far more complicated than is usually acknowledged.	Beowulf	Jun 2016	#46
The fact that his supporters were so against sjw and 'identity politics' is half the problem	bravenak	Jun 2016	#47
The sad thing is	forjusticethunders	Jun 2016	#62
That is pretty much what I was waiting for from him	bravenak	Jun 2016	#66
Going in I honestly expected he was going to do a lot of the same things Obama did	forjusticethunders	Jun 2016	#68
I agree with this wholeheartedly!!	Beowulf	Jun 2016	#83
Super Predators who must be brought to heel; 13 year olds charged as adults	appalachiablue	Jun 2016	#50
Bernie voted YES on that crime bill	bravenak	Jun 2016	#51
Don't wonder about me and history, know that I have two degrees in the field.	appalachiablue	Jun 2016	#55
If you have two degrees why did you not research the crime bill and Bernie's support	bravenak	Jun 2016	#57
Never said I didn't know this info. did I? You brought up what 'history	appalachiablue	Jun 2016	#67
Yeah whatever	bravenak	Jun 2016	#71
and another post about Bernie and his racist followers.	wendylaroux	Jun 2016	#59
I can tell you did not read it	bravenak	Jun 2016	#61
oh I read it but here's a fact more whites voted for Barack Obama in '08 than Bill Clinton in '92	azurnoir	Jun 2016	#81
K, so you didn't read it cause what white people did wasn't the center of the article ....	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#108
a question why when Sanders was very clear in wanting to improve economics/ quality of life for all	azurnoir	Jun 2016	#109
That goes without saying for any dem candidate, not addressing peoples priorities is the issue heree	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#111
oh so it was over homogenized or everybody wasn't good enough for some	azurnoir	Jun 2016	#113
No, it was overly homogenized and not addressing all of the dem bases priorities. It's that simple	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#114
so wanting a better system economically and legally for all isn't good enough?	azurnoir	Jun 2016	#116
Its a start, its not the end all though and that's where Sanders stopped and Clinton's didn't	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#121
what did Clinton do-all I seem to remember was photo-ops with the mothers of victims ?	azurnoir	Jun 2016	#135
Can you stop putting words in people's mouth?	forjusticethunders	Jun 2016	#70
No, another post about how Sanders appeal wasn't diverse enough cause JUST LIKE IN THIS THREAD	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#91
He also exposed a lot of anti Semitic "democrats" nt	Autumn	Jun 2016	#80
That's the fact, Jack. Also lots of Reagan loving LGBT dismissig 'Democrats'.	Bluenorthwest	Jun 2016	#95
Yes. Bernie running was the best thing that ever happened. He peeled back the	Autumn	Jun 2016	#100
Bingo. You win the thread. n/t	QC	Jun 2016	#115
+10000 eom	Arazi	Jun 2016	#139
There it is. (n/t)	SMC22307	Jun 2016	#191
The Sanders revolution is a mostly white movement	Gothmog	Jun 2016	#85
Excellent article, thanks	Raastan	Jun 2016	#93
YES !! Sanders message was centered towards the very people who mostly supported him	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#98
universal healthcare, free college, a living wage, non-corrupt politics....	killbotfactory	Jun 2016	#106
HRC had a similar message and PoC didn't believe she was Satans daughter so the character	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#107
Clinton was only a no-name longshot with only a message and a prayer.	killbotfactory	Jun 2016	#104
The racial rift looks a lot different if he wins Nevada	SheenaR	Jun 2016	#110
Weaver and Divine admitted not competing in the "southern states" & Sanders lost by over 4 mil votes	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#112
Glad you read my post	SheenaR	Jun 2016	#117
Yes, they did fail to compete from the start if they didn't put resources in those states and	uponit7771	Jun 2016	#119
They had resources in ZERO states post the first four	SheenaR	Jun 2016	#123
As a Bernie supporter I've been trying to come to grips with this issue.	aikoaiko	Jun 2016	#118
Yes, it's a lot of information to assess.	lovemydog	Jun 2016	#156
IMO, the concept of a new revolution is a much more comfortable idea	Fresh_Start	Jun 2016	#120
Climate change will render a lot of navel gazing moot. And soon	Arazi	Jun 2016	#140
My origins are Green Party	Fresh_Start	Jun 2016	#144
Shrug. I'll vote my conscience	Arazi	Jun 2016	#146
That is a bullshit article posted by a bullshit corporatist media source. Nuff said!	floriduck	Jun 2016	#127
What specifically do you take issue with?	Garrett78	Jun 2016	#137
OMG the author nailed it	BumRushDaShow	Jun 2016	#136
I had to read it multiple times to get all I needed from it	bravenak	Jun 2016	#138
That's what was remarkable about the article	BumRushDaShow	Jun 2016	#141
I felt like they read my posts and use it to write this	bravenak	Jun 2016	#142
+infinity	BumRushDaShow	Jun 2016	#143
Great article.	qdouble	Jun 2016	#147
I wonder if you have ever noticed that many of the DUers that did not	Live and Learn	Jun 2016	#148
I noticed the opposite	bravenak	Jun 2016	#167
Check back a bit further . nt	Live and Learn	Jun 2016	#173
Not only that...	coyote	Jun 2016	#153
That is an AMAZING read. And I hope it puts an end to the lie that Black youths supported him	Number23	Jun 2016	#155
"The expectation that a politician should agree with you	lovemydog	Jun 2016	#158
It's a great read. Some of it is problematic but overall, it is a very important read	Number23	Jun 2016	#160
Yes, it's well worth discussing.	lovemydog	Jun 2016	#162
"Southern" voters were the POINT of the Fairness Commission.	joshcryer	Jun 2016	#164
Very interesting article.	lovemydog	Jun 2016	#157
This proves that the Fairness Commission and Mikulski Commission worked.	joshcryer	Jun 2016	#163
Thank you for this in depth article, brave.	Cha	Jun 2016	#165
More bullshit. Here are some racial gaffes	noiretextatique	Jun 2016	#166
This answers questions I've been asking myself for months!	LAS14	Jun 2016	#170
Post removed	Post removed	Jun 2016	#174
You couldn't have read the article.	Garrett78	Jun 2016	#175
OMG!!11 The Nation of Islam has taken over DU!!11 Bow ties and bean pies for everybody!!1eleven	Number23	Jun 2016	#180
Yeah that was something	gollygee	Jun 2016	#189
I re-read the original article,	lovemydog	Jun 2016	#192
K&R	ismnotwasm	Jun 2016	#188

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:11 AM

LexVegas (5,133 posts)

1. I have said for months that his is a mostly white revolution. nt

Reply to this post

Response to LexVegas (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:26 AM

Orsino (37,416 posts)

10. It's not his revolution. It predates his candidacy...

...and affects people of all colors.

If Sanders articulated it imperfectly and failed to reach all demographics, that will not excuse a nominee or party who ignores it. We all need to engage Hillary Clinton for the change we need rather than rehashing the current primary.

Reply to this post

Response to LexVegas (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:01 AM

KPN (11,814 posts)

30. Isn't the nation mostly white?

Reply to this post

Response to KPN (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:52 AM

Gothmog (92,202 posts)

86. But the Democratic base is not mostly white

This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.

Reply to this post

Response to Gothmog (Reply #86)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:40 PM

AgingAmerican (12,958 posts)

145. The Democratic party is about 60% white

Reply to this post

Response to KPN (Reply #30)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:02 PM

Squinch (35,624 posts)

176. Is that why the Sanders campaign felt social justice was of secondary importance?

Reply to this post

Response to LexVegas (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:39 AM

Ash_F (5,861 posts)

161. A $15 minimum wage would disportionately help POC.

Clinton argued that $0.62 was too high for Haitians and knocked it down to $0.31

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:14 AM

Tom Rinaldo (21,756 posts)

2. They could just as easily wrote: How Bernie Sanders exposed Democrats generational rift

There is no racial divide among young Americans on this

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:16 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

4. This is false on its face, all the early polling showed millennial PoC with Hillary

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:25 AM

Tom Rinaldo (21,756 posts)

9. Nationwide - not just California. Below 30 consistently favored Bernie. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:28 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

12. That was not split by race, I've not seen one poll were PoC millienials supported Sanders

... to the degree whites did.

There are plenty of polls showing the opposite

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:31 AM

Tom Rinaldo (21,756 posts)

21. Milienials include those over 30 also.

And no not to the same degree as whites, but that is a different standard.

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:39 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

25. Understood, I still haven't seen any data showing the shift from Feb that PoC Mils were mostly

... for HRC by double digits.

Its nearly a clean racial split, Cornell West and BOTH Sanders lead managers OPENLY stating they didn't compete in the "southern states" was the height of tone deafness

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:29 AM

TwilightZone (20,476 posts)

16. You should have kept reading.

"For all the talk about Sanders’ unqualified young voter support, Clinton had a double-digit lead among the youngest black voters nationwide."

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:20 AM

seabeyond (110,159 posts)

39. Actually, early on, Clinton well had millennials until pied piper walked past. Nt

Reply to this post

Response to seabeyond (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:25 AM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

151. Disgusting statement denigrating young people. Unrec.

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:17 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

5. Not all democrats are young

And no. All young Americans do not agree on race

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:26 AM

Tom Rinaldo (21,756 posts)

11. Nor do all old Americans

The percentages shift with age demographics.

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:20 AM

TwilightZone (20,476 posts)

6. From the article:

"According to Reuters/Ipsos polling in February, the Vermont senator received his strongest support among black voters from those aged 18-29—but only a third of that group backed him. That’s right. For all the talk about Sanders’ unqualified young voter support, Clinton had a double-digit lead among the youngest black voters nationwide."

Reply to this post

Response to TwilightZone (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:29 AM

Tom Rinaldo (21,756 posts)

13. It would be good to have newer data

Many primary exit polls showed a different story in states after South Carolina

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:30 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

19. You got a link to those? I've not seen one poll split by race after the "southern states"

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #19)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:25 PM

Tom Rinaldo (21,756 posts)

125. I said exit polls

They get reported on air during primary night and sometimes are discussed the morning after a contest, but they are not typically as well preserved and documented as standard public opinion polling. I've had trouble in the past trying to find records of exit polling break downs later of the sort that get aired by the likes of Steve Konacki at MSNBC in real time.

That's why I said it would be good to have polling data more recent than February on this question. There was a short period late in the primary season when Sanders had caught up with or even edged ahead of Hillary (all within the margin of error though) in national polling averages of voter preferences. However in February Hillary was clearly polling stronger than Bernie by that metric. It is a moving target.

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:33 AM

TwilightZone (20,476 posts)

23. Then, I'm sure you can provide proof of your assertions.

Besides, the states before and including South Carolina would reasonably considered as part of "nationwide".

Unless we're back to discounting the Confederacy.

Reply to this post

Response to TwilightZone (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:27 PM

icecreamfan (115 posts)

126. NBC News May 28 report Sanders won 18-29 black voters 52-47

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/huge-split-between-older-and-younger-blacks-the-democratic-primary

You're welcome

Reply to this post

Response to icecreamfan (Reply #126)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:33 AM

Number23 (24,544 posts)

159. That's based on exit polls. And that is the only place on the entire Internet that I've seen where

Sanders has won any component of the black vote. I'd like to see those numbers corroborated and from something other than NBC exit polls. Maybe we won't have those numbers until after the primary is over.

Reply to this post

Response to TwilightZone (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:29 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

17. +1, BOOM Goes the "millennial" support... it was mostly white millennial

Reply to this post

Response to TwilightZone (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:03 AM

KPN (11,814 posts)

31. I can buy that. Young folks are influenced by their parents views

in most cases when it comes to politics/parties/candidates -- at least on an anecdotal level.. So it makes sense to me.

Reply to this post

Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:56 AM

Gothmog (92,202 posts)

90. There are good reasons why African Americans are not supporting Sanders

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

But lurking behind this argument about the future is a dispute that's really about the past. It’s a debate over what Obama accomplished in office -- in particular, how significant those accomplishments really are. And it's been simmering on the left for most of the last seven years.

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.

This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:14 AM

HumanityExperiment (1,442 posts)

3. people power...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/democratic-platform-fight/index.html

Reply to this post

Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:49 AM

Lord Magus (1,999 posts)

27. People power...

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D

Reply to this post

Response to Lord Magus (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:04 AM

HumanityExperiment (1,442 posts)

58. I'll raise you with....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2159856

this bit 'Because, as you know, Bernie already has 5 spots on the platform committee -- one less than Hillary. This is five more than any other 2nd placer has ever had.

you were sayin'?

Reply to this post

Response to HumanityExperiment (Reply #58)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:07 AM

Lord Magus (1,999 posts)

60. Your point?

Does that mean he should just keep pushing for more, and expect to be given complete control of the agenda?

Reply to this post

Response to Lord Magus (Reply #60)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:14 AM

HumanityExperiment (1,442 posts)

65. politics is hardball...

guess who's playing it smarter right now...

I get that HRC supporters aren't going to address this directly, I see all these posts here on DU beating around the bush on this

it's hilarious to watch, the closest I've seen an HRC supporter admit to it is this
'Because, as you know, Bernie already has 5 spots on the platform committee -- one less than Hillary. This is five more than any other 2nd placer has ever had.' http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2159856

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:21 AM

cpwm17 (3,829 posts)

7. Yes: this election showed that many Democrats are fine with bombing brown people in foreign nations,

and many other Democrats have a major problems which such activities, even when done by Democratic politicians. This election exposed a major problem with the most extreme form of racism in the Democratic party.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:23 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

8. +1, "made a breakthrough with black voters because he lost them ONLY by 35 %.."

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:22 AM

forjusticethunders (1,151 posts)

73. To be very fair

Unless we had repealed the 22nd Amendment and had Obama run against Hillary again, any challenger's ceiling with black voters against Hillary was something like 30-40%. Hillary rebuilt and strengthened so many relationships while nobody was paying attention. Everyone I think just thought she'd run the "White Working Class voters" campaign again, I know I did.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:29 AM

geek tragedy (68,868 posts)

14. people whose communities have different histories have different ways of viewing the

political process. One-size-fits-all 1960's style false consciousness socialist doctrine doesn't work from a political sense.

Bernie's supporters--if they're really in this for positive change instead of narcissism--will try to figure out why their message fell flat with blacks and Latinos, and what they need to do in order to include those communities in their movement. And that doesn't mean pandering on policy, that means actually including their perspectives and concerns from the get-go.

Reply to this post

Response to geek tragedy (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:24 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

42. Economic class divisions affect people of all colors.

Corporations abuse workers of all colors.

The elites do not give a shit about color. They love divisions by social categories among the middle, working and poor classes , because it presents them from uniting against the elites to push for their common interests.

One of these days that will sink in to those who want to make everything about race.

Thank you for your attention. I am not going to indulge with any circular arguments with you.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:58 AM

CrowCityDem (2,348 posts)

54. There are other issues besides economics. Issues many find more important.

Bernie either didn't, or couldn't, speak to those voters. When he tried to imply that sexism and racism would be taken care of through economics, he lost his chance at many of those voters.

Reply to this post

Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #54)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:11 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

63. You are correct, there are many issues.......It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time

Reply to this post

Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #54)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:53 PM

raging moderate (3,069 posts)

128. Bernie has always condemned police brutality against Blacks.

In fact, a day or so before he gave the podium at his event to the Black Lives Matter spokeswoman, he had already given a speech at an event in which he mentioned the names of Sandra Bland and others who had been murdered by police officers. Bernie has consistently spoken up for full equality for Black and Native American citizens. Hillary Clinton showed more political skill in forming alliances with key leaders in the Black communities in the management of a national campaign, and in managing how her messages get sent through the mass media. These are skills she has developed over the past 8 years, after her previous defeat. You can fault Bernie on his skills in running a national campaign and knowing which people to contact to achieve maximum cooperation. It is wrong to imply that he has not spoken about the nasty discrimination problems white people make for Black people when he has spoken about them, and for decades before he ever ran for President, on the floor of the House and the Senate.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:32 AM

sufrommich (22,871 posts)

22. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:40 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

26. +1, Wall Street is the boogyman of the privileged and he stoked the anger from economic insecurity

... which didn't work with those who are already economically insecure

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:54 AM

workinclasszero (28,270 posts)

28. Right

The brogressives of today were the "Silent Majority" and "Reagan Democrats" of yesterday IMO.

Reply to this post

Response to workinclasszero (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:48 AM

progressoid (45,935 posts)

49. wut?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-myth-of-the-reagan-democrat/475608/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-supporters/

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-10/reagan-democrats-are-a-myth-as-working-class-support-democrats-over-trump

Reply to this post

Response to workinclasszero (Reply #28)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:53 AM

PufPuf23 (7,224 posts)

52. The "Silent Majority" and "Reagan Democrats", the moderate Republicans of yesterday voted

Hillary Clinton in 2016 and POTUS Obama in 2008. POTUS Obama has even called himself a moderate Republican.

Many of the Boomer Sanders voters are the anti-war liberal Democrats of the 60s and 70s, the same folks that were fond of the policies espoused by Dennis Kucinich in 2008.

To me, the "Silent Majority" are the enemy and "Reagan Democrats" traitors.

I have been a registered and voting Democratic party member since voting for McGovern and first self identified as a Democrat age 15 in 1968 by supporting Eugene McCarthy.

Frankly, I don't think you even believe what you typed.

Reply to this post

Response to workinclasszero (Reply #28)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:38 AM

raging moderate (3,069 posts)

171. Wrong.

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 07:46 AM - Edit history (2)

Bernie Sanders has been speaking, working, and voting, for DECADES, to increase racial and economic justice, necessary infrastructure maintenance, progressive taxation, universal health coverage, educational opportunity, reasonable police work, proper aid for children and others in trouble, and adequate minimum wages. His enthusiastic supporters know this about him, and those of us who are old enough to have experienced the obtuse goody two-shoes "Silent Majority" and the vicious racist "Reagan Democrats" were REPULSED by these people. I was there, and I know. You can fault the Sanders operation for defects in political strategy, but our hearts are firmly on the side of anybody who is oppressed.

It seems to me that Wall Street is not horrible in its essence as a concentration of market activities. Indeed, in Communist countries, a similar managerial elite evolved behind the scenes. Markets operate around the world and seem to be part of our human heritage. The problems arise when these people are allowed to morph into a sort of religion which worships mysterious "Market Forces," when it is really fallible human beings manipulating these activities, human beings in need of regulation and restraint by our government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In our country, we continue to have a group of wealthy elite who secretly admire the old Confederacy (which actually had sympathizers in some northern areas) based on the old feudalist systems. They cling to the delusion fostered by the movie "Gone with the Wind,' that the Antebellum South was a land of "peace and plenty." These people seek continuously to reintroduce a society based on extremely differentiated social castes, with extreme privilege at the top and extreme suffering at the bottom, with the delusion that rich people are morally superior beings who deserve obedience and worship and are best managed by over-reinforcement, while poor people are morally inferior beings who deserve scorn and are best managed by over-punishment. That is what the "Silent Majority" and the "Reagan Democrats" believed, to one extent or another. And it is what the supporters of Bernie Sanders oppose.

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:21 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

41. Wall Street rips off people of all colors

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:51 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

84. "One of these days that will sink in to those who want to make everything about race. " sigh

... Armstead, the truth is those things ARE about race and NOT wanting to address them is dismissive at the least.

Dismissing what OTHER peoples TOP boogymen are is part of that dismissiveness, PoC don't put WS as a bad actor as high on the list relative to other issues.

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #84)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:58 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

94. I am not arguing against people having different priorities

There are people who think that economics is most important. There are people who think race is most important. there are people who think the environment are most important......There are other issues that people think are important to them personally.

But that does not mean that it has to be ONLY about this or that. They all are part of a whole.

Race, for example, will not matter one little bit if we are all dead because of environmental degradation.

That's why a big tent in which people can work together and seperatly on shared interests. A coalition also means that not everyone agrees with each otehr on everything. But if they can at least agree to disagree because of the values they share.

It is not a zero sum game.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #94)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:02 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

96. Then the dem candidate needs to address those issues relative to constituents, not just back

... page them as peripheral or "about race".

Sanders pretty much said the same thing you did in 14 and intimated they weren't that important and ran a primary race speaking on those issues like they weren't "that" important and they were.

Bottom line, stoking anger about economic insecurity to the already economically insecure was the wrong message for the DEM BASE

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #96)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:04 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

101. Sorry but this will do neither of us any good

We apparently live on different planets.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #101)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:08 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

105. You're right, I live on the planet were not competing were a lot of PoC live isn't a good tactical

... strategy at all and that's what Weaver and Divine admitted to on 2 different calls.

I also live on the planet were addressing a constituencies priority concerns directly touches them more than homogeneous messages

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #41)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:23 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

149. + a gazillion. nt

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #41)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:23 PM

dsc (49,531 posts)

177. For people who aren't white straight males

often the places they differ from that are more important than anything else because society makes that happen. The fact is Sandra Bland had a job. She was economically doing OK (or at least soon to be doing OK). Treyvon Martin's family literally lived in a gated community. Both of them are dead despite that entirely because they are black. Matthew Sheppard was by any standard a wealthy young man, still dead because he is gay. Until people who aren't white straight males don't have a reasonable fear of being killed due to who they are, their race or orientation or gender are going to be what they think of. How couldn't it be?

Reply to this post

Response to dsc (Reply #177)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 04:15 PM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

178. There is no logic in this -- We can't as a society do more than one thing?

This demographic division that has developed among issues is ridiculous.

Yes racism is a horrible problem. Yes AA's and other POC should be able to walk down the street, be accepted fully in all strata of society, etc. Yes we all need to focus on doing what we can to change it.

But attempting to rectify that that is NOT an opposing goal to raising ALL boats economically and in terms of quality of life. Life is more holistic than that. Once-upon a time, liberals used to think that opportunity was one way to help the disadvantaged and improve life for minorities, as well as everyone else.

Not getting fucked by Wall St. pressures on corporations to do things that damage the well being of everyone is not is just an " esoteric privileged white male concern."

It affects everyone on a day to day basis Corporations that move jobs, slash salaries and otherwise abuse people. Things like making the communications infrastructure affordable, so we have information poor segment of societty. Or rebuilding and revitalizing inner cities, poor rural areas, etc.

Those are not "white male prerogatives and needs."

If someone cannot afford their healthcare and gets sick and dies, it doesn't matter if they are black, white or brown gay or straight. If a single poor mother can;'t feed her kids because she is only earning a substandard minimum wage -- -- what are we supposed to ignore her because it is not a "racial issue" but an "economic one"?

My God this way of thinking of categorizing issues into little boxes that you can only care about this issue if you a a POC or white or female or male or gay or straight.....It is not at all the approach that makes any goddamn sense. It's what we used to associate with Republican thinking. "Divide and conquer."

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:29 AM

azurnoir (45,850 posts)

78. if you're privileged then Wall Street is hardly a boogey man

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:18 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

38. Horse shit

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:20 AM

seabeyond (110,159 posts)

40. Yes. Nt

Reply to this post

Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:40 AM

JCanete (5,272 posts)

82. God no. What total and complete bullshit. The only thing that made it that way

was a very concerted effort by Brock et al to paint it that way. And happy days, it succeeded.

What Bernie's campaign was able to do was to court white disaffected voters who saw the middle class slipping away AND TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT ALIGNED THEIR INTERESTS TO THE INTERESTS OF MINORITIES AND THE POOR. That is what we needed! Why would you denegrate such a feat? We could have actually done something in this nation. We could have redirected all that fear and frustration away from struggling immigrants and people in underserved communities, and channeled it at the unfair system that is continuing to screw everybody.

Instead you cynical bastards used it to divide the Democratic voter base, and you think you're different from the GOP how?

Reply to this post

Response to JCanete (Reply #82)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:52 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

87. Weaver and Divine admitted not competing in the "southern states" & Sanders lost by over 4 mil votes

... I don't see Sanders running for the votes of the dem base

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #87)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:02 PM

JCanete (5,272 posts)

97. That has nothing to do with his platform or policies, which would all benefit minorities

to a much greater degree than anything Clinton has proposed. What by the way, has she even proposed? Bernie was able to court white men to that cause by pulling back the veil and showing them a real threat, not the manufactured scapegoating BS that republicans have been pandering for years while both parties kept the machinery going, keeping the focus on the culture war and not the economic issues that feed that war.

You want to tackle injustice? Seems to me like it would help by aligning people of different backgrounds together. You guys made that harder. You guys used Bernie's success with white voters to sell a meme that that was his constituency. So for shame, if you care, but I doubt you care, in which case ... well done.

Reply to this post

Response to JCanete (Reply #97)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:06 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

102. Most of the dem PoC where in the "southern states" so if they didn't compete for them how in

... the world was Sanders suppposed to get his message to them?

They derided the "southern" states as "confederate" and Sanders said during the one debate they were "conservative"

Clinton proposed many policies that touched open the boogymen of Communities of color and then listened and that was AFTER clinging to Obama, promising a continuance of his legacy and competing for our votes in the "southern states"

Sanders did little of that

Reply to this post

Response to JCanete (Reply #82)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:24 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

150. +10,000 nt

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:30 AM

sufrommich (22,871 posts)

18. This pretty much sums it up:

Minority voters have been watching in horror as millions of Republican voters choose Trump either because of, or despite, his open bigotry. The Sanders supporters who toy with the idea of shunning Clinton in November and allowing Trump to become president to force a revolution that Sanders couldn’t deliver are playing with fire. To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948#ixzz4B5niQc96
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Reply to this post

Response to sufrommich (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:36 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

24. So very true, I called it a temper tantrum months ago... Weaver and Divine both said they didn't

.. compete in the "southern states" which was also a slap in the face

Reply to this post

Response to sufrommich (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:59 AM

justiceischeap (14,040 posts)

29. It shouldn't be really surprising though if you think back to the animosity

on DU not that long ago between the LGBTQ community and so-called "progressives" that blamed us and our "issues" (human rights) on losing elections.

Reply to this post

Response to justiceischeap (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:11 AM

cpwm17 (3,829 posts)

34. Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of Hillary Clinton in his support for gay rights.

Only a few years ago Hillary was openly opposed to gay marriage.

Bernie Sanders' supporters are the most pro-gay group in the US. What you write makes absolutely no sense.

Reply to this post

Response to justiceischeap (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:11 AM

Raster (20,467 posts)

35. Hold on one fucking minute... I am 59, White, Male and GAY...

...And I am as PROGRESSIVE as they come... I've been part of the DU community since 2002. I lived through that "animosity" and from my perspective, you are sloppily applying a shellacking with a very broad brush on the wrong group of people. In my opinion, it was not the Progressives on DU that gave us grief for our issues, it was the so-called Centrists, you know, the "can't we all get along" crowd.

I. VERY. CLEARLY. REMEMBER "it's just one prayer" and the other cheap shots from the "one Democrat fits all" section.

In fact, it was the PROGRESSIVE VOICES on this board that were then, and are our allies now, and sadly, many of them, along with many of our long-time LGBQT members have been forced from DU, NOT BY THE PROGRESSIVES, but by the Third Way shills and Centrists.

Reply to this post

Response to Raster (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:28 AM

QC (26,371 posts)

44. Here since 2001 and that's how I remember it as well.

It wasn't progressives who gave us shit--it was the Sensible Pragmatic Centrists™ and the personality cultists.

And it wasn't progressives who peremptorily banned about a third of the most active LGBT people in our group here because we objected to being bullied--that was Skinner.

Reply to this post

Response to sufrommich (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:18 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

69. That is total crap

The vast majority of Sanders supporters are equally horrified by Trump, and the possibility of a bigoted monster like him becoming president.

They may see Sanders as the more likely to win against him. That can be debated.

But with the exception of a few hardcore Bernie or Busters, that premise you posted is a false dichotomy.

Reply to this post

Response to Armstead (Reply #69)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:56 AM

gollygee (22,331 posts)

92. That seemed to have been specifically about Bernie or Busters

Not about Bernie supporters in general.

Reply to this post

Response to sufrommich (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:24 AM

redStateBlueHeart (265 posts)

75. +1000

Reply to this post

Response to sufrommich (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:30 AM

azurnoir (45,850 posts)

79. very few Sanders supporters are toying with or will be voting for Trump

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 09:31 AM

etherealtruth (22,165 posts)

20. Very interesting read (well worth the time to read the entire thing!)

This is something the democratic party really needs to reflect on and find a way to identify common ground so that we can all move forward .... together.

Reply to this post

Response to etherealtruth (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:16 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

130. Agreed, but I wonder how many actually read the whole thing before commenting.

Anytime this issue is brought up, people get defensive and think accusations of racism are being made. There are understandable reasons why Clinton did so well among POC, and it's not because POC think Sanders or his supporters are racist.

Reply to this post

Response to Garrett78 (Reply #130)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:24 PM

etherealtruth (22,165 posts)

131. I think that was missed in the reading ....

Additionally, the article doesn't state that Sanders caused anything .... it simply states that this campaign (meaning the Democratic primary of 2016) EXPOSED the issue. It did expose the issue.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:05 AM

Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)

32. Excellent article....

Thanks, bravenak.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:07 AM

bklyncowgirl (7,960 posts)

33. I had always believed that a populist campaign would appeal to both Black and White voters.

In short that economics would trump (pardon the expression) race. Now I realize that things are much more complicated. I think that Sanders and most of his supporters believed that too and were stunned when a long time liberal with sterling civil right credentials was shunned by most people of color.

What this article does not touch on, however, is the essential abandonment of the working class--and not just the white working class-- by the Democrats in favor of a presenting itself as a coalition of ethnic, racial and other identity groups, a focus on social issues which plays right into the hands of the very rich--and nets them more campaign contributions from the donor class.

The truth is that Democrats have to find ways to appeal to all groups. Call it white privilege if you will but having grown up in New York City I have always hated ethnic politics. It's why the most liberal city in the country is so often run by Republicans. Democrats believe that Demography is Destiny. I don't think you can write off large sections of the population and expect to govern the country.

Reply to this post

Response to bklyncowgirl (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:00 AM

CrowCityDem (2,348 posts)

56. Economics do not always trump race.

How many stories do we hear about well-off minorities who still get profiled, mistreated, and harassed for no other reason than their race or gender? Economics are important, but racism isn't about money, and putting people on a level playing field economically won't remove that kind of prejudice.

Reply to this post

Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:12 AM

DemocratSinceBirth (96,389 posts)

64. Regardless of race

Regardless of race you can't tell folks what their priorities or what they should be. It only upsets them. That should be axiomatic.

Reply to this post

Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:21 AM

GummyBearz (2,931 posts)

72. Economics do not always trump race

"Economics do not always trump race"

...

In other words: some people vote against their own economic interest. What do we usually say about that on DU?

Reply to this post

Response to GummyBearz (Reply #72)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:25 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

76. Republicans and conservatives?

Reply to this post

Response to GummyBearz (Reply #72)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:25 AM

CrowCityDem (2,348 posts)

77. There are other issues that are important to people.

If you are in a group subject to prejudice and discrimination, gee, maybe you'd want to focus on ending that. Putting more dollars in someone's pocket will not stop bigots from being bigots.

Reply to this post

Response to GummyBearz (Reply #72)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:55 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

89. Yeap, ANOTHER post explaining what PoC "best interest" are... nothing new for Sanders camp

Reply to this post

Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:53 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

88. +1, this was talked about ad nausea last year and was ignored then and is ignored now

Reply to this post

Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:04 PM

bklyncowgirl (7,960 posts)

99. But economic issues touch everyone

I agree that Sanders and his supporters, myself included, should have done more listening and less lecturing but listening to some of you, a person who is not a member of a persecuted minority group has no place in the Democratic Party. That's writing off s hell of a lot of people.

Reply to this post

Response to bklyncowgirl (Reply #99)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:06 PM

CrowCityDem (2,348 posts)

103. Where do you get that? All I'm saying is that there are other issues people find as important.

Reply to this post

Response to CrowCityDem (Reply #103)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:06 PM

bklyncowgirl (7,960 posts)

122. You have to give a broad range of people reason to vote for you.

That is what promoting the interests of working people is about. Unfortunately the Democratic Party led by the Clintons has moved away from this. I agree with you that it must be coupled with a strong commitment to social and racial justice. I don't know of any Sanders supporter who would disagree with this

Reply to this post

Response to bklyncowgirl (Reply #122)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:13 PM

CrowCityDem (2,348 posts)

124. Clinton's message reached a broader, more diverse coalition of voters. That says it all.

Reply to this post

Response to bklyncowgirl (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:24 AM

Armstead (47,803 posts)

74. The Corporate and Wall St. Barons are equal opportunity exploiters

They are happy for the middle and lower classes to be separating themselves into ethnic enclaves. The GOP loves it too.

It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time -- fight for both racial and overall economic justice, as ultimately they are part of a whole.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:14 AM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

36. Is politico one of your now favorite sources?

I believe what Black Lives Matters Ashley Williams had to say in her letter to Hillary Clinton:

“Here's the truth: the Clinton legacy has left our prisons bursting at the seams. Real lives have been destroyed as a result. It is an indisputable fact that millions of Black people were locked up for drug crimes and provided the bodies for the expansion of the prison industry.

The 1994 Crime Bill that she so vigorously defended not only expanded incarceration, but stripped funding for college education from prisoners. The Clinton legacy allowed for policies that prevented anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from receiving food stamps or income assistance. Clinton-led welfare reform fundamentally ripped apart the social safety net.”

“Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton's efforts to push these policies resulted in the continued destruction of Black communities and the swift growth of our mass incarceration crisis.”

Reply to this post

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:24 AM

LanternWaste (36,863 posts)

43. We often believe only that which validates our bias, and conveniently discount all else...

"I believe what Black Lives Matters Ashley Williams had to say..."

We often believe only that which validates our bias, and conveniently discount all else, often by implying the irrelevancy of a favorite source.

Reply to this post

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:46 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

48. I do not care what she had to say. Just because we are both black women, does not mean I must defer

to the black person who agrees with you.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:04 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

129. You seem to avoid discussing the substance of what she says.

Do you disagree with what she says?
Between Bill and Hillary, they didn't do the AA community any favors by supporting The 1994 Crime Bill which not only expanded incarceration, but stripped funding for college education from prisoners.
"The Clinton legacy allowed for policies that prevented anyone convicted of a felony drug offense from receiving food stamps or income assistance. Clinton-led welfare reform fundamentally ripped apart the social safety net."

Reply to this post

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #129)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:33 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

132. I do not care what she says

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #132)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:41 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

133. And that really sums it up. You seem not to care what the Clinton have done to damage the

AA community. Well it's more profits for her Prisons For Profits industry who in turn will show her their gratitude.

Reply to this post

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #133)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:43 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

134. Bernie voted for it too so....

He also wanted to raise prison sentences for cocaine to the rate of crack sentenses, which is a very tough on drugs policy. Hillary never proposed THAT!

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #134)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:35 AM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

152. Voting for a bill doesn't mean you like every thing in it. But you know that.

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #152)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:07 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

154. But it does make one responsible for their own vote

And not just the good parts. All of it.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #154)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:45 AM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

168. Arguably yes. But that isn't what you said.

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #168)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:48 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

169. His vote counted. He voted yes, regardless of his motivations for doing so

The effect was the same as if he had supported the entire thing. I notice how people give him a free pass on voting for it, but blame her for the entirety of it.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #169)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:02 AM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

172. Because the executive supported it, and she was part of that and supported it

Clinton could have line-item vetoed the bad parts if he wanted, which Sanders had no choice to do. Clinton v. City of New York wasn't decided by SCOTUS until 1998 so he still had that power with the crime bill. Evidently he supported the mass incarceration components, while Sanders did not.

So whereas Sanders had to make a calculation that the Violence Against Women Act was worth passing the horrid other parts, Clinton did not have to make that choice. Right??

One thing I have not seen you ever address is this: What would you have said about Sanders if the Crime Bill didn't pass and he opposed it for the mass incarceration provisions. Would he have been opposed to the Violence against women act?

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #172)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:41 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

179. More excuses

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #179)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:24 PM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

181. Your response to my substantive, thoughtful post was exactly as I expected.

It's okay, I know it means you've got nothing.

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #181)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:26 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

182. Your post was disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #182)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:29 PM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

183. How so?

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #183)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:32 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

184. As I said before

Bernie voted for it and the credit of some parts are given in full to him while the blame for bad parts are given in full to her. Nothing you have said disabuses me of this notion that there is a complete double standard of blame and credit and he always gets the benefit of doubt whereas she never does. If anything her intentions are falsified to make her seem evil.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #184)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:35 PM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

185. And I explained why the Clintons could have only chosen the good parts if they wanted

Bernie had no choice but to take an up or down vote on the whole thing.

My 'disingenuous' post was explaining why it wasn't a double standard.

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #185)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:36 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

186. No

Anyone around and aware at the time know damn well what was going on then and no. They could not just pick and choose, republicans controlled congress and could pass anything they wanted.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #186)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:40 PM

JonLeibowitz (6,282 posts)

187. You need a 2/3 majority to override a veto, not a 50%+1 majority.

Reply to this post

Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #187)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:54 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

190. What has that got to do with anything?

Can't veto everything and still expect to ever get concessions on the budget or other policy points. Compromise is the only way to roll. And FYI? The black community was in favor of most of those policies we hate in hindsight. Full stop. We, the black comminity PRESSURED the Clintons to create that crime bill. He OWED us his presidency. He did work with us in crafiting it. He could not tell us no and expect a second term. We were tired of winos and crackheads and rapers and drug dealers and home invasion robberies and dead bodies on the corner and gangbangers raping our daughters on the way to school and our familygetting addicted to crack and dropping off addicted babies to our doorsteps, etc.. Those who did not live that life can look down upon us from their ivory towers and point fingers. Those dead bodies were not on your corners. Those crackheads were not stealing your grandmas SS check. Those crying addicted babies not in your house. You do realize that we finally got rehabs from these deals we made with Bill? That the crime went down? That LA stopped being the muder capital? Fewer gangs? Fewer innocent bystanders killed in the fross fire? More drug education?

I went to more funerals than I can count in my life. Things are better now. I watched fifteen year old boys being planted in the dirt. Conforted friend in sixth grade who had been raped by superpredators. You all know nothing about that life but try to stand in judgement on what we really needed. That crime bill did get killers and rapers and robbers and vilent people out of our neighborhoods. We don't LIKE CRIME!!! We are the ones who suffer the consequences of allowing people who are violent, of drug cartels, gangs and addicts, to run wild and commit crimes AGAINST US. Who do you think they were robbing? Killing? Selling crack to? US, NOT YOU.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:17 AM

Starry Messenger (32,326 posts)

37. That was comprehensive.

I'll be sending this to some folks.

Reply to this post

Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:54 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

53. I expect to see much more of this type of article

I know people will be mad, but it will happen. I just could not believe it as it was happening. Swire that it would change. No such luck.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Post removed

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:40 AM

Beowulf (761 posts)

46. This is far more complicated than is usually acknowledged.

First, the Sanders campaign badly mishandled outreach to PoC groups. Not because they didn't care, but because they misread the landscape. They also had to deal with the decades-long head start Clinton had in those communities. It's not realistic to expect the campaign to catch up in 10 months.

There's been little discussion on how Third Way Democrats, led by the Clintons have strategically used identity politics to take the focus off of economic issues that cross demographic borders focusing instead on issues that assuage fear. Please note that I'm not saying there's nothing to fear about Trump. There's plenty. But what gets lost if the discussion gets reduced to that. Yes, I'm white, but my granddaughters are biracial. Trump's bigotry and potential consequences of that bigotry matter personally.

There's been little discussion on how the Clintons have used their foundation to court PoC leaders through awards, recognitions, and grants.

There's been little discussion on how David Brock and the various super pacs and media organs he controls manipulated the narratives around the candidates and race.

There's much more to be laid in the laps of both campaigns that would need to be addressed honestly if we're going to find some common ground.

Reply to this post

Response to Beowulf (Reply #46)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:45 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

47. The fact that his supporters were so against sjw and 'identity politics' is half the problem

We, black americans, are still trying to obtain the same right to exist that you take for granted. The fact that one campaign minimized out need for equality as 'identity politics' let us know they were not listening and that we were not interested in a bland one size fits all revolution. The nation aint getting no whiter, ever. We must deal with race or we have no peaceful future. Us black americans are not going to shut up about issues that affect us most and allow white liberals to decide what WE should be interested in, ever. Time to start listening and realize that it was not brock or the clinton foundation that repelled us. It was his campaign and the way it was run as a one size fits all generic revolution, minus black folks of course because we do not fit into the narrative.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:10 AM

forjusticethunders (1,151 posts)

62. The sad thing is

THERE ARE WAYS TO MAKE A SOCIALIST-ESQUE CAMPAIGN REACH BLACK PEOPLE

POC LIKE SOCIALISM
POC LIKE SOCIALISM MORE THAN WHITE PEOPLE
POC LIKE PROGRESSIVE IDEAS
POC WANT SYSTEMIC CHANGE

I AM USING ALL CAPS FOR EMPHASIS BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE SHOUTED

There are multitudes, MULTITUDES of ways that a leftist insurgent campaign can appeal to POC, but Bernie never even began to explore those ways because he doesn't have the systematic understanding of his own beliefs to PERMIT that exploration. You can run an economic issues campaign and still win black people but you HAVE to connect that campaign to black oppression. Talk about redlining, gentrification, K-12 disparities, immigration and talk about it over and over and over again in different and diverse ways. You can't just be the EQUAL of Hillary on these issues, you have to be BETTER. I KNOW Bernie addressed these issues at times but it wasn't his focus.

He COULD have done all those things and, along with coming down in a meaningful way on the asshole privileged supporters off and online, KEPT my vote. But he didn't.

Reply to this post

Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:14 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

66. That is pretty much what I was waiting for from him

Never happened. I think his education on race ended with his college education. He should have continued his work with the black community if he ever wanted a shot at a revolution.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #66)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:18 AM

forjusticethunders (1,151 posts)

68. Going in I honestly expected he was going to do a lot of the same things Obama did

And that Hillary would run something like 2008. Oh man how things change.

Reply to this post

Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #62)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:49 AM

Beowulf (761 posts)

83. I agree with this wholeheartedly!!

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:50 AM

appalachiablue (30,211 posts)

50. Super Predators who must be brought to heel; 13 year olds charged as adults

for crimes. How would they vote if free and allowed, and their families.

Reply to this post

Response to appalachiablue (Reply #50)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:52 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

51. Bernie voted YES on that crime bill

He wanted to raise the sentences for cocaine sale UP to the same level as crack sales. Not lower them. I have no idea what history book you have at home. Try google to fact check me.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #51)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:00 AM

appalachiablue (30,211 posts)

55. Don't wonder about me and history, know that I have two degrees in the field.

Check your processes and motives, try google. People are very aware of who voted for the 1990s Crime Bill and its flaws and dangers.

Reply to this post

Response to appalachiablue (Reply #55)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:02 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

57. If you have two degrees why did you not research the crime bill and Bernie's support

And the fact that he has taken very 'tough on crime' approaches to governance? Anybody can say they have a degree in anything on the web.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:16 AM

appalachiablue (30,211 posts)

67. Never said I didn't know this info. did I? You brought up what 'history

books I have at home' and then claim I'm lying about my university degrees. In your well known efforts to assume and offend you might fare better with others. But I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Response to appalachiablue (Reply #67)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:20 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

71. Yeah whatever

Sure didnt seem like you knew it since you came flying in accusing folks of doing the same thing Bernie voted for. Kinda seems pointless to do if you did know it already. I'll just assume you did not and move on.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:06 AM

wendylaroux (2,925 posts)

59. and another post about Bernie and his racist followers.

Reply to this post

Response to wendylaroux (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:08 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

61. I can tell you did not read it

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #61)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:32 AM

azurnoir (45,850 posts)

81. oh I read it but here's a fact more whites voted for Barack Obama in '08 than Bill Clinton in '92

so somethings amiss here

Reply to this post

Response to azurnoir (Reply #81)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:13 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

108. K, so you didn't read it cause what white people did wasn't the center of the article ....

.... saying Sanders didn't speak to PoC priorities was.

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #108)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:17 PM

azurnoir (45,850 posts)

109. a question why when Sanders was very clear in wanting to improve economics/ quality of life for all

were we told -"not good enough Bernie" was he supposed to triangulate and only want improvement for some but not others, is that Clinton's message?

Reply to this post

Response to azurnoir (Reply #109)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:19 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

111. That goes without saying for any dem candidate, not addressing peoples priorities is the issue heree

... and having an overly homogenized message was dismissive to those priorities

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #111)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:21 PM

azurnoir (45,850 posts)

113. oh so it was over homogenized or everybody wasn't good enough for some

is that a variant of wanting just-us?

Reply to this post

Response to azurnoir (Reply #113)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:22 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

114. No, it was overly homogenized and not addressing all of the dem bases priorities. It's that simple

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #114)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:24 PM

azurnoir (45,850 posts)

116. so wanting a better system economically and legally for all isn't good enough?

still sounds rather just-us-y to me

Reply to this post

Response to azurnoir (Reply #116)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:05 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

121. Its a start, its not the end all though and that's where Sanders stopped and Clinton's didn't

... and I don't know what you mean by "just-us" stuff

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #121)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:20 PM

azurnoir (45,850 posts)

135. what did Clinton do-all I seem to remember was photo-ops with the mothers of victims ?

Reply to this post

Response to wendylaroux (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:19 AM

forjusticethunders (1,151 posts)

70. Can you stop putting words in people's mouth?

Trump supporters are racist. Bernie supporters tend to be racially tone-deaf. There's a big difference, and the biggest difference is that since you're on the left, we expect more of you.

Reply to this post

Response to wendylaroux (Reply #59)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:56 AM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

91. No, another post about how Sanders appeal wasn't diverse enough cause JUST LIKE IN THIS THREAD

... the issues of PoC were placed on the back burner

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:31 AM

Autumn (40,095 posts)

80. He also exposed a lot of anti Semitic "democrats" nt

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #80)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:59 AM

Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)

95. That's the fact, Jack. Also lots of Reagan loving LGBT dismissig 'Democrats'.

Reply to this post

Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #95)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:04 PM

Autumn (40,095 posts)

100. Yes. Bernie running was the best thing that ever happened. He peeled back the

skin on the democratic party and many of it's members and exposed the moldy skeleton underneath.

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #80)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:23 PM

QC (26,371 posts)

115. Bingo. You win the thread. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #80)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 06:40 PM

Arazi (4,364 posts)

139. +10000 eom

Reply to this post

Response to Autumn (Reply #80)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:00 PM

SMC22307 (7,375 posts)

191. There it is. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:51 AM

Gothmog (92,202 posts)

85. The Sanders revolution is a mostly white movement

This is a great article that does a good job of discussing why the Sanders so-called revolution failed. I am strong supporter of President Obama and so I found the Sanders' revolution to be unrealistic and unappealing. I never felt the Bern even though I used to like Sanders and some of his positions.

I was never convinced that the Sanders revolution made any sense and I found myself agreeing with the members of the AA group even though I am old white Jewish male.

Great article. Thanks for posting

This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:57 AM

Raastan (239 posts)

93. Excellent article, thanks

In most cases, one could also exchange the word "minorities" with "gender"...

Reply to this post

Response to Raastan (Reply #93)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:02 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

98. YES !! Sanders message was centered towards the very people who mostly supported him

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #98)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:09 PM

killbotfactory (13,566 posts)

106. universal healthcare, free college, a living wage, non-corrupt politics....

anyone who supports such nonsense is clearly trying to bring back the white male patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Response to killbotfactory (Reply #106)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:12 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

107. HRC had a similar message and PoC didn't believe she was Satans daughter so the character

... assasinations didn't work on that end.

The delineating factor was Clinton developed a relationship, fought for our votes and didn't have a canned message to our priorities.

and it showed in the support she got

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:07 PM

killbotfactory (13,566 posts)

104. Clinton was only a no-name longshot with only a message and a prayer.

The reason Bernie lost is because he his supporters hate women and minorities!

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:17 PM

SheenaR (2,052 posts)

110. The racial rift looks a lot different if he wins Nevada

After the first two contests, he had momentum. Had he won Nevada he goes into the South with a huge wave of press, support, etc.

He poured a ton into SC early but the Nevada loss blunted any and all momentum.

A decision had to be made. Pour all the remaining $ into the South or head elsewhere and try to win the nomination the smartest and most efficient way possible.

Easy in hindsight to say he ignored an area and various groups of people. The campaign tried to win, plain and simple. And the numbers were there had they gotten it done everywhere else.

Reply to this post

Response to SheenaR (Reply #110)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:19 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

112. Weaver and Divine admitted not competing in the "southern states" & Sanders lost by over 4 mil votes

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #112)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 12:26 PM

SheenaR (2,052 posts)

117. Glad you read my post

Yes. They did not compete. They read the tea leaves and saw a potential waste of their whole campaign coffer.

They aimed for Ohio, NY, MI, CA, IL, PA, NJ, etc.

They failed there too.

But they didn't fail to compete from the start. It was a necessity.

Reply to this post

Response to SheenaR (Reply #117)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:02 PM

uponit7771 (74,655 posts)

119. Yes, they did fail to compete from the start if they didn't put resources in those states and

... the people to win their votes

Also, Sanders campaign wasn't worried about wasting resources when it came to the non "southern states" and even asking for contributions when he was more than a long shot win

So wasting resources doesn't seem like a concern to them

no... he ignored the "southern states" were a lot of black dems lived and lost almost by that amount of votes.

That's his fault

Reply to this post

Response to uponit7771 (Reply #119)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:10 PM

SheenaR (2,052 posts)

123. They had resources in ZERO states post the first four

in late 2015, early 2016.

This wasn't supposed to be a campaign he won. He then found out millions of people wanted something besides the pre-selected candidate.

It IS his fault for not having resources there. It is even more remarkable that he got 12 million votes while largely campaigning on an as needed basis. Take my state or RI. They sent 4 young kids and opened an office in Providence. That was the entire organization. And we won. All the small donations do not allow for a 50 state push.

He chose the states he thought he would have the best shot in once the first few contests were over. Plain and simple. I wish like most that wasn't the case, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:00 PM

aikoaiko (31,287 posts)

118. As a Bernie supporter I've been trying to come to grips with this issue.

Politico has generally been less favorable to Bernie than HRC this primary, but this article highlights important issues that the next set of liberal-progressives will have to negotiate.

I've been thinking about writing an OP about this topic because this primary has broken through some of my stubbornness and ineptitude on some racial issues when I kept re-examining why Bernie was not resonating with POC, especially Black Americans, but it seemed so obvious to POC.

The disproportionate levels of police brutality laid upon Black Americans is just the tip of the iceberg, but I think the issue of disproportionate disadvantages and advantages across many life areas has become the focus of many in the POC community. In some cases, like police brutality, it is a matter of life and death. In other areas, like employment, education, and banking, it is a matter of generational hardship that impacts POC across every level of SES - even President Obama.

Im still working it out in my head and trying to learn from others who seem to have a better grasp of the issues.

Reply to this post

Response to aikoaiko (Reply #118)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:26 AM

lovemydog (11,833 posts)

156. Yes, it's a lot of information to assess.

I've learned a lot reading the AA group here. I highly recommend it. Great people and a lot of excellent discussion.

One thing I've noticed among bernie or bust type posters is an absolute unwillingness to even entertain the notion that Hillary Clinton has many liberal positions with respect to taxes, the economy, prison reform and other issues. And, from reading here over the past year, a lot of racial tone deafness and yes, white privilege. Some even ridicule Clinton for 'evolving' slowly on some issues. But to me, it's much better to evolve in a good way than to evolve poorly. I think evolving well is a very good thing.

It's about way more than what one posts on a message board or what one says or wishes for. It's about what you do and what you can accomplish in a clear manner, with the support of many in Congress and endorsements of powerful people who can actually help affect positive change.

I don't attribute this attitude to most Bernie supporters. The ones in person are voting for Clinton in November. The November vote is of critical importance.

I have no time for those who claim here that they won't vote for the democratic nominee in November. Let them leave and go vote green or democratic socialist or whatever they want. They just seem so pedantic, preaching things that are obvious and repeating themselves ad infinitum.

Nor did I have much time for those who trashed President Obama here for the past seven years. To me, they don't seem much different from those on the right who wish to divide us. They fail to acknowledge how hard the President has worked against a republican brick wall in Congress.

When we don't keep our rather bizarre coalition of leftists, liberals and more mainstream democrats together, we lose. It's critical that we win every election, from the presidency on down to local elections. Lives depend on it. As you've stated so eloquently, it hits much closer to home if that life belongs to yourself or your loved ones.

Loyalty is also very important. The Clinton's have built their coalition over a very long period of time. It's amazing how well Bernie did, but to me it's not surprising that he fell short of attracting the entire Obama coalition. Particularly since a vocal chunk of Bernie's coalition was publicly hostile toward President Obama (see, Cornell West and some prolific posters here).

Hope you enjoy a great weekend.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:03 PM

Fresh_Start (11,181 posts)

120. IMO, the concept of a new revolution is a much more comfortable idea

for those who aren't already still in a revolution...which they have been fighting for over 100 years with painfully slow progress.
Its also a much more comfortable concept when its absent personal sacrifice.

Unintentionally and unconsciously, white privilege allows some to embrace the revolution.
But people with the least advantages in our society, who we might expect to be the eager acolytes are not so inclined: and cannot afford to be seduced.

We applaud the idea of more advantages for some (e.g. free college) while failing to understand that many minority students don't even have the tools necessary for good elementary education, safe non-toxic buildings, textbooks, experienced high quality teachers.
Even something like higher minimum wage will likely backfire in lower employment rates for the groups which already have the highest unemployment rates.

The thing which I think is the most important to society is that thing that is almost completely absent from the from democrats, republicans, socialists, liberals for most of my life. ""ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

It will take a hell of a lot more than voting to fix this country: it will take sacrifice. That sacrifice cannot be limited to the 1%, it has to be inclusive of the 80%. I don't think you should be asked to sacrifice for the 1%,5%,10%...but you should be willing to sacrifice for the 99th percent.

Carter told us to turn down our thermostats and wear a sweater. Sanders and Clinton both want more clean energy sources and better technology: but those solutions are slow solutions. Make a sacrifice if you want lower pollution and to slow down global warming. Stop being an energy hog. And thinking 'someone else' is a worse energy hog is a nice deflection which does nothing to address the problem.

To get rid of fracking, we need to reduce the energy consumption of the country by approximately 20%.
Any technology change will take decades to have an impact: reducing your energy footprint can begin in the next day.
What are you willing to do starting right now to decrease the amount of energy we use?

Reply to this post

Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #120)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 06:48 PM

Arazi (4,364 posts)

140. Climate change will render a lot of navel gazing moot. And soon

The environment is going to deteriorate fast with either Hillary Clinton or a Republican now

We've sealed the deal on our fate and articles like this will soon be quaint. I like your call for personal action though. Good point

Reply to this post

Response to Arazi (Reply #140)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:31 PM

Fresh_Start (11,181 posts)

144. My origins are Green Party

but its not a viable choice.

We need two dedicated efforts from the next administration:
fix the deficiencies in the federal elections (we can't force a fix in state and local): set a uniform standard for who can vote to president and congress: don't allow local states to create barriers to voting which disenfranchise our citizens:
in that area: fix gerrymandering

'do a space race' type effort for climate change.

everything else should be subordinate to those two goals.

Reply to this post

Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #144)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:46 PM

Arazi (4,364 posts)

146. Shrug. I'll vote my conscience

Climate change fucks us all equally. Who's serious? Bernie and Jill Stein. The rest are shit heads entirely unconcerned @ the environment.

We're shit out of time.

People have decided though. Fuck the planet. I find that offensive and willfully destructive, selfish.

I don't know any rich people to run to, help me, when the shit hits the fan. We all can't wait for election reform.

The time is now

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:28 PM

floriduck (2,262 posts)

127. That is a bullshit article posted by a bullshit corporatist media source. Nuff said!

Reply to this post

Response to floriduck (Reply #127)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 06:15 PM

Garrett78 (10,721 posts)

137. What specifically do you take issue with?

Did you actually read the whole article? If so, what parts do you consider to be bullshit?

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 06:13 PM

BumRushDaShow (76,229 posts)

136. OMG the author nailed it

Particularly this part -

<...>

Why? Because many white Democratic voters missed the sentiment shared among black Obama voters in 2008 that, once again, the “first black” was being handed a seemingly impossible task—two ground wars, a collapsing economy, a record deficit—and if he wasn’t able to perform a miracle, it would not only be his failure, but that of black people in general. To downplay what he has been able to achieve despite the obstacles, which also included an unprecedented level of obstruction from the GOP, confirms a fear shared by many people of color—Democratic or otherwise—that no matter what they achieve, it will never be enough. Sanders and Susan Sarandon may sincerely believe things are so awful only a revolution can heal the country’s ills. But their overwrought rhetoric, and no more than lukewarm support of Obama’s accomplishments, taps into that deeply-held frustration among minorities.

That’s why, despite what looks like intractable problems to white Democrats, minority voters are more optimistic about the future than their white counterparts. That Obama was able to become president and get stuff done is an enormous source of not only pride, but hope. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that more than half of young black and Latinos believe their lives will be better than their parents, compared with less than a third of young white people. On many measures, black people have seen much worse days—the black unemployment rate neared 17 percent at the height of the Great Recession and is less than half that now—even as they continue fighting decades-long struggles. Things aren’t perfect, but the progress that has occurred during the Obama era isn’t something they want ignored or downplayed. Given that reality, why would they believe in the need for a revolution?

<...>

The entire article had me nodding and amen-ing! What was written in this article is probably perplexing to some, inconceivable to others, and probably a downright affront to the worldviews of many here on DU.

Reply to this post

Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #136)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 06:29 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

138. I had to read it multiple times to get all I needed from it

I know many people here heard this stuff repeated. Constantly. Maybe next time they will listen.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #138)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 07:06 PM

BumRushDaShow (76,229 posts)

141. That's what was remarkable about the article

What he wrote has been written in essays and as critiques to posts here on DU time after time after time, in some cases, almost verbatim. And some here "get it" and accept it as a valid viewpoint by many of us, while others dismiss it right off the bat and start spouting knee-jerk talking points and accusing people of having "Stockholm syndrome" and other such nonsense.

Reply to this post

Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #141)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 07:09 PM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

142. I felt like they read my posts and use it to write this

It's like it came right out of my head

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #142)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 07:21 PM

BumRushDaShow (76,229 posts)

143. +infinity

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:04 AM

qdouble (890 posts)

147. Great article.

Not caring about a bigot getting elected just because you don't get the perfect candidate is the definition of white privilege. I've even seen some supposed Sander's supporters on JPR openly suggest that they want to help Trump get elected if Bernie doesn't win. I'm sure those types have absolutely no problem with millions of muslims and hispanics getting openly discriminated against by the next president because it doesn't effect them personally.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:22 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

148. I wonder if you have ever noticed that many of the DUers that did not

support BLM and inferred that persons killed by the police are your fellow Hillary supporters?

Reply to this post

Response to Live and Learn (Reply #148)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 06:39 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

167. I noticed the opposite

I watched folks tear down blm for interrupting their candidate. I just watched somebody start it back up within the last few days. Not a hillary supporter.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Reply #167)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:06 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

173. Check back a bit further . nt

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:37 AM

coyote (1,561 posts)

153. Not only that...

He also exposed your anti-Semitic side. Bernie has been very therapeutic to you.

hidden in 1..2..

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:17 AM

Number23 (24,544 posts)

155. That is an AMAZING read. And I hope it puts an end to the lie that Black youths supported him

Bernie Sanders did not win ANY of the black vote -- by gender, economic status, age, education -- ANYWHERE.

According to Reuters/Ipsos polling in February, the Vermont senator received his strongest support among black voters from those aged 18-29—but only a third of that group backed him. That’s right. For all the talk about Sanders’ unqualified young voter support, Clinton had a double-digit lead among the youngest black voters nationwide.

Even in states so white that you can count the number of minorities on two hands, they still rejected him.

"That refusal to accept the necessity of compromise in a winner-take-all two-party system (and an electorate in which conservatives still outnumber liberals) is characteristic of a certain idealistic style of left-wing politics. Its conception of voting as an act of performative virtue has largely confined itself to white left-wing politics, because it is at odds with the political tradition of a community that has always viewed political compromise as a practical necessity. The expectation that a politician should agree with you on everything is the ultimate expression of privilege.”

Absolutely.

But some of this is crap too.

People of color, like their white Democratic counterparts, may also want a revolution and more rapid progress than the halting kind that comes with pragmatism, but they’ve time and again seen incremental change improve their lives. That’s why they embrace Martin Luther King Jr. without question while revering Malcolm X from a distance.

Ummm... no.

But this bit sums everything up better than anything I've seen all day:

To minority voters, Trump’s candidacy feels like an existential threat. It’s one thing for Republicans to either ignore or embrace his racism; the party already seems unwilling or incapable of making the kinds of adjustments it must to attract more non-white voters. It’s quite another for white Democrats to not appreciate how liberal minorities feel about the possibility of a Trump presidency and what that would say about the state of racial progress in America. It would be a slap in the face, the latest sign that a kind of white privilege—throwing a temper tantrum because they don’t get their way despite how much it hurts people of color—is deeply rooted within liberal, Democratic ranks as well.

Abso-fucking-lutely. And white Democrats can continue to scream about "Southern" voters and how black people are voting against their interests, are low information voters with "slave mentalities" or they can realize how privileged, tone deaf, ignorant and yes RACIST they sound, cut that shit out and help US keep Tump out of the White House.

Reply to this post

Response to Number23 (Reply #155)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:32 AM

lovemydog (11,833 posts)

158. "The expectation that a politician should agree with you

on everything is the ultimate expression of privilege.” That's exactly how I feel.

It always reminds me of the little kid screaming 'I want my Maypo!' or as it was later used effectively 'I want my MTV!'

Many of us don't have time for that nonsense. Not when there are way more important issues we value highly, like stopping police from murdering unarmed brothers and sisters.

Good to see you on this thread. Hope you enjoy a great weekend.

Reply to this post

Response to lovemydog (Reply #158)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:36 AM

Number23 (24,544 posts)

160. It's a great read. Some of it is problematic but overall, it is a very important read

I was just having a chat with a Sanders supporter yesterday who came racing into a thread discussing Sanders' poor performance in minority communities who was basically begging everyone to "stop talking about this."

The reason no one is going to stop talking about this is because a) who the hell is anyone to DEMAND that people not talk about things that interest them?? and b) this is an important issue. This primary DID expose a huge racial rift among Democrats and only the blind or stupid would choose to not discuss it.

I'm having a good weekend so far! Hope you are too!!

Reply to this post

Response to Number23 (Reply #160)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:07 AM

lovemydog (11,833 posts)

162. Yes, it's well worth discussing.

Funny how those who rush into every discussion of race to try and shut it down rarely have anything positive to contribute.

There ain't no going back. Back in the day it was all hush-hush. That repression was unhealthy.

We're more comfortable talking about it than we were a few years ago. We have a long way to go though, as witnessed by those who still try to repress it and by some of the more ... ummm ... bizarre posts that personally attack people for even discussing it. Thank goodness we aren't drinking that haterade.

Reply to this post

Response to Number23 (Reply #155)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:53 AM

joshcryer (61,623 posts)

164. "Southern" voters were the POINT of the Fairness Commission.

And the earlier Mikulski Commission (proportional voting and Affirmative Action as part of the platform and nomination process). Hart and Jackson were royally screwed in 1984. Between them they had significantly more votes than Mondale but not even enough delegates to even attempt to contest the convention (had there been proportional delegates Hart would've been the Presidential nominee and Jackson would've been his VP because together their delegates would've been more than Mondale, and Mondale would've simply lost; and no one would've contested that because between them they had one and a half times more votes than Mondale).

If we had the same system we have now back then Hart probably would've been a two timer, Jackson would've been the first black President, and who knows what would've happened. It's pretty fascinating when you think about it.

Interestingly, I looked up Hart in the news today and he commented on this: https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/gary-hart-on-the-parallels-between-his-84-campaign-and-the-2016-race-143612660.html

Must watch video. And I'm glad Hart is still around to provide his insights.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 02:28 AM

lovemydog (11,833 posts)

157. Very interesting article.

I found a lot of what's discussed in the article to be true, from my own personal personal perspective. Thanks bravenak.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:42 AM

joshcryer (61,623 posts)

163. This proves that the Fairness Commission and Mikulski Commission worked.

Making Affirmative Action part of the nomination process automatically means that white-only nominations are infeasible.

This is an indictment on Weaver and Devine in that they completely ignored the core of the party (minorities, the disadvantaged) and banked on a demographic that is unreliable (the youth, unfortunately, which I am on the edge of 'being' kinda sorta, Gen X).

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:01 AM

Cha (269,204 posts)

165. Thank you for this in depth article, brave.

In many ways a Sanders victory, propelled by the least diverse states in the nation, would have been a step backward in American race relations. Now that Hillary Clinton has laid claim convincingly to the nomination with decisive wins in California and New Jersey, the party—and Bernie’s supporters—are at a crossroads. If they insist on maintaining their purist divide from Clinton, they will create a rift in the party that’s not just ideological, but racial.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:02 AM

noiretextatique (27,238 posts)

166. More bullshit. Here are some racial gaffes

Haiti and Honduras. Most Hillary supporters simply don't give a flying f about those black and brown people. Oh...and she and have "apologized" for their role in criminalizing black and brown youth, and mass incarceration...the gift that keeps on giving. Nothing is more indicative of racial harmony, DLC-style, than the 30% of black males caught up in the criminal justice system. This false narriative you keep pushing is a great cover for the Clintons. One could almost think that's been its purpose. Another BIG LIE masking a very sad reality that was intentionally created.

Reply to this post

Response to bravenak (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:07 AM

LAS14 (11,468 posts)