Support NeoGAF

[BertramCooper]

I have a really hard time believing that a 75-year-old white male politician who has never had to campaign for minority support in his entire political career is going to figure out how to do it in just a few months and then suddenly surge in minority support to such a degree that he can beat Hillary Clinton.

 

[noshten]

Committing hundreds of thousand of ground troops like Bush is one big difference. Sanders seems a lot like Obama if you actually look at their words and actions. It's basically war is necessary only after every other option.

Obama administration has never strayed away from getting their hands dirty. Covert wars have always been the main foreign policy of the US over the years and there hasn't been much change since the Obama administration took over. Whether it's financing groups like Egyptian Liberation Army, Syrian opposition, Libyan opposition it's all a geopolitical tussle to ensure that no one gets too cozy with the Russians, Chinese or Iranians. Drone strikes and money flowing into fanatical hands - that has been the policy for the Middle East from 1979 until today.

 

[Maledict]

for those who still think that bernie has no chance in general i think before counting him out we should wait for two things:

• The debates
• Early primaries

because if bernie outperforms hillary in the debates (and with his charisma and her lack of charisma this is somewhat likely) we could see him break into gaining support from more minorities (depending on the questions and the answers given) and if he defeats hillary in iowa then that'll be the best chance he has of gaining enough support to win the general. that's not a guarantee that he'll win, just that if he loses iowa it'd take a miracle for him to win. if he takes it, he has a decent chance of getting the nomination.

I know I've said this many times, but it's worth repeating.

Hilary is very good in debates. She was easily the best debater in 2008, and barring one fuck up with the taxi driver license issue she made mince meat of Obama.

Why people continue to think she isn't charismatic or good at debates is beyond me - she basically fought Obama to a draw in 2008, and he's the most gifted politician we've seen in a long long time.

If he wins Iowa it will mean the contest goes on for some time. If he loses Iowa, the contest will be over once Florida is done. But remember that Bernie is not Obama, and Hilary isn't the Hilary from 2008. She isn't going to let hundreds of delegates slip away because they don't understand the party rules this time around.

 

[Crocodile]

I posted this in another thread but it seems like it would be good to post here as well:

Any reason why Sanders' numbers with minorities are so low?

A) Historically low awareness among them. Clinton was not only 1st Lady (which gave her a lot of exposure) but she and Bill have been very active in interacting and mingling with the minority (especially Black) community recently and for decades.

B) Doesn't appear to put race issues at the forefront of his campaign. Even after the encounter with BLM and the update on his campaign site, when pressed on race issues he still tends to pivot back to economics - its clearly what he's comfortable with. He can also get kind of belligerent and exasperated when pressed (can he handle the pressure of a Republican controlled Congress cockblocking him all day, every day?). I remember a moment when one of his staffers apologized to BLM on his behalf and he later vehemently took that apology back himself. Wasn't a good look.

C) He's the former Governor of Vermont, one of the Whitest states in the country with numbers that don't look very good for minorities when you look at employment, imprisonment, etc. Makes a lot of people skeptical of how well he can hear and fight for minority issues (and before you counter, yes a lot of people are aware of the Clinton's "tough on crime" stance in the 90's and weren't fans of how that ended up either)

D) A lot of Bernie fans (even on GAF but especially elsewhere) are awful and either subtly or overtly racist. Often times when critiques come from the direction of minorities, "Standers" try to deflect with "Bernie marched with King 50 years ago, what more do you want!" or "Don't you know what's good for you?! If you don't vote for Bernie you're stupid!", etc. Basically calling themselves allies of minorities but when they speak up they get shouted back down by these people. I'm certainly not saying all Standers are like that and you saw something similar in Hiliary's camp back in 2008 but there are enough of them and they are loud. Whenever I see stuff like that (and others I've spoken to feel the same way) I get REALLY turned off from Bernie.

E) Electability is more important for the minorities. White voters can afford to go "all or nothing" because if Bernie loses the outcome won't be as bad for them. That's why you see some Standers say they would rather vote Republican or not vote at all if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. For Black people and other minorities, a Republican victory (at least from the pool of candidates we have) would be a doomsday scenario. They feel they can't afford to lose at any cost so rather than go all "pie in the sky" they are more pragmatically focused and are more interested in who they think can win and bring some progress than someone who might bring more progress but has a harder chance of winning. Rather aim high and win than aim for the stars and get nothing or slide backwards (again assuming Bernie represents all that is good and pure in politics ).

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There's some major hypocrisy going on here with all of the people using polls to say Bernie doesn't stand a chance against Clinton, while simultaneously claiming he'd have no shot in a general, ignoring all the polls showing Bernie beating every republican.

Either the polls matter or they don't. You can't just say that only the polls you like matter. That goes for people in both camps. For the record, i don't think Bernie is going to beat Clinton, though he has a nonzero chance. I do think he could beat most of the republicans sans Kasich, who would probably even beat Clinton.

Sanders does worse in a number of polls. It's not a big stretch to say Biden or Clinton do better than him across the averages.

Also, speaking of hypocrisy in polls. Where were the threads for these other polls?

Unless those days between 9/3 and 9/8 were Sanders +25 days (only way it would explain the other numbers) then the poll that this thread was so hastily created for should be regarded as the outlier until proven otherwise.

 

[Abinash117]

Well, me bringing up name-recognition (second to only Obama among Democrats and 3rd place isn't even close), and the fact that minorities roll with the D pretty deep would probably be dismissed as irrelevant so I guess I've got nothing.



True. I think he'll handle that well as they proceed through the campaign. His history on such issues is impressive and pretty consistent.



I agree with this post.

Name recognition does play a part , but it is not a end all be all. Many minorities already have a high favorability of her if they didn't trust her she should losing their support a lot like among whites, but is she ? No she is not . Again, its many white progressives projecting. They think he is the best thing since sliced bread and think minorities would support him because of that.

 

[neogaffer1]

I know I've said this many times, but it's worth repeating.

Hilary is very good in debates. She was easily the best debater in 2008, and barring one fuck up with the taxi driver license issue she made mince meat of Obama.

Why people continue to think she isn't charismatic or good at debates is beyond me - she basically fought Obama to a draw in 2008, and he's the most gifted politician we've seen in a long long time.

If he wins Iowa it will mean the contest goes on for some time. If he loses Iowa, the contest will be over once Florida is done. But remember that Bernie is not Obama, and Hilary isn't the Hilary from 2008. She isn't going to let hundreds of delegates slip away because they don't understand the party rules this time around.

to be fair, i haven't watched any of the debates she has been in

but you can understand why i find it hard to believe that she's good at debates when she's a terrible speech giver and never really has any charisma any time i hear her speak publicly.

 

[zero shift]

Because it can and has backfired in the past. Jimmy Carter, the amazing man that he is, ushered in the era of Reagan and Bush. Politics is a game of small steps. We're not ready for someone like Bernie yet, but if we elect Hillary, flip the Supreme Court, and take back the house over the next 8 years we will be in 2024.

Jimmy Carter didn't lose the election because he was too radical, he lost the election because he entered right when a recession was starting.

Again it really shows how shitty our political system is when we can't vote for people we want. Democrats keep saying "settle for the moderate!", when the country has been moving rightward for over 30 years. Democrat or not in office.

 

[JustenP88]

Name recognition does play a part , but it is not a end all be all. Many minorities already have a high favorability of her if they didn't trust her she should losing their support a lot like among whites, but is she ? No she is not . Again, its many white progressives projecting. They think he is the best thing since sliced bread and think minorities would support him because of that.

It's hard to keep up with where this argument is going. I thought we were talking about minority support in the unlikely event that Bernie gets the nomination over Hillary. Is Bernie so bad for minorities that they'd abandon the Democratic vote in the general if Hillary isn't in? I don't think so.

 

[KingK]

Sanders does worse in a number of polls. It's not a big stretch to say Biden or Clinton do better than him across the averages.

I never claimed otherwise. Clinton does, on average, 2-5 points better than Bernie in matchups against republicans, but both of them are still polling ahead of the GOP field. There's a big difference between saying "Clinton would do better in the general" and "Bernie stands no chance and would only win two states against Trump." The former is probably true, the later is utter bullshit not backed up with any data.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Jimmy Carter didn't lose the election because he was too radical, he lost the election because he entered right when a recession was starting.

Again it really shows how shitty our political system is when we can't vote for people we want. Democrats keep saying "settle for the moderate!", when the country has been moving rightward for over 30 years. Democrat or not in office.

Hillary will do the #1 most important thing: make good Supreme Court appointments. "Outsider" lifetime Congressman Sanders can go away. I don't want to see him wither in a national election.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's hard to keep up with where this argument is going. I thought we were talking about minority support in the unlikely event that Bernie gets the nomination over Hillary. Is Bernie so bad for minorities that they'd abandon the Democratic vote in the general if Hillary isn't in? I don't think so.

Yes but this seems to assume he can win the nomination without their support.

 

[teruterubozu]

This hypothetical argument is weird. There's no time to solidify your base once you win the nomination.
After the primaries it's all about winning over independents and undecideds.

 

[Euron]

Soon.

 

[freeofgreed]

E) Electability is more important for the minorities. White voters can afford to go "all or nothing" because if Bernie loses the outcome won't be as bad for them. That's why you see some Standers say they would rather vote Republican or not vote at all if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. For Black people and other minorities, a Republican victory (at least from the pool of candidates we have) would be a doomsday scenario. They feel they can't afford to lose at any cost so rather than go all "pie in the sky" they are more pragmatically focused and are more interested in who they think can win and bring some progress than someone who might bring more progress but has a harder chance of winning. Rather aim high and win than aim for the stars and get nothing or slide backwards (again assuming Bernie represents all that is good and pure in politics ).

Exactly. This cannot be repeated enough. This is also the reason why a lot of Sanders' white supporters don't understand why he lacks minority support. For a lot of his white supporters if a GOP candidate wins, its more of an ideological loss more than anything and their lives won't be impacted as much. But for minorities

Spoiler

and women and LGBTQ for that matter

if a GOP candidate wins our lives will be directly impacted. Which is why a lot of minorities prefer to go with the safer option in Clinton that the more riskier one with Bernie (even if some do prefer his policies over Clinton).

 

[noshten]

Hillary will do the #1 most important thing: make good Supreme Court appointments. "Outsider" lifetime Congressman Sanders can go away. I don't want to see him wither in a national election.

How awfully democratic of you

 

[JustenP88]

Yes but this seems to assume he can win the nomination without their support.

I'm not saying he can, just that concern about him being unelectable in the general due to lack of minority support shouldn't be a valid reason to worry about voting for him in the primary.

 

[anaron]

I know I've said this many times, but it's worth repeating.

Hilary is very good in debates. She was easily the best debater in 2008, and barring one fuck up with the taxi driver license issue she made mince meat of Obama.

Why people continue to think she isn't charismatic or good at debates is beyond me - she basically fought Obama to a draw in 2008, and he's the most gifted politician we've seen in a long long time.

If he wins Iowa it will mean the contest goes on for some time. If he loses Iowa, the contest will be over once Florida is done. But remember that Bernie is not Obama, and Hilary isn't the Hilary from 2008. She isn't going to let hundreds of delegates slip away because they don't understand the party rules this time around.

totally. I'm not sure when that entered the conversation but she's always been pretty notably fiery as hell when she needs to be.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I have a really hard time believing that a 75-year-old white male politician who has never had to campaign for minority support in his entire political career is going to figure out how to do it in just a few months and then suddenly surge in minority support to such a degree that he can beat Hillary Clinton.

Yep, Vermont is 95% white. Reaching out to minority voters is something he's never had to do before.

 

[zero shift]

Hillary will do the #1 most important thing: make good Supreme Court appointments. "Outsider" lifetime Congressman Sanders can go away. I don't want to see him wither in a national election.

What's wrong with Sanders supreme court appointments?

 

[Abinash117]

It's hard to keep up with where this argument is going. I thought we were talking about minority support in the unlikely event that Bernie gets the nomination over Hillary. Is Bernie so bad for minorities that they'd abandon the Democratic vote in the general if Hillary isn't in? I don't think so.

I wasn't even talking about the general my main comment was to some one else think that Bernie having to platform for minorities means anything.

 

[neogaffer1]

Jimmy Carter didn't lose the election because he was too radical, he lost the election because he entered right when a recession was starting.

Again it really shows how shitty our political system is when we can't vote for people we want. Democrats keep saying "settle for the moderate!", when the country has been moving rightward for over 30 years. Democrat or not in office.

and because iran fucked him over

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

What's wrong with Sanders supreme court appointments?

Nothing, it's just that people are very concerned that he will falter in the general election.

For people who aren't straight while males this outcome is very consequential. So they would rather hedge their bet than face a government in full Republican control.

 

[Fox318]

Bernie would never be able to win a national campaign and he would never be able to control the caucuses of the democratic party.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Hillary supporters just love being wrong don't they?

Same exact shit vs. Obama, "oh no we will lose if we run Obama!" Gotta go with the "safe" candidate - OR ELSE!

Stop being pussies.

Now I see the defense is "leading in the national polls!"

for how long?

Not much longer.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Hillary supporters just love being wrong don't they?

Same exact shit vs. Obama, "oh no we will lose if we run Obama!" Gotta go with the "safe" candidate - OR ELSE!

Stop being pussies.

Obama was an acceptable alternative to Hillary.

POP POLI GAF

I can't resist Ivysaur. Please don't solarbeam me

 

[ivysaur12]

POP POLI GAF

 

[JustenP88]

Hillary supporters just love being wrong don't they?

Same exact shit vs. Obama, "oh no we will lose if we run Obama!" Gotta go with the "safe" candidate - OR ELSE!

Stop being pussies.

Bernie 2016: Don't be a pussy

Yeah, that's a winning campaign slogan.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Obama was an acceptable alternative to Hillary.

A black Kenyan Muslim? LOL you have a short memory if you have forgotten the fear mongering surrounding obamas rise.

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

In a hypothetical situation where Bernie beats Hillary in the primary, I am not convinced he would have significant problems with the minority vote. Black voter turnout will probably fall a few points regardless of who wins the nomination, as the Obama factor is gone. Meanwhile, the Republicans are doing everything they can to ensure they lose every Latino voter in the country.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Sanders isn't going to connect or outperform Clinton with Black Democrats. That is why the "Obama did it in 2008..." analogy falls apart. We aren't talking about a small part of the base here, it is something he would have to work on.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hillary supporters just love being wrong don't they?

Same exact shit vs. Obama, "oh no we will lose if we run Obama!" Gotta go with the "safe" candidate - OR ELSE!

Stop being pussies.

Now I see the defense is "leading in the national polls!"

for how long?

Not much longer.

Calling people pussies now? That's just pathetic. Why are you so upset? Sanders is going to win for sure now. Shouldn't even be worried about or thinking about Hilldawg anymore.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Jimmy Carter didn't lose the election because he was too radical, he lost the election because he entered right when a recession was starting.

Again it really shows how shitty our political system is when we can't vote for people we want. Democrats keep saying "settle for the moderate!", when the country has been moving rightward for over 30 years. Democrat or not in office.

The country has been moving rightward because progressives focus too much on national politics. In order for our national politics to moderate and start moving to the left things have to change on the local level first. Bernie won't be able to accomplish a damn thing with our current Congress. Changing that equation is going to take time and will necessitate doing everything we can to bring out the youth and minority vote for every election, whether it's local or national.

I don't think people understand the extent to which gerrymandering has screwed up elections in this country. It's not something that can just be fixed by electing a left learning President. The President is not a dictator; outside of foreign policy, judicial appointments, directing the Justice Department on what cases to prosecute, and the veto pen the President does not have much power. We've been getting our asses handed to us legislatively and that is where we need to focus on electing more people like Bernie. Pushing to elect him to the Presidency is putting the cart before the wagon.

If we want lasting progressive change at the national level we have to build up local civic engagement first.

 

[Maledict]

Hillary supporters just love being wrong don't they?

Same exact shit vs. Obama, "oh no we will lose if we run Obama!" Gotta go with the "safe" candidate - OR ELSE!

Stop being pussies.

Now I see the defense is "leading in the national polls!"

for how long?

Not much longer.

A huge amount of the people now supporting Hilary *were* Obama supporters last time around.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

You and I both know how this will play out. Hope and enthusiasm fades as soon as the FIRST sign of gridlock appears. Obama had more enthusiasm than Sanders will likely ever have. Sanders won't even be able to count on all Democrats to follow his policies just like Obama struggled with blue dogs. Just like some Democrats now oppose the Iran deal.

Neither of us knows how this will play out. We can look at the past and make predictions, but that's it. Sanders is fully aware that he won't be able to accomplish his goals without the continued support of a massive movement, and he's candidly expressed that. How can he motivate people to participate in politics beyond presidential elections? We'll see. But when I think about Black Lives Matter, and climate change, and our fucked up bridges and highways, and our embarrassing healthcare system, and the insane cost of colleges, I feel compelled to fight. If Bernie can get everyone to continue focusing on these immediate problems then I think other people will feel similarly.

 

[Maledict]

to be fair, i haven't watched any of the debates she has been in

but you can understand why i find it hard to believe that she's good at debates when she's a terrible speech giver and never really has any charisma any time i hear her speak publicly.

That's because a substantial amount of Sanders supporters have never seen Hilary campaign. It was 8 years ago, and (no insult intended) most were in their teens at the time and didn't pay much attention beyond how utterly amazing Obama was as a candidate and the message he brought.

Hilary was a *formidable* campaigner, who this time around has most of Obama's old team behind her. She can give fantastic speeches - see her 2008 Democratic Convention speech for example, or the speech she gave when conceeding to Obama.

She just wasn't Obama.

 

[zero shift]

The country has been moving rightward because progressives focus too much on national politics. In order for our national politics to moderate and start moving to the left things have to change on the local level first. Bernie won't be able to accomplish a damn thing with our current Congress. Changing that equation is going to take time and will necessitate doing everything we can to bring out the youth and minority vote for every election, whether it's local or national.

I don't think people understand the extent to which gerrymandering has screwed up elections in this country. It's not something that can just be fixed by electing a left learning President. The President is not a dictator; outside of foreign policy, judicial appointments, directing the Justice Department on what cases to prosecute, and the veto pen the President does not have much power. We've been getting our asses handed to us legislatively and that is where we need to focus on electing more people like Bernie. Pushing to elect him to the Presidency is putting the cart before the wagon.

If we want lasting progressive change at the national level we have to build up local civic engagement first.

What does that have to do with Hilary Clinton being a better choice than Bernie Sanders? Why not do both national and local engagement?

 

[dehydratedbabies]

The country has been moving rightward because progressives focus too much on national politics. In order for our national politics to moderate and start moving to the left things have to change on the local level first. Bernie won't be able to accomplish a damn thing with our current Congress. Changing that equation is going to take time and will necessitate doing everything we can to bring out the youth and minority vote for every election, whether it's local or national.

I don't think people understand the extent to which gerrymandering has screwed up elections in this country. It's not something that can just be fixed by electing a left learning President. The President is not a dictator; outside of foreign policy, judicial appointments, directing the Justice Department on what cases to prosecute, and the veto pen the President does not have much power. We've been getting our asses handed to us legislatively and that is where we need to focus on electing more people like Bernie. Pushing to elect him to the Presidency is putting the cart before the wagon.

If we want lasting progressive change at the national level we have to build up local civic engagement first.

Bernie agrees wholeheartedly.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Calling people pussies now? That's just pathetic. Why are you so upset? Sanders is going to win for sure now. Shouldn't even be worried about or thinking about Hilldawg anymore.

Who is upset? You constantly being proven wrong or my preferred candidate gaining ground every day?

Sanders isn't going to connect or outperform Clinton with Black Democrats. That is why the "Obama did it in 2008..." analogy falls apart. We aren't talking about a small part of the base here, it is something he would have to work on.

??? They are tiny in the grand scheme of things and are going vote D anyway.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Who is upset? You constantly being proven wrong or my preferred candidate gaining ground every day?

I'm not the one calling people pussies. So...

I'm also not the one demeaning the value of minority voters by saying they're tiny in the grand scheme and their vote should be taken for granted because they vote D anyways. Seems like you got a lot of issues to work out, in my opinion.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Not as many as Hillary Clinton

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Not as many as Hillary Clinton

The ironic thing about this chart, which I'm sure you missed, is that Sanders is in greater jeopardy from Biden right now than Clinton is from either of them. Mathematically speaking of course.

 

[LegendofJoe]

What does that have to do with Hilary Clinton being a better choice than Bernie Sanders? Why not do both national and local engagement?

Hillary is the better choice to get things done at the national level. She has more experience at that level, she knows how to play the game on both the electoral and policy stage better than anyone running. Bernie winning the Presidency and failing to accomplish anything he set out to do will diminish the passion of young progressives and lead to more cynicism similar to what happened in 2010 with Obama. And that's assuming that Hillary and Sanders both stand a roughly equal chance of defeating whoever the Republican candidate ends up being, which I definitely don't agree with.

In a vacuum I'd take Bernie 10 times of out 10, but being a pragmatist I'm going with Hillary.

 

[OceanBlue]

??? They are tiny in the grand scheme of things and are going vote D anyway.

Lol is this what conservative pundits talk about when they say Democrats take minorities for granted?

Speaking of which, does Sanders poll better than Jeb on Hispanics? Genuinely curious.

 

[dramatis]

There is only one ANTI WAR candidate in the field and his name is Bernie Sanders.

Not that it's much of a pity that people forget about Rand Paul, but he is another anti-war candidate.

C) He's the former Governor of Vermont, one of the Whitest states in the country with numbers that don't look very good for minorities when you look at employment, imprisonment, etc. Makes a lot of people skeptical of how well he can hear and fight for minority issues (and before you counter, yes a lot of people are aware of the Clinton's "tough on crime" stance in the 90's and weren't fans of how that ended up either)

Correction here, Bernie was a mayor in, then a house representative from, and now senator from Vermont. He was never governor.

Who is upset? You constantly being proven wrong or my preferred candidate gaining ground every day?

??? They are tiny in the grand scheme of things and are going vote D anyway.

You're evaluating general election demographics instead of primary demographics. In 2008, Obama won using a coalition of young voters, black voters, and other demographics. The white vote favored Hillary, and yet she lost.

If you're going to use charts and try to sound like you know things, you might have to study up first.

 

[DR2K]

I think they're both great candidates.

 

[bishoptl]

??? They are tiny in the grand scheme of things and are going vote D anyway.

Hilldawg had the white vote sewn up last go-round and lost. And you wonder why I have no patience with Sanders supporters as a rule.

I can't wait until the primaries are over and this crap falls off my timeline.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

I think they're both great candidates.

GET OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ErasureAcer]

I posted this in another thread but it seems like it would be good to post here as well:



A) Historically low awareness among them. Clinton was not only 1st Lady (which gave her a lot of exposure) but she and Bill have been very active in interacting and mingling with the minority (especially Black) community recently and for decades.

B) Doesn't appear to put race issues at the forefront of his campaign. Even after the encounter with BLM and the update on his campaign site, when pressed on race issues he still tends to pivot back to economics - its clearly what he's comfortable with. He can also get kind of belligerent and exasperated when pressed (can he handle the pressure of a Republican controlled Congress cockblocking him all day, every day?). I remember a moment when one of his staffers apologized to BLM on his behalf and he later vehemently took that apology back himself. Wasn't a good look.

C) He's the former Governor of Vermont, one of the Whitest states in the country with numbers that don't look very good for minorities when you look at employment, imprisonment, etc. Makes a lot of people skeptical of how well he can hear and fight for minority issues (and before you counter, yes a lot of people are aware of the Clinton's "tough on crime" stance in the 90's and weren't fans of how that ended up either)

D) A lot of Bernie fans (even on GAF but especially elsewhere) are awful and either subtly or overtly racist. Often times when critiques come from the direction of minorities, "Standers" try to deflect with "Bernie marched with King 50 years ago, what more do you want!" or "Don't you know what's good for you?! If you don't vote for Bernie you're stupid!", etc. Basically calling themselves allies of minorities but when they speak up they get shouted back down by these people. I'm certainly not saying all Standers are like that and you saw something similar in Hiliary's camp back in 2008 but there are enough of them and they are loud. Whenever I see stuff like that (and others I've spoken to feel the same way) I get REALLY turned off from Bernie.

E) Electability is more important for the minorities. White voters can afford to go "all or nothing" because if Bernie loses the outcome won't be as bad for them. That's why you see some Standers say they would rather vote Republican or not vote at all if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. For Black people and other minorities, a Republican victory (at least from the pool of candidates we have) would be a doomsday scenario. They feel they can't afford to lose at any cost so rather than go all "pie in the sky" they are more pragmatically focused and are more interested in who they think can win and bring some progress than someone who might bring more progress but has a harder chance of winning. Rather aim high and win than aim for the stars and get nothing or slide backwards (again assuming Bernie represents all that is good and pure in politics ).

Stopped reading here because you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Not that it's much of a pity that people forget about Rand Paul, but he is another anti-war candidate.


Correction here, Bernie was a mayor in, then a house representative from, and now senator from Vermont. He was never governor.


You're evaluating general election demographics instead of primary demographics. In 2008, Obama won using a coalition of young voters, black voters, and other demographics. The white vote favored Hillary, and yet she lost.

If you're going to use charts and try to sound like you know things, you might have to study up first.

lol.

Primary voter turnout is pathetic in the 1st place. Without Obama on the ticket minority primary turnout is going to be slim to none.

Hilldawg had the white vote sewn up last go-round and lost. And you wonder why I have no patience with Sanders supporters as a rule.

I can't wait until the primaries are over and this crap falls off my timeline.

She didn't have my white vote.

Obama won the white vote in several states in the primary.