Senator Sanders' campaign holds a lesson for future political movements: National. Liberal. White. Pick two. This has taken a while to sink in. Per @docrocktex26, many people assumed the Obama coalition was temporary...
https://storify.com/docrocktex26/when-racism-gets-in-socialism
...and that after Obama, a Democrat could still win with mostly white voters. This mistake was made easier by the electoral calendar. Sanders did well in IA (5th whitest state), leaving him only 2 delegates behind. Then he won NH (4th whitest) and was up by 4. (Shoutout to @RBStalin, the only person I know adequately outraged by lily-white First In The Nation elections.) Then Nevada, nearly a tie. Then South Carolina. For all the twists & turns since, SC was the end of the tie. Sanders down by 26. Never ahead again. Never close.
The Sanders' camp had always known they'd have a problem with black voters, but 6-1 against? That wasn't a loss. It was a rebuke. The broad rejection of Sanders by a core (_the_ core) Democratic constituency has caused the campaign some distress, and a hunt for answers. Sanders talked about doing better w/black voters outside the "Deep South", but that meant 2-1 against, at best. It cost him MO, IL, and OH. Sanders says his dismissal of the South rests on the fact that those voters are the most conservative. But that 'fact' isn't one. Idaho & Wyoming are far more conservative than Georgia & Texas. Virginia & Florida have been Blue since '08. Even if only Blue states counted, Sanders would still be behind. The only region whose disappearance would leave him ahead is...the South. Sanders gets this. Given a chance to complain about conservative or Red states, he's instead repeated his dismissal of Southern Democrats.
The only way he'd be leading is if black Democrats in populous Blue states mattered less than white Democrats in sparse Red ones. Southern Democrats--of whom black voters have the highest turnout--are essential. They gave us Obama, twice, via Virginia and Florida wins. Sanders' mistake was a common one: Believing he could get the white working class to vote Democrat again. This is the Thomas Frank version of history, where Democrats abandoned their natural constituencies, including white blue-collar workers. But the Democrats didn't abandon whites in the working class. Whites abandoned the Democrats. The Civil Rights Act triggered their exodus. The most vitriolic departed in '64, then '68 for Wallace's segregationist vision. Finally, the 'Reagan Democrats' abandoned Carter in '80.
For half a century, white voters have had a choice between a party offering economic help but no racial flattery, or flattery but no help. And in every election since 1964, a majority of whites opted for the party telling them white people are special, but minimum wage is a trap The idea of white workers returning to the fold if Democrats talk to them about economics is a persistent fantasy.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...dential-politics-grossman-20160215-story.html
Even now, the biggest disagreement in policy preferences between working class whites & Dems remains 'Aid to Blacks'
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/29/the..._its_really_allergic_to_voting_for_democrats/
Those voters are not coming back. 1980 was a long time ago. 'Reagan Democrats' are just Republicans.
http://pcl.stanford.edu/research/2012/iyengar-poq-affect-not-ideology.pdf
Meanwhile, Sanders' outreach to black voters mostly failed. 'Killer' Mike Render was supposed to persuade...who exactly? Church ladies? And Cornel West? There is not another African-American intellectual more associated with disdain for President Obama than he is. If you wanted to persuade black voters who are proud of Obama that they should vote Sanders, Dr. West is the *last* person you'd choose. West & Render didn't convince black voters to choose Sanders, but they did convince progressive whites not to worry about black support.
Misplaced faith in Sanders' black surrogates kept many white supporters from understanding his electoral weakness outside white districts. This led to much bafflement, especially among young progressives. How could black citizens *not* want the revolution Sanders is selling? Here's how: Sanders voters, mostly white, are broadly disappointed with Obama. Black voters do not share that sentiment. (To put it mildly.) All that 'Deep South' theorizing runs aground on this fact: black citizens approve of the President, and want a continuation of his policies Black citizens are twice as likely to say 'the country is headed in the right direction' as whites are.
http://www.theharrispoll.com/politics/Economic-Pessimism-at-its-Highest-Point-This-Year.html
Asked if they expect their family finances to improve or worsen in the next 6 months, only 20% of whites say Improve. 60% of blacks do. It's almost as if black citizens have a different experience of life in America than whites.
Sanders' assertion that black voters would be persuaded "once they get to know me" was obtuse and futile, and worse, it was ethically weak. White liberals should be *really wary* about holding any conviction that requires us to close our ears when black people are talking. If it was still the 20C, targeting mostly white voters might have been a winning strategy, as the loss of those voters was such a blow. White abandonment, especially by Southerners, cost the Democratic party 5 out of the 6 presidential elections between 1968 and 1988. But it's not the 20C any more, and the Democrats have figured out how to win elections, even with 60% of whites consistently against them. The Democrats have now won the popular vote 5 times in the 6 elections since 1992. (Gore got more votes than Bush in 2000.) The glory of the Democratic party in 2016 is that it looks like America ca. 2046. They've figured out how run in the country we're becoming. Imagining a mostly-white path to the Democratic nomination was never a good idea. Let's hope we're witnessing the last time anyone tries it.
