Which is why Trump is so popular. He gives them the racism, 2nd amendment, etc stuff they want and says he'll put the screws to the rich too.
Politico: How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats Racial Rift
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Which is why Trump is so popular. He gives them the racism, 2nd amendment, etc stuff they want and says he'll put the screws to the rich too.
The article goes over this, so no, she is not being painted as a hero.
Another part of the rift is the whole political alignment of Blacks vs white liberals. Due to GOP racism, Blacks have mostly been shoved into the Democratic party regardless of political belief - meaning on a lot of issues white liberals are going to be to the left of black Democrats. Sanders might simply be too far left.
teruterubozu
Member
Ah ok, I guess I got carried away with the clickbait-y Politico title.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I think its also important to notice that race relations made huge progress with Obama and the chance of having a liberal majority on the SC and Hillary Clinton as president, who is going to continue on Obamas path, is not a bad outlook for minorities.
Sanders on the other hand looks like a gamble, of course what he wants would be good for minorities, but there are a lot more "ifs" than with Clinton. Add to that an insufferable "fanbase" and its no wonder that many people shyed away from Sanders.
You know, white people know the problems of minorities in theory, minorities actually know them first hand. White people can afford way more idealism in that matter while the people actually affected should stick with pragmatism.
So minorities voting for Clintons pragmatic plan instead of Sanders' diffuse idealistic plan makes a lot of sense to me. I wouldn't call that low information or voting against ones interests.
Republicans however are usually white middle class who vote against their own interest because Fox News told them to. They are getting lured in with conservative stances on social issues and religion and go on giving their vote to people who exploit them.
Thats what I call low infomation.
That said, I think that Clinton, like Obama, will work on some of the symptoms, but not fix the underlying problems. But at some point the US will need a president who will tackle the underlying problems. Bernie just wasn't that candidate. He recognized the problems, but his solutions wouldn't have worked, he probably would have made things worse. Basically what I wrote here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=206472567&postcount=344
jakonovski
Member
You make really good points. It's clear that Bernie didn't have what it takes. But as you say it's a tragedy that nobody picked up on the direction he had, but instead he became the whipping boy for the purpose rejecting leftism even harder than before.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Well, I hope Clinton will use a SC majority to overturn citizens united and make bribery actually illegal.
I think Obama would have done it if he had the chance.
Clintons SC pick will be a first sign of things to come. Hopefully she'll pick someone way more liberal than Merrick Garland. Would be very useful and a nice slap in the face for republicans.
It would also be great if Sanders started to work with Clinton already, he could play a role in her presidency. Elizabath Warren for example realised that Bernie doesn't have a chance anymore and endorsed Clinton, even though she definitely would have preferred Sanders.
I really like Elizabeth Warren, I hope Clinton will have an important role for her.
She's said as much. (of course, she needs to appoint, and then we need to get a case that will overturn it in front of the supreme court)
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
People scepticism is understandable, though, since she is one of the people who benefitted the most off of Citizens United.
We'll see if "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." will apply here.
excelsiorlef
Member
Citizens United was a case that came out of a literal propaganda film against Clinton.
nelsonroyale
Member
Do anybody have the voting tendency of differing ethnic minority groups in relation to varying levels of education?
In the UK, there is also a trend for ethnic minority groups to vote relatively conservatively... If you think it is as simple as informed pragmatism...well, it often isn't...
In the UK, there is also a trend for ethnic minority groups to vote relatively conservatively... If you think it is as simple as informed pragmatism...well, it often isn't...
Crimson_Gold
Member
. . .
We aren't educated enough to make the right choices. If only we had gone to college and learned how to make the right choices and what the right choices were.
I can't believe this is still being said. He lost because his message didn't resonate with many minorities. Then his supporters further pushed minorities away with this type of rhetoric. How about we get a study on what happens when people treat minorities like people vs when they are treated like babies in need of guidance from benevolent white liberals. I can't wait to see the results
.....
You're fucking clueless
I was actually going to let this go, but what statistics are you basing you assumption of voting patterns on?
source
source
I can't for the life of me find a single source suggesting that ethnic minorities are voting "relatively conservatively", even if the data suggests that the Tories won a larger share of the minority vote in 2015 than previously.
What the data does suggest however is that you're talking out of your arse.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Citizens United stands synonymous for a couple of cases reaching back till the 70s.
The fact that politicians are allowed to receive donations and the fact that not only citizens but also corporations are allowed to make these donations, thats something no other western democracy has, it corrupts the entire system and its the reason why the US is technically an oligarchy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html
This is the single most important issue in the US right now.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
This is being said about any group that is having issue with how government systems are working. What you just said there has been used to condemn, belittle or reduce so many angry groups. Because they are loud and aggressive.
But is that a que call to not sit down and listen? Think back on the political movements, uprisings that have had middle Americans "I like their message, but I don't support the way they are going about it". It's such a tired excuse to keep things the way they are.
I'm not saying that I don't think it's also annoying. We have Bernie Supporters here too, and I live on the other side of the earth. But I recognize anti-establishment politics for what it is; A desire for change, even if the gift wrapper it is packaged in is not pleasant or very presentable.
I really hope so too, but very rarely have politicians in a power grab killed those means of power and then giving it up for a more fair process. And this is my concern with Clinton. I don't want to be pessimistic ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxuwazaXOMg ). Being naiive can be a beautiful thing; Believing the best in people and opening up, giving it a shot. It's bound for progress.
But that progress is negated dangerously by ill intended individuals (like republicans) who doesn't give a fuck about anyone from outside their own peripheral vision. In fact, I'd say that this has always been a corner fearmongering stone that Clinton supporters has had to dig with Sanders supporters. Don't vote for Sanders because a tax-raising, atheist socialist will never with the election and any poll that shows otherwise is unimportant. It's almost like a mantra that has been repeated and repeated over and over. And it's always like this. People are afraid of change, and they like to cherry pick through history going from Lang to Nader and make up their own little confirmation biased cooking pot of this is what will happen.
Sanders would beat Trump. There is no shadow of doubt about that. People will actively vote against Trump for what he has said about minorities, women plus everything he stands for. It's a fallacy that Sanders wouldn't be able to handle it. He has had pedophile ads run against him in vermont. Whatever they'll dig up on him in attack ads will be lost in the impossible ether of all the shit that circumvents Trump.
That doesn't mean Sanders deserve to be the nominee. I agree with most people here that his campaign was run ineffectively and it sold him short. "Do you know the stand of living in luxenbourg" Sanders was a lot more effective than "HILLARY NAFTA JAWBBS" Sanders. I blame campaign strategy on that. It's fine that Sanders lost, I just think it's a shame that voters get into this idea that Sanders was to radical, his ideas wasn't realistic or he wouldn't be able to get shit done.
You're talking two contradictions here. Obama achieved less when he naively thought that he could reason with the republicans, and as a result Obama didn't get as much passed in his first term as he second, when he changed strategy and started working with governors, mayors and trying to get things past around congress. There are many ways you can get legislation influenced, and Obama giving no fucks in his second term showed a stronger Obama.
You cannot reason with people who are so far out in the fringes as the republicans. Working with them is poisoning the well. They represent a grotesque capitalistic nightmare.
Ideological purity does not necessarily lead to stagnation. That is false. And Sanders is not ideological pure. We've seen it on his stances like guns.
What leads to stagnation is two-party politic gridlock and gerrymandering and career politicians who are corruptable by corporate money and the desire to keep their seat. And corruption surplants corruption, which is why countries with a high level of corruption has a tremendously difficult time ever reducing corruption.
political stagnation in this manner was a major problem even going back to the roman era, where senators would use gerrymandering to keep other senators bills from being passed out of infighting. And in that era too, popularii politicians would emerge who would be men of the people who would fight for immigrants rights to be roman citizens, for allowing more of the wealth to pass to the common man, and for the richest in the city states to pay their fair share of the profits for things like corn and imported trade goods.
Even the arguments were similar. flipflopping was a popular term. Just promise what was the will of the people, and see them vote for you. Bait them into voting for you.
People have always been resistent to these sort of legislative measures that usurp the wealth of the rich and tries to give it to the people. It has played itself endless throughout history, and the arguments are almost always the same.
Those who want to keep the system and ask for the populace to get the best out of the foundation, versus those who are so fed up with the system that they want reform.
America needs and deserves many of Sanders proposals. It just doesn't have the political will. It doesn't have that, because Americans are not different from anyone else in that they do not want to do something that is uncomfortable in the short term for the good of the long term. No president wants to be the one who has to sow the seeds that will not come into fruition for decades, or prevent a calamity or crisis from happening. So the shit gets past on to the next administration, and so the bullshit grows. It is why the inequality gap has gotten so bad. It's why campaign spending has gone so out of hand. It's why presidential campaigns have become such a circus show.
We seem almost cursed to only want to deal with these problems when shit affects us directly. Nobody has time to protest the vietnam when it is not people you know or care about who does the dying. Nobody has time or empathy enough to spend a majority of their time of protesting failed foreign policies when living under drones is not something you have to be content with.
I think you have to remember that Sanders is known as a compromiser, and as someone who passed a lot of amendments. It's not fair to downplay those achievements, given that so many important clauses get added, removed and altered even as laws gets drafted. It's not just a yardstick Clintonites think is valid.
In a sense I think Sanders has been good at compromising.
I also think nearly everyone is a low-information voter. If you're not a politician or do politics for a living, you probably don't have the information needed.
Sanders never called black people low-information voters, he indicated that a lot of people don't know fuck about socialism, particularly not in the deep south. That is not equating to the idea that it is wise to bring up a #NOTALLSOUTHERNES. Most everyone here on gaf is a low information voter, and it's fair to say that we only react and respond to what we think and know to be true. Not that we actually know, which is why our way of looking at things differ so much.
Some see Nevada as a roadcall to Violence and proving that Sanders is worse than Cruz as it has been proposed by more than a few people, and others see it as a old man frustrated with a pathetic political process that almost culminated in someone throwing a chair. We see what we want to see, and then everyone can die on the sword they want to die on.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
This is exactly why I couldn't be a Bernie supporter. I knew that all the things he wanted to do, would not have gone anywhere in the 4 years he's allotted including the fact that many people do not in primaries in which we will still live those 4 years with a very conservative congress. He was a pipe dream and hearing that I don't know what's best for me was just the tipping point.
I want to vote for someone who's upfront about the reality we live in, even if its a hard pill to swallow, and that's why I loved Obama so much. He made sense. Bernie on the other hand is saying all these things that are just really pretty much impossible to be changed in 4 years and his experience in congress is dodgy at best.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
But mainly because of attidudes like yours.
Its not that he promises something that can't be done, it just that to many people believe that too many people don't believe in the message, which results in too many people not believing.
But as I said before, its probably good that it went this way because I think Sanders would've been a desaster.
Is there? Like not just a general trend of voting conservative in the country but specifically minorities?
No. There is not some magical silent 51% majority in favor of radical changes in policy. This is the delusion that leads Bernie to view everything as him being "cheated" - he thinks that's the only explanation for why he loses.
In reality, people just don't agree with him, and his ideas can't get the 51% support they need outside of monolithic Vermont hippie-land, even in a Democratic primary.
RowdyReverb
Member
The GOP really is just an amalgam of conservative opinions on single issues. It seems like most conservatives I talk to support the GOP for 1-2 reasons that are important to them, with Christian values usually at the forefront.
I think a lot of people don't understand that and get frustrated trying to figure out why people would support a perceived bigot. When it comes to defending their religion, many people willing to sacrifice on a number of other issues, even those that impact their financial future.
thezerofire
Banned
I'd like to single this part out, since Sanders is absolutely not known as a compromiser. Anyone who remotely disagreed with him this cycle was "part of the establishment" or bought and sold.
And it's not new, from Barney Frank in 1991
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nst-bernie-sanders-according-to-barney-frank/
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
If people don't know that voting in the presidential primaries is not the only way to get laws passed for them or have someone in office to represent their beliefs, then unfortunately, his 4 years would be wasted on pushbacks from those who do understand how our political system works.
He would have been a disaster and I just didn't believe his promises. I felt like he wasn't being 100% about what it would take to enact these things that he promised and I didn't feel that some of his supporters actually cared about how we as blacks do feel about that. It was just dumb of us to not get on the wave and the only reason that was really put out there was because Hillary is a "liar". That tells me nothing..
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Depends on the topic. But about 80% of americans support an overturn of Citizens United.
It might sound populistic, but it isn't, if you ask americans whether they'd prefer an oligarchy or democracy, don't you think a majority would choose democracy?
But I agree that european style social democracy isn't as popular in the US as it should be. Reason is probably that most people think that they will some day make it, even though they live in a system thats designed to prevent that.
The rich use the concept of the american dream to keep the middle class from complaining to much while they're beeing exploited.
As someone said before, its a sign of collective low information.
Partially founded in the denial that northern europe has the better system, partially founded in the myth of american exceptionalism "this won't work in the US"...
The US deserves social democracy. Sanders wasn't the right candidate to bring it. I don't think any single candidate will be able to. A robust social democratic movement needs to form within the democratic party, so another 4 or 8 years of waiting probably aren't that bad.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Exactly. Neither his free education nor his universal healthcare plans would have worked.
Unfortunately nobody, neither Clinton, nor the media, exposed the flaws in his plans. (because they're just as clueless about social democracy)
Sanders following is another topic, but the fact that a lot of Ron Paul people followed Sanders shows that they had no idea what Sanders stood for. Paul and Sanders have nothing in common, yet they appealed to similar audiences. Shows that these audiences were clueless.
You mean anyone that criticized Bernie got called corrupt, voting against their best intreasts etc.
People spun Bernie horrible interview performances as newspaper hit pieces.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
No, I just mean that nobody exposed the flaws in Sanders plans, just as I said.
His education plan wouldn't have worked because free college education requires a complete overhaul of the highschool system. Sanders didn't account for that. But nobody asked him about this fundamental flaw, because nobody knows what it takes to make college education free and nobody took the time to look what european countries did to make it work(not even Sanders himself).
His univeral healthcare plan wouldn't have worked because a single payer system is absolutely unfit for the type of economy the US has. A multi payer system would have been the much better solution. But nobody ever asked Sanders why he chose a single payer system over a multi payer system.
This is what I mean when I say the US isn't ready for european style social democracy. Nobody in the US, not polticians, not media, not even economists know much about a system like this and how it would work.
Sanders thought it would be easy to just copy countries like Norway, but his approach was amateurish to say the least.
It's the opposite actually, there was a write up about how he's seen as not liberal enough. He only really talked about racial inequality when he was forced to by blm, and he never went full in like Hillary.
There is the case of Republican Thad Cochran in Mississippi who was forced into a runoff with a foaming at the mouth Tea Party ideologue in a primary. So he campaigned in the Black community and basically said "we don't agree on a lot but let's face it, none of us want that Tea Party guy". And Blacks crossed party lines to put Cochran back in the Senate. Seems tresting minorities as adults can work.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Given that the majority of dems are moderates, it's not surprising that they don't agree with the socialist. Hench the "purity test bullshit" fallacy that Hillary supporters like to tout to escape any contraption on that the US democratic party should go further to the left.
Secondly, Bernie being a sore loser and lashing out doesn't mean that a lot of people don't want reform on guns, prisons, health care, education and so on. It's just that people are apathetic, dont want to grapple with the consequences and generally lash out at big changes. It's touting two opposite things talking a big game about that "something needs to be done" but then vote against it when there are talks about needed tax raises or a gas tax. People want their cake and eat it too.
I know the quote, and I don't disagree that the longest serving independent in US history is a lone wolf, but there are several paths and ways to look at compromise. He helped surplant a massive Veterans bill with the republicans in compromise when they couldn't come to compromise. It's not a all or nothing echelon, though you don't have to be very liberal to see that there are many terms where there is no reasoning or compromises with people who border on the psychotic like we're seeing from some of the republicans. It's so far off course in anti science, anti immigration, and inflammatory that there is nothing worth value compromising over, as Obama found out in the last few years, and thankfully the republicans are now suffering from it.
How would the HS systems have had to change? Curious what you mean by that.
ersocaster
Member
It's disheartening to see this primary unfold. I know this one person who has been a bit of a champion for social issues. His wife was bisexual, his best friend is a black trans. Yet he claims that if Bernie doesn't win, he'd vote for Trump. And I'm left here wondering what would possess someone to do such a thing?
It's unreal the lengths some people will go to in order to get their way, even stomping on more important issues in the process.
It's unreal the lengths some people will go to in order to get their way, even stomping on more important issues in the process.
BlastProcessing
Member
He felt needed the win in Minnesota more, at least in the short term. He just got licked and needed to regain momentum or else he wasn't even going to make it to New Jersey or Cali.
He is not the first politician who, when cornered, doubled down on his existing base at the expense of building broad support.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Why is that true? If I am reading what you wrote right, you are saying that it would be bad to have more than 35% of college educated people?
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Compromise is essential. Who gets to have their own way? No one.
Not compromising is a myth. Even dictators have to consider other people. North Korea is dependant on China. No man escapes compromise.
jakonovski
Member
Plumbers, bus drivers, cleaners, etc. They are all vital for a functioning society but are not college jobs.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Because thats just how postindustrial economies look like.
It wouldn't necessarily be bad, but they would have to work jobs that don't require a college education.
The job market isn't supply driven. If you have more college educated people you won't automatically have more jobs for them. They'd have to work normal service jobs or other jobs that don't require higher education. This will have negative effects on median income.
- Status