I'll expand,
I don't know the validity of the poll you provided.
I'm just expressing a wish that voters should do that instead of the whole process just being a really ugly version of a beauty contest.
Politico: How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats Racial Rift
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
I'll expand,
I don't know the validity of the poll you provided.
I'm just expressing a wish that voters should do that instead of the whole process just being a really ugly version of a beauty contest.
AuthenticM
Member
wow, really?
Shit, no wonder Sanders lost the minority vote. How out of touch are his staff and he? That's baffling to me. He seems like a very smart person; how the hell did he end up making these major mistakes?
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
No, but sanders isn't the only one wanting the things he's promising, most Democrats have said and want the same things, but his policies just aren't strong enough, especially compared to hillary's, who has actually gotten results with her methods and then later try to demonize her when she is essentially on his side just turned us off even more
This right here. People who vote trump or not at all are at best ignoring the cries of several minority groups and at worse actively hurting and endangering these groups. I cannot take anyone who swings bernie/trump as anything more than a threat to me, my family, my friends and my peoples life. Yes a threat, thats how i feel as a gay latino whose family is half black with friends in the lgbtq group a lot of them double minorities (my black gay bros).
Psychoward
Banned
bam, ether
Not in the part of CA that I'm in. We're pretty much all on the same page here in brown town.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
and people play off "incrementalism" as if it is a bad thing.
its really just a reductive way to say nobody is as good as our preferred candidate's plan.
Dreams-Visions
Member
church.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I think the article is not so good in the sense that it is trying to be disingenuous about a simple fact of all voter groups; Everyone votes selfishly.
It's young white liberals who feel entitled and like their life is being worse than their parents due to the eradication of the middle class. I don't think it's that surprising that with the way college debt exist in the US, that they are so frustrated.
Every voter block votes selfishly. What can the politician do for me first and foremost?
And that is not a critique, that is just how most people are in their voting behavior relatively speaking.
If the roles were reversed and minorities were affected negatively by income inequality, you can bet that it would be higher on their list of priorities. Which makes perfect sense. If Clinton/Obama has netted them in a positive direction, it makes sense they would vote for Clinton. "Hey, my life is better than my parents! I'll support this candidate". Not so much for those other voters.
Older democrats are probably also in the larger scheme of things not awoken to the idea that this is such a big problem. Some of them are, but there are probably many of them who have not lived it, but are more concerned about it from a secondary point of view through watching their kids struggling with debt to have them live at home due to housing prices.
Finally, I also think that there are just a lot of people who don't know what Sanders platform of Social Democracy is. There was an outstanding amount of people who were puzzled about Sanders not knowing about the socialist regimes of South America. I think when many people think of Sanders socialism, they don't realize how much it run on capitalist fumes and how different it is Sweden from say, Maduros policy of socialism.
I think Sanders have not been as good as he could have been at explaining his platform. The standard of living and opportunity for minorities in other countries is due to the equality, but many Clinton supporters unfortunately conflate Sanders soundbytes with him being dense about the existence of racism or that he thinks racism will go away if social policies are enacted.
He simply thinks that there is a better shot for fixable solutions for minorities due to not be obstructed from opportunity if the public sector doesn't fail anyone who is disadvantaged in some way.
There are Chinese whispers on that this form of socialism only works in small homogeneous countries, and therefore countries like Holland or Sweden, can just be brushed off. That doesn't prove that equality helps minorities, because those countries go beyond the reach of where I like to put my comfortable goal post.
Anyone has every right to think that their path is the right path forward. I don't see the condemnation or the need to make a bigger deal out in voter priorities. Remember - There are only two major parties. There are dozens of partyline ideas that want to put the parties in different directions. It's really weird at looking at this from the outside like the "party has to come together under one vision".
It will never be one vision. Others visions are just suppressed from inclusion by the reduction of only having a single party policy on the entire spectrum. That graph that was posted earlier showing the amount of moderates in the Democratic party versus the amount of liberals, really highlights the moderate candidacy that has always followed American presidents.
Good Job Bob
Member
via Reuters
18-34 blacks:
18-34 whites:
35-65 blacks:
35-65 whites:
Age is a major factor.
Vigilant Walrus,
The issue isn't that minorities didn't feel like income inequality didn't impact them or something.
It's that they're being told that it's their only issue.
I think minorities have proven that they can be reasonable and understand that their priorities are not the priorities of everyone and that they may have to be patient.
What they can't understand is when they say they have an issue ad the only replies they get is "you don't know what's good for you".
It's different entirely 1 is treating them like children while the other is trying to find a compromise as adults.
Sanders mostly treated everyone who wasn't interested in his core stump like they were kids in school.
And I'll add that it's not the public's fault if Sanders can't explain Social Democracy.
The issue isn't that minorities didn't feel like income inequality didn't impact them or something.
It's that they're being told that it's their only issue.
I think minorities have proven that they can be reasonable and understand that their priorities are not the priorities of everyone and that they may have to be patient.
What they can't understand is when they say they have an issue ad the only replies they get is "you don't know what's good for you".
It's different entirely 1 is treating them like children while the other is trying to find a compromise as adults.
Sanders mostly treated everyone who wasn't interested in his core stump like they were kids in school.
And I'll add that it's not the public's fault if Sanders can't explain Social Democracy.
Frozenprince
Banned
Vigilant Walrus
Member
You're right Mael. I agree.
I wish he had run his campaign differently. Particularly before he focused on Hillary. A person. Who is not his policies. And Sanders best thing is his policies. *sigh* It feels unsatisfying and sad that good intentions not being well communicated is lost.
MHWilliams
Member
Whew. A lot to get into here.
There's a couple of different things that tripped up Sanders as a candidate here. First, you have to understand that while Sanders lead with young minorities in most regions, his margins compared to Clinton are far smaller than they are with young white voters. This points to a deficiency when it comes to minority voters and the deficiency becomes insurmountable once the age skews higher.
"Revolution" as a message does not resonate with older voters, especially minorities
Most older voters have seen the process. They know how bad Congress can be, they understand local and state elections as the real driver of policy, and they understand the limitations of the President. Given a larger number of older black voters who voted for Obama on "Hope and Change", only to see a Republican-held Congress prevent him from passing legislation, it's easy to see that for those voters, this idea of sweeping grand changes has already expired. Compromise is a stark reality to many of these folks; they don't always get what they want, so they understand that you have to settle.
Add into this the fact that for most minorities and disaffected groups, slow, incremental change is how their lives have actually improved. Various rights causes have been slow, ongoing campaigns, not sweeping overnight changes. It's rhetoric at odds with their experiences. To those older votes and to a certain degree all minorities, Sanders comes across a bit of snake old salesman: all promises that won't pan out. In contrast, Hillary promises very little. It feels pragmatic and realistic, which reinforces the feeling to those voters that she's not lying to them. They'd rather hear, "You have cancer, but we can keep you alive a little longer" than "I'm going to cure your cancer tomorrow!"
Hillary's ties to Clinton and Obama help her, while Bernie distancing himself hurts him
The "Establishment" doesn't mean much as a boogeyman to many minority groups. It's not seen as a immediate problem, compared to the local police and legal system, general racism, or local laws aimed at discrimination. It helps to understand that many of those politicians who have helped and moved forward those causes have been decried as the "establishment", moving it from a statement about money in politics to a witch word thrown at those who don't feel pure enough.
Lives improved during Clinton's presidency and even the Clinton crime bill was seen a boon by black people at the time. Obama has been seen to have done his best, against what many perceive to be a racist Congress, passing the Affordable Care Act, which for many poor Americans has been a complete godsend.
Are their accomplishments perfect? No. Is there more to be done? Yes. But the feeling is "those people helped" and any harsh condemnation comes across poorly. Hillary is strongly tied to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. She's a known quantity. The extent of her promises are "Obama's stuff will continue on." That's good enough.
Hillary is seen as the best of a bad situation
Let's talk about the idea of "good enough". I've seen this sentiment about having to vote for a politician that doesn't align completely with your viewpoint, or at least voting against the guy that will harm you the most. For many people in America, especially minorities, this has been the norm. I restate that: not having a candidate to vote for that really represents you is the norm for many minorities.
The ability to vote third party or not vote at all is one of comfort or a deep malaise. It's the idea that things will not affect you in a largely negative way regardless of who enters the White House. That's not a luxury many have in America. If you're ambivalent about Hillary herself, perhaps the fact that she'll keep Obama's platform running is good enough. Even if you hate Hillary, the idea of a Supreme Court falling into GOP hands is a real fear for many.
When you state that you don't care about those latter points, to many minorities, it comes across as not caring about a very real effect on their lives. It tells them that you don't really care about them. And that turns them against you, and by extension, Sanders.
Charles Blow tackled this in an essay:
Sanders' message was increasingly muddled for black voters, if it was there at all
He made a series of missteps during the campaign that probably didn't help.
- Sanders comments about the South came across as dismissing voters in those states. At the same time, Clinton traveled to and met with black leaders and voters in those states.
- Likewise, black leaders in Vermont released an interview noting that they were "invisible" to Sanders. Their statements reinforce one of the early issues black voters had with Sanders:
- When the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Clinton, there was a good deal of pushback against John Lewis and his statements. The social media dragging of Lewis by Sanders supporters did not help the view of their candidate.
- Pulling in Cornell West. West has, in the past, made statements about Obama that are considered poor at best and those statements are seen as coming from a place of ego, not policy. Like above, the mental map is "Obama = Good", so adding West to his team pushed Sanders further away.
- I don't think all Sanders supporters are a problem, but there is a contingent that has absolutely hamstrung the candidate. Like the John Lewis stuff above, the "voting against their own interests", what comes across as condescending talk about Sanders' work during the Civil Rights Movement, or even those who loudly proclaim they wouldn't support Clinton if she's the nominee. I think these things and others like them did not help Sanders, even if negative adherents in any campaign are rather normal.
- Clay Shirky pointed to one of Sander's issues as the "kettledrum effect". Statements that sound great to most, but actively turn off those who dislike them.
I think there's truth to that idea.
Sanders covers one thing really well, and that's his stump speech. He's got that down, from years of practice and a sincere belief that those issues are the cause of all America's problems. The issue is he doesn't know how to morph that speech to fit a different demographic outside of the largely white state he's spent most of his political career.
It's becoming clear that you can't win the Democratic nomination with minority voters and it's likely you can't win the Presidency without them. Without turning fully toward them, Sanders may have cultivated a base, but cost himself the nomination.
(Apologies for spelling and grammar errors, but it's Friday night and I have shit to do.)
No, people are merely pointing out that while you love his platform, others (minorities in this case) have valid reasons for not supporting the same, because it does not cater to them.
There's a couple of different things that tripped up Sanders as a candidate here. First, you have to understand that while Sanders lead with young minorities in most regions, his margins compared to Clinton are far smaller than they are with young white voters. This points to a deficiency when it comes to minority voters and the deficiency becomes insurmountable once the age skews higher.
"Revolution" as a message does not resonate with older voters, especially minorities
Most older voters have seen the process. They know how bad Congress can be, they understand local and state elections as the real driver of policy, and they understand the limitations of the President. Given a larger number of older black voters who voted for Obama on "Hope and Change", only to see a Republican-held Congress prevent him from passing legislation, it's easy to see that for those voters, this idea of sweeping grand changes has already expired. Compromise is a stark reality to many of these folks; they don't always get what they want, so they understand that you have to settle.
Add into this the fact that for most minorities and disaffected groups, slow, incremental change is how their lives have actually improved. Various rights causes have been slow, ongoing campaigns, not sweeping overnight changes. It's rhetoric at odds with their experiences. To those older votes and to a certain degree all minorities, Sanders comes across a bit of snake old salesman: all promises that won't pan out. In contrast, Hillary promises very little. It feels pragmatic and realistic, which reinforces the feeling to those voters that she's not lying to them. They'd rather hear, "You have cancer, but we can keep you alive a little longer" than "I'm going to cure your cancer tomorrow!"
Hillary's ties to Clinton and Obama help her, while Bernie distancing himself hurts him
The "Establishment" doesn't mean much as a boogeyman to many minority groups. It's not seen as a immediate problem, compared to the local police and legal system, general racism, or local laws aimed at discrimination. It helps to understand that many of those politicians who have helped and moved forward those causes have been decried as the "establishment", moving it from a statement about money in politics to a witch word thrown at those who don't feel pure enough.
Lives improved during Clinton's presidency and even the Clinton crime bill was seen a boon by black people at the time. Obama has been seen to have done his best, against what many perceive to be a racist Congress, passing the Affordable Care Act, which for many poor Americans has been a complete godsend.
Are their accomplishments perfect? No. Is there more to be done? Yes. But the feeling is "those people helped" and any harsh condemnation comes across poorly. Hillary is strongly tied to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. She's a known quantity. The extent of her promises are "Obama's stuff will continue on." That's good enough.
Hillary is seen as the best of a bad situation
Let's talk about the idea of "good enough". I've seen this sentiment about having to vote for a politician that doesn't align completely with your viewpoint, or at least voting against the guy that will harm you the most. For many people in America, especially minorities, this has been the norm. I restate that: not having a candidate to vote for that really represents you is the norm for many minorities.
The ability to vote third party or not vote at all is one of comfort or a deep malaise. It's the idea that things will not affect you in a largely negative way regardless of who enters the White House. That's not a luxury many have in America. If you're ambivalent about Hillary herself, perhaps the fact that she'll keep Obama's platform running is good enough. Even if you hate Hillary, the idea of a Supreme Court falling into GOP hands is a real fear for many.
When you state that you don't care about those latter points, to many minorities, it comes across as not caring about a very real effect on their lives. It tells them that you don't really care about them. And that turns them against you, and by extension, Sanders.
Charles Blow tackled this in an essay:
Sanders' message was increasingly muddled for black voters, if it was there at all
He made a series of missteps during the campaign that probably didn't help.
- Sanders comments about the South came across as dismissing voters in those states. At the same time, Clinton traveled to and met with black leaders and voters in those states.
- Likewise, black leaders in Vermont released an interview noting that they were "invisible" to Sanders. Their statements reinforce one of the early issues black voters had with Sanders:
- When the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Clinton, there was a good deal of pushback against John Lewis and his statements. The social media dragging of Lewis by Sanders supporters did not help the view of their candidate.
- Pulling in Cornell West. West has, in the past, made statements about Obama that are considered poor at best and those statements are seen as coming from a place of ego, not policy. Like above, the mental map is "Obama = Good", so adding West to his team pushed Sanders further away.
- I don't think all Sanders supporters are a problem, but there is a contingent that has absolutely hamstrung the candidate. Like the John Lewis stuff above, the "voting against their own interests", what comes across as condescending talk about Sanders' work during the Civil Rights Movement, or even those who loudly proclaim they wouldn't support Clinton if she's the nominee. I think these things and others like them did not help Sanders, even if negative adherents in any campaign are rather normal.
- Clay Shirky pointed to one of Sander's issues as the "kettledrum effect". Statements that sound great to most, but actively turn off those who dislike them.
I think there's truth to that idea.
Sanders covers one thing really well, and that's his stump speech. He's got that down, from years of practice and a sincere belief that those issues are the cause of all America's problems. The issue is he doesn't know how to morph that speech to fit a different demographic outside of the largely white state he's spent most of his political career.
It's becoming clear that you can't win the Democratic nomination with minority voters and it's likely you can't win the Presidency without them. Without turning fully toward them, Sanders may have cultivated a base, but cost himself the nomination.
(Apologies for spelling and grammar errors, but it's Friday night and I have shit to do.)
Bruce Springsteen
Member
Do you have the numbers saying he gets majority of the minority youth?
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6630011/sanders-drop-stayfinal.0.jpg)
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902144/poll-america-bernie-sanders-race
New poll (taken after California etc) from Vox shows most democrats are cool with Sanders going to the convention. White/black are basically the same. Hispanics/other want him to stay in more than others.
Though it's obvious that age is a bigger factor than race, there does seem to be some racial divide, but I think the media and gaf has really overhyped it.
Frozenprince
Banned
Quoting this for the resounding truthbombs being dropped here.
Yeah. While Bernie definitely wasn't bringing in the minority vote, it really failed hard with older people. Bernies platform: free healthcare and education and tons of stuff.... How does any of that appeal to the working family that has already been through the shit, paid off their loans, and getting benefits from their job. How do you convince the older group that what he's saying is actually possible from all the shit they've experienced in this country, especially when looking at how hard it was to get any version of obamacare out there. Older people look at the young people flocking to Bernie and think they are flocking to a fantasy
All anecdotal based on talking with my own family members.
Well HRC just said she would make public college free
http://dailyfreepress.com/2016/03/0...upport-in-boston-on-the-eve-of-super-tuesday/
This is the same shit Bernie said only not as quotable.
So whats the difference? Shes said
So how is this addressing anything? Its the same stuff Bernie said. So pleaae explain to me how its different and i should take your word or anyone elses she just will do it.
And i have a kid approaching college age so yeah free college tuition would go a long way for me.
I'm not going to quote MHWilliams but I'll just that it's a great post that needs to be read.
Maybe Clinton have something else to propose that Sanders doesn't and she has shown willingness to engage the community in a way Sanders failed?
Sorry but I don't see the link between backslashbunny's post and yours.
Maybe free college is not why people didn't vote for Sanders?
Maybe Clinton have something else to propose that Sanders doesn't and she has shown willingness to engage the community in a way Sanders failed?
Sorry but I don't see the link between backslashbunny's post and yours.
People settle for it. No one is impressed by it.
What I find fascinating is the hard turn the Democratic party is taking from hope and change to stay the course.
Frozenprince
Banned
You cut the contextualizing part of the quote out.
She's not making tuition free she's advocating removing loans with high interest rates.
She's not making tuition free she's advocating removing loans with high interest rates.
Frozenprince
Banned
Because the 18-24 Y/O crowd ran into the harsh political reality that broad change is impossible.
Her next quote:
Affordable doesn't equal free. Clinton sounds like she will try to go through the system to make things better
Bernie wants to throw the system into the sun
Funny what I recall was a wasted 2 years pandering to a party that wouldn't budge. Followed by no one voting in the midterm. Seems to me that folks could be making the same mistake as generations before them, but what do I know.
Plus Obamacare was passed by the skin of it's teeth later and is hailed now as grand.
This is why more got done in 2 years of DGAF Obama than the 6 prior.
Wouldn't that have been while Democrats were obstructing conservative bills?
DGAF Obama doesn't care about bills.
DGAF Obama just uses executive orders like they're going out of style.
A lot of people see this as footing the bill for the bad choices and liberal arts and other useless degree's of a generation that doesn't want to pay for their own education. Harsh, but that is exactly how that platform reads to a lot of people who are struggling to get their own affairs in order.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its not even that. Bernie says he will throw the system into the sun. Which might be the right thing to do in the long run! But he can't do it, and when pressed his answer is basically "we're going to build a big catapult and it'll work out, trust me"
Always seemed from the get go to be a generational thing. The Younger Generations getting ready to go into life and be shit on the rest of their lives wanting serious change while the people who have already gotten shit on their entire life are content to keep things relatively similar to how things are because it might cost more to leave things better than they are now
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
People are absolutely motivated by fear. That's basically always framed as "a bad thing", but I don't think that's true as a rule. The truth is that its basically impossible to make an accurate "risk assessment" of if radical political change is going to benefit you or not, up to and including "it goes poorly and jackboot thugs kick in my door".
White male here. Not all of us are Bernie stans. His campaign is so far up his own ass it's staggering. Bernie is legit one of the most annoying and self-centered politicians out there. I look forward to voting with the rest of you in here for common sense.
I don't understand his most hardcore supporters and I never will. Especially the ones who would vote for Trump over Hillary and ensure a right-wing SCOTUS for the rest of their lives, further distancing our country from their 'revolution'. It's one of the most irrational things I've ever seen.
I don't understand his most hardcore supporters and I never will. Especially the ones who would vote for Trump over Hillary and ensure a right-wing SCOTUS for the rest of their lives, further distancing our country from their 'revolution'. It's one of the most irrational things I've ever seen.
That's been answered in this thread, ten times over. Look at how much Sanders is winning minority youth compared to how much he is winning white youth.
Absolutely. Not a big fan of Bernie but I can understand the passion that drives people and I can certainly understand the apprehension. There is honestly no way Bernie's plans could all be implemented immediately and not have some repercussions. It would be massive system shock. I think people are losing faith in the idea of have patience and we will get there eventually which opens the doors to radical pushes
I greatly appreciate your response and the effort put into it, it laid things out for me. I prefer posts like this, less of the "infected limb that needs to be cut off".
EDIT: GD typos
It's funny because most of Hispanics and black folks interviewed at rallies mentioned that they never heard of Bernie until way late into the game and when they heard him they came fully on board. This is anecdotal of course and I'm sure half of the folks heard him and didn't care or just thought Clinton was better but his message being hard to find due to the traditional media blackout he had to deal with (or worse) just made it more of an uphill battle than it already was just for being a left field establishment.
Clinton herself and the DNC as a whole had a great track record and many minority leaders endorsed Clinton for good reasons. And that's not even counting our hip Bill Clinton and his saxophone and music cd's.
But since minorities are front and center in Sander's politics it's not really a rift at all just an issue of communication with older folks and more disenfranchised people. Spinning this
Is that why Police reform, drug penalty reforms (that tackle Black folks systematically) and expanding significantly the quality of social housing and tackle housing discrimination to reinvigorate communities. Fights against wage discrimination which is integral to end passive racism due to them being parallel problems. Is fighting against voter suppression that targets minorities. Wants to expand Native American healthcare due to the issues they face with diabetes, alcoholism and suicide rates as well as targeting racial crimes committed against them
Yes economic justice is a cornerstone in addressing sistematic racism, same as to what MLK fought for and why he was murdered. If you have no idea what you're talking about you might want to cut down on the bullshit.
Clinton herself and the DNC as a whole had a great track record and many minority leaders endorsed Clinton for good reasons. And that's not even counting our hip Bill Clinton and his saxophone and music cd's.
But since minorities are front and center in Sander's politics it's not really a rift at all just an issue of communication with older folks and more disenfranchised people. Spinning this
Please.
Is that why Police reform, drug penalty reforms (that tackle Black folks systematically) and expanding significantly the quality of social housing and tackle housing discrimination to reinvigorate communities. Fights against wage discrimination which is integral to end passive racism due to them being parallel problems. Is fighting against voter suppression that targets minorities. Wants to expand Native American healthcare due to the issues they face with diabetes, alcoholism and suicide rates as well as targeting racial crimes committed against them
Yes economic justice is a cornerstone in addressing sistematic racism, same as to what MLK fought for and why he was murdered. If you have no idea what you're talking about you might want to cut down on the bullshit.
Karsticles
Member
So non-young white voters are...thinking of everyone else?
Or isn't it the case that nearly everyone votes for their own interests, and hardly anyone votes for the well-being of others?
Really good post. Outlines a lot of points that might not be immediately obvious.
This is part of the liberal "we whites know what is best for you and we'll help how we decide" type of unintended racism (but still racism) that exists. Meanwhile people of color watch as time passes and even if they get to a better socioeconomic status they can still be stereotyped and killed (Trayvon Martin was a middle class kid!)
Same boat and all that. Kind of makes it easy to come together on issues like this. So, no. Not in the manner that you're presenting it.
ConfusingJazz
Member
Please do not do this in the future. I can understand not reading through 150 pages, but for a topic such as this, and if it's only 150-200 posts, please skim through the thread to get an idea of how the discussion is going.
Well if you only read one post it should be the one by MH Williams. It's long but well worth it.
This is correct. People just want to imply he and his supporters are racist or priveleged as an easy ad hominem attack. This is especially true when they ignore hillarys past of race baiting and supporting private prisons.
- Status