foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Goddamn this is such a well put together post, im like almost finto cry cause it just addresses EVERYTHING so concisely.
Politico: How Bernie Sanders Exposed the Democrats Racial Rift
- Thread starter dramatis
- Start date
- Status
Goddamn this is such a well put together post, im like almost finto cry cause it just addresses EVERYTHING so concisely.
shinra-bansho
Member
It's probably worth noting favourability, particularly when it includes Republicans, is not the same as voting preference. The notable points of difference in that figure are that (strangely) self-described "moderate" millennials hold him in higher regard, less educated young people hold him in higher regard, there's a large gap with young whites and a large gap with men.
If anything this shows she retains high favourables with young minorities, despite overall deficits in young people. And that the latter deficit in young people overall, is like her overall unfavourables, largely driven by white, less educated, men.
I think there is some exit polling that shows that he wins certain young minority segments, but this varies by state, and his margins are nowhere near those he enjoys amongst young whites across most of the primary electorate.
Frozenprince
Banned
Forest. For the trees.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
"but dont u know who the real racist is...."
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Ah, that helps a lot. The kettledrum term and BET example from that was especially eye opening.
But my brain still breaks trying to understand this part in particular:
I think when I and a lot of other Sanders supporters hear all the great promises he makes, they also know congress sucks and he wouldn't be able to achieve them. But they hear him wanting to the right thing and believe he'll do whatever it takes to get as close as possible. By contrast when they hear Hillary make small promises, it makes it sound like she doesn't really believe in it and only wants to promise the bare minimum necessary to get nominated so she can easily throw it all away when it suits her to pander to right wing voters and the donor class when she needs to.
It's basically the complete opposite, and I understand how differences in life experiences can make one believe in one over the other, but there doesn't seem to be a right answer when it comes to something as subjective as trustworthiness.
Alternatively, there's arguments that white people don't care to risk their vote on a weaker general election candidate, but I really don't think Sanders supporters see him as risky at all, and they truly believe he'd do better than clinton. It's more an argument about the strategy of focusing on turning out the base, versus swinging the median voter, but that sort of split in theories doesn't seem like it should differ by race so much.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
What's with this part, it simply means she can actually accomplish what she says, not make empty promises, she said exactly what she wants to do, which is continue what obama has started, and last time i looked, majority of the country is happy with what obama has done, no need to make sky high demands immideiately cause thats not accomplishing anything.
Why would you actually go to the narrative that she will throw all of that away just to become a right wing nut? Why would you even come to that conclusion when she's been a democrat all her political career and has been to the left of biden, obama, and even her own husband?
Yup it's a problem and the Bernie base and the we know what's best for you attitude is very problematic, but it's always been an undercurrent. It's kind of the Dem Trump bringing out some of the seedy stuff in the party and it may be reaching the tipping point.
And it's more the base than particular candidates once their needs are served who cares about you or it will be good for you too leading to this.
As a white straight male who believes in equality I try to get behind candidates who serve needs other than my own, and I need to hear it from those groups. If my needs are served I need to hear the same from women, minority, and LGBTQ sources their needs are being met also and in this case I wasn't hearing that, and it's not the first time either, just like I said like everything else in this country there is a boiling point, and it needs to be addressed before it fractures the party.
And it's more the base than particular candidates once their needs are served who cares about you or it will be good for you too leading to this.
As a white straight male who believes in equality I try to get behind candidates who serve needs other than my own, and I need to hear it from those groups. If my needs are served I need to hear the same from women, minority, and LGBTQ sources their needs are being met also and in this case I wasn't hearing that, and it's not the first time either, just like I said like everything else in this country there is a boiling point, and it needs to be addressed before it fractures the party.
Psychoward
Banned
Bernie Stan here, not everyone here lacks common sense and the ability to vote for Hillary when the time comes. Ugh.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its...hard to address either of these points without coming off as condescending, but that's genuinely not what I'm trying to do when I say that both of them seem to come from places of political...naïveté? I guess. The idea that Clinton would pander to conservative votes or that Sanders would do better in the GE both just seem uninformed I guess. Clinton wouldn't pander to conservative votes because, among other things, they absolutely haaaaaaate her and have for almost 2 decades. For better or for worse, her stances on things like childcare and education, healthcare, LGBT protections and yes, a hawkish military attitude seem to be her own, the result of someone enmeshed in politics for close to half their life evolving as the country evolves.
By the same token, the idea that Bernie would do better in the GE either for his populism or for whatever poll numbers currently say seems to completely ignore that there's ten pounds of red meat in his past to tear into that would turn him completely toxic to a good portion of Democrats as well as Republicans. Things like not being able to explicitly denounce the failed socialist states of South America matter especially when you're running on a label of socialism
Strawman argument. Never said bernie was perfect, just pointing out the double standard. For bernie, the simple fact that he couldnt win over a large percentage of minorities implies something wrong with his campaign or his supporters. Hillary can do this, that, and the third and its cool cause shes just being pragmatic guys. Identity politics at its finest.
MHWilliams
Member
You attempt to make an argument without taking the time to actually understand what you're railing against.
The reason this is being brought up is Sanders has seemingly lost the nomination. That loss could've been avoided with more minority voters supporting him. Sanders' campaign has acknowledged this. Talking about why that's the case is apt. To avoid that discussion isn't rational in the least.
I do like how you resorted to the almost hard right wing scoffing of 'just identity politics' when dealing with minorities.
As if they don't live their lives dealing with it.
Bernie and his supporters trying to dictate what Minorities should really be prioritizing, instead of their current issues is why he lost.
No, the article quickly dives into the assumption that hardcore bernie supporters dont care about minorities and are willing to let trump win because of their privelege. This is no different from implying hillarys supporters are voting with their vaginas.
My point is proven further by your post. I make a few comments and suddenly im "railing" against something. Please.
Yeah so you cant argue against my point and instead imply im using right wing tactics. Identity politics is a problem noticed by people on the left as well. Look up Schlessinger for instance. Im simply saying that because of sanders' age, gender, and ethnicity, it was easy to brand him as priveleged, racist, or uncaring about minorities without any evidence at all. This thread and your responses thus far have only really solidified that statement.
And Bernie never told people what to prioritize. He simply made his case and emphasized different things. This didnt stop millions of minority voters from supporting him, yet they dont count because they dont fit into the narrative. The real divide in the party comes from moderates villifying leftists any way they can to avoid having to criticise the party or their candidate. Talk about right wing tactics.
Frozenprince
Banned
I swear to god how hard is it to read a 7 page thread?
I think the more interesting part of that is in the analyzation of why Bernie Sanders is supposedly not getting the minority vote they turn around and do the exact same thing they accuse him of doing. By saying "No no Bernie and supporters stop telling Minorities what they want. Let US tell you what Minorities want!"
It's basically a fight to say who is better at analyzing minorities as a faceless entity that apparently all acts, thinks and moves the same way. It's incredibly de-humanizing to see Black people referred to this way.
No harder than to read 7+ threads where the exact thing I'm quoting happened
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Isn't that what Clinton said, or something to that effect, after being confronted by a BLM protester?
Subpar Spatula
Banned
The shift to hate on Bernie has been a fascinating process.
Frozenprince
Banned
Right obviously there's no divide along racial issues.
Right.
Obviously.
And people wonder why these issues never get... oh wait no they don't because these issues don't exist I keep forgetting that.
Ignore that elephant in the corner there, he just lives here but we don't pay attention to him.
I'm done. If you people wanna continue to close your eyes and cover your ears and go lalalalala to the issue of liberal racism and the divides it's made painfully evident in this country. By my guest.
Right obviously there's no divide along racial issues.
Right.
Obviously.
Its just an excuse to attack leftists don't you know?
Asking minorities what their issues are instead lecturing them? Identity Politics.
Right obviously there's no divide along racial issues.
Right.
Obviously.
I guess there clearly is if the left is tripping over themselves to tell everyone that they're the only ones who know what Black People want to achieve a moral superiority.
The Irony is fucking rich considering what happened in the primary.
Frozenprince
Banned
That is the entire point of this fucking article and thread.
I swear to god nobody reads.
Is it? I'm a black person and I know what I want. Is that ironic?
I'm not talking about the OP, I'm talking about NeoGAF. Unless that OP is actually about NeoGAF.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
You also arent the only black person who is in this thread, and they also agree ith the article.
Frozenprince
Banned
I'm done. This is fucking stupid circular bullshit.
Forest. For. The. Trees.
Forest. For. The. Trees.
And that's my point. We're not ONE ENTITY and to keep referring to us as such is extremely extremely condescending. The article does that too actually.
jakonovski
Member
The phenomenon described by the op is probably just an endogenous (or whatever the correct term is) convergence of factors, but in case someone has planned this: It's the most insidious and ingenious way of cementing the status quo and consolidating the power of the haves.
Wow, that's pretty awesome. I never knew about that.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
Its still funny, after 40 years of being black, how no one cares about black people til its time to vote. Then they're all up in our churches, talking to our mothers of slain children, playing dominoes with us and brandishing their tabasco sauce to remind us that the republicans are evil and that they care about our issues oh so much. But once they get into office, "cops are killing your kids? that sucks. Tell us about it in 4 years."
I think your argument of #notallofus misses the article's point.
It is not an article of accusations, which is what Sanders supporters seem to take personal, individual offense to immediately without assessing what the final point of the article is.
It is an article that recognizes that there is a division within the Democratic party itself, currently not so deep as to divide the members as deeply as the Republicans, but certainly a division that could fester into a bigger problem down the line. The article leans towards the source of this problem being the lack of empathy and the entitlement of white liberals with minority causes. That the two groups agree on policies and methods, but the white liberals won't settle for anything less than perfection and arrogantly will not support minority causes if it means they have to compromise themselves.
If this is the case, then what is the solution? Rather than victimizing oneself, criticizing forums, and ignoring the problem or pretending that the problem is not one of racial divide, pray tell can you offer a solution as to what can be done?
The article is a warning.
jakonovski
Member
Compromise voting and a two party system means that improvement is on an asymptotic curve, and black people's position in society is getting infinitesimally close to the limit.
edit: note how in this election you're not voting to make things better, but to prevent a backslide.
edit: note how in this election you're not voting to make things better, but to prevent a backslide.
I agree, he relied on his economic issues too much. Doesnt mean he was uncaring about other issues. Your argument relies on so much assumption, its difficult to take you seriously.
Also, what about when hillary shouted down a BLM protester and said "lets get back to the issues" as she was being removed. This is my point, double standards abound.
No, don't think so.
We read it, we just disagree with the premise because it has no evidence and conveniently removes any blame from clinton and her camp in fostering the dovision in the party. Why is that so difficult to grasp.
Nobody is saying he didnt care about race. Thats not the point of the article or this posts
It may be "double standards" but the point remains that he wasnt connecting with an important subsection of a base he needed.
While both candidates slipped up when it came to race (How many white candidates don't?), Hilary made a concerted effort to reach out to that specific base while Bernie did not. You can argue thar Bernie did as much and it was media slant or "double standards" like you said but the counter argument is pretty laid out and logical on this end.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
"Do you want to hear the facts or do you just want to talk?" Clinton asked. "If you will give me a chance to talk... You know what, nobody has ever asked me before, and you are the first person to ask me. OK, back to the issues."
It was Clinton's final comment — "back to the issues" — that was the main cause for criticism on Thursday morning.
--
“You know what?” Clinton said, leaning closer to the woman as she was being pushed out. “Nobody has ever asked me before. You are the first person to ask me and I am happy to address it.”
“OK, back to the issues,” Clinton said to shouts of “thank you” from the crowd as the young woman was finally removed from the residence.
I disagree.
Progress is built in steps. Obama lays down the foundation, Hillary fortifies, and she can pass the baton onto the next person to move further. If you're thinking about taking a giant leap before solidifying your current position, you're just asking for trouble in the future.
I also disagree with this. Because Hillary and her campaign have done nothing to foster division in the party. The ones who accused the party of fraud, of rigging the elections, went threatening superdelegates, called black voters low information—would you like to lay the blame for 'division' on the campaign that, at worst, attacked Bernie Sanders for his gun positions?
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I always saw the so called radical left more as some sort of socially liberal right wingers.
I know that in the US right wing and left wing mean something different than in Europe, but for me a right winger can still demand things like universal healthcare, free college education etc. Socialism doesn't make you left wing automatically. There are a lot of extreme right wing, socialist parties in Europe at this very moment.
Still, Bernie sparked a few very important desires the US needs but Obama, Clinton or Trump cannot deliver.
1. European style social democracy.
2. Putting an end to the toxic influence of money in politics.
3. Putting an end to catering to unreasonable republican demands.
The last point is a problem Obama created in my opinion. When he was elected he tried to work with republicans, which failed because they didn't want to work with him, but in his attempts he gave away too much ground and they of course exploited that. As a result Obama achieved less than he could have since republicans were able to succesfully block or water down a shit ton of things.
Clinton pretty much seems like another 4 years of Obama, position wise, which isn't that surprising since these are safe, establishment approved positions.
But its a fundamentally broken systems which excels at keeping things just above a certain level for most people so that they don't get too loud in their demands for change.
Social progession is great, but economically the US hasn't improved one bit for the poor and the middle class, and this problem overpropotionally hits black people, immigrants and minorities in general, so social progression be damned...
I can't help but view it as establishment approved baby steps in order to keep attention away from the bigger underlying problems, the crooked system thats designed for and by the priviledged and the powerful.
I never agreed with Sanders on the specifics, I thought his ideas weren't very well thought out, but he was the only candidate who pushed into the right general direction.
So I hope he sparked a demand for things like universal healthcare, free college education and a tax system thats designed to keep the gap between the rich and the poor reasonably small.
So far americans were told these things don't work, even though there are many, many countries proving the opposite. Hopefully americans don't let themselfs be bullshitted any more, by an establishment that happily watches as people tear each other apart about social issues, race relations, gay marriage and other issues the establishment doesn't give a crap about, because every second spent talking about these things means people aren't talking about the fundamentally crooked system that keeps making the rich richer and more influencial and the poor poorer.
This system is a symbiosis of corporate interest, money, politicians and media, which means that it'll take a lot to take it down.
As we've seen with Sanders, his ideas weren't challenged in an informed way, in Europe, his plans would've been taken apart completely by economists and other politicians, but nobody did that in the US, because nobody has a clue how social democracy would work and what was wrong about Sanders' approach*, instead he was attacked by the media and other politicians in pretty disingenuous ways.
His skin color, age, sex, position on race relations were put in question, all because nobody was able to actually challenge him on the actual issues.
*Not once was Sanders asked why his healthcare plan consists of a single payer system.
Why not a multi payer system like most northern european nations have in place? It would appear that thats the much better fit for an economy like the US.
But nobody questioned the specifics of his plans, instead the whole idea of universal healthcare was ridiculed and labled as a pipe dream of a madman.
Not once was Sanders asked how he would reform high school in order to make college education free. Because nobody, not even Sanders, knows that you can't have free university with a high school system like the one thats currently in place in the US.
Postindustrial economies need between 25% and 35% of college educated people in the workforce. (afaik the US has 30% right now) This number won't change that much over the next decades.
Right now the US restricts access to college education by putting a ridiculous price point on it so most people can't afford to go to college. Restricting access is necessary, but it should work via performance in school and not via money. So there needs to be a fundamentally reformed high school system thats able to determine the best ~30% who are then allowed to go to university.
(I've actually read a paper about an approach like this once, where the author figured that this would have the intersting side effect that private colleges would quickly go down the shitter because in a system like that, thats where the people go who weren't good enough for public colleges. This might be the reason why private universities are very rare in countries like Germany or Norway and usually specialize on certain niche fields.)
Anyway, Bernie was never confronted with the real flaws in his plans, terrible job by the media and his opponents in the race.
I know that in the US right wing and left wing mean something different than in Europe, but for me a right winger can still demand things like universal healthcare, free college education etc. Socialism doesn't make you left wing automatically. There are a lot of extreme right wing, socialist parties in Europe at this very moment.
Still, Bernie sparked a few very important desires the US needs but Obama, Clinton or Trump cannot deliver.
1. European style social democracy.
2. Putting an end to the toxic influence of money in politics.
3. Putting an end to catering to unreasonable republican demands.
The last point is a problem Obama created in my opinion. When he was elected he tried to work with republicans, which failed because they didn't want to work with him, but in his attempts he gave away too much ground and they of course exploited that. As a result Obama achieved less than he could have since republicans were able to succesfully block or water down a shit ton of things.
Clinton pretty much seems like another 4 years of Obama, position wise, which isn't that surprising since these are safe, establishment approved positions.
But its a fundamentally broken systems which excels at keeping things just above a certain level for most people so that they don't get too loud in their demands for change.
Social progession is great, but economically the US hasn't improved one bit for the poor and the middle class, and this problem overpropotionally hits black people, immigrants and minorities in general, so social progression be damned...
I can't help but view it as establishment approved baby steps in order to keep attention away from the bigger underlying problems, the crooked system thats designed for and by the priviledged and the powerful.
I never agreed with Sanders on the specifics, I thought his ideas weren't very well thought out, but he was the only candidate who pushed into the right general direction.
So I hope he sparked a demand for things like universal healthcare, free college education and a tax system thats designed to keep the gap between the rich and the poor reasonably small.
So far americans were told these things don't work, even though there are many, many countries proving the opposite. Hopefully americans don't let themselfs be bullshitted any more, by an establishment that happily watches as people tear each other apart about social issues, race relations, gay marriage and other issues the establishment doesn't give a crap about, because every second spent talking about these things means people aren't talking about the fundamentally crooked system that keeps making the rich richer and more influencial and the poor poorer.
This system is a symbiosis of corporate interest, money, politicians and media, which means that it'll take a lot to take it down.
As we've seen with Sanders, his ideas weren't challenged in an informed way, in Europe, his plans would've been taken apart completely by economists and other politicians, but nobody did that in the US, because nobody has a clue how social democracy would work and what was wrong about Sanders' approach*, instead he was attacked by the media and other politicians in pretty disingenuous ways.
His skin color, age, sex, position on race relations were put in question, all because nobody was able to actually challenge him on the actual issues.
*Not once was Sanders asked why his healthcare plan consists of a single payer system.
Why not a multi payer system like most northern european nations have in place? It would appear that thats the much better fit for an economy like the US.
But nobody questioned the specifics of his plans, instead the whole idea of universal healthcare was ridiculed and labled as a pipe dream of a madman.
Not once was Sanders asked how he would reform high school in order to make college education free. Because nobody, not even Sanders, knows that you can't have free university with a high school system like the one thats currently in place in the US.
Postindustrial economies need between 25% and 35% of college educated people in the workforce. (afaik the US has 30% right now) This number won't change that much over the next decades.
Right now the US restricts access to college education by putting a ridiculous price point on it so most people can't afford to go to college. Restricting access is necessary, but it should work via performance in school and not via money. So there needs to be a fundamentally reformed high school system thats able to determine the best ~30% who are then allowed to go to university.
(I've actually read a paper about an approach like this once, where the author figured that this would have the intersting side effect that private colleges would quickly go down the shitter because in a system like that, thats where the people go who weren't good enough for public colleges. This might be the reason why private universities are very rare in countries like Germany or Norway and usually specialize on certain niche fields.)
Anyway, Bernie was never confronted with the real flaws in his plans, terrible job by the media and his opponents in the race.
I disagree. Even just looking at Supreme Court nominations, a 6-3 ratio of Democrat to Republican justices could mean a lot of progress in things like school desegregation.
No, the point is that he needed to woo those voters to secure the nomination.
Honestly, back to my point really, there needs to be a framing less of Black problems, or Hispanic problems being less of problems against just them and as a problem we all have. The discussion of Black people as, like I said, this entity to be observed dissected and observed as a force or something to be "warned about" rather than people needs to go. The language articles like this and the ones referenced within create a dichotomy that more or less promotes this kind of thought of "These are issues that are bad, but handling them won't affect us in anyway because they are not us" and allows people the idea that they could easily remain ignorant.
What solution is there to that? It's hard to say, but the way the article phrases it makes it almost like it's a pill white people have to swallow even if it's unpleasant. What I would at least say I would prefer better phrasing or writing so it doesn't make minorities seem like there this other entity that just so happens to also be in the country affecting this and that.
Your assessment is fair, but there are many people saying bernie and his supporters are priveleged and responsible for division within the party. Look at the bolded points in the article and posters who respond that bernie doesnt give a damn or is dictating how minorities should think. Thats what im defensive about because its clearly a misrepresentation.
captainnapalm
Member
If the lesson from this election is that minorities will from now on support the establishment, and that they can't be relied upon to try to help to change a corrupt and unjust system, that may just be the saddest thing I've ever heard.
Just how did the people in power do this? They must really be geniuses. I bow to their superior skills of deceit and manipulation. They're too good. They've got black people lining up en masse to vote for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Even writing it I still can't quite believe it.
Let's just take stock here: Young white voters are actually kind of voting against their best interests, by supporting a candidate looking to tear down power structures that certainly benefit them more than others and create a more level playing field, while black voters are backing one of the ultimate poster children for deeply entrenched and corrupt political power and privilege.
How did minorities get left behind in this groundswell movement that seeks to combat the excesses and abuses of the corporate class? Don't they realize it governs almost every troublesome aspect of society - the criminal justice system, the education system, the employment sector, the banking system? I'll never understand it.
Just how did the people in power do this? They must really be geniuses. I bow to their superior skills of deceit and manipulation. They're too good. They've got black people lining up en masse to vote for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Even writing it I still can't quite believe it.
Let's just take stock here: Young white voters are actually kind of voting against their best interests, by supporting a candidate looking to tear down power structures that certainly benefit them more than others and create a more level playing field, while black voters are backing one of the ultimate poster children for deeply entrenched and corrupt political power and privilege.
How did minorities get left behind in this groundswell movement that seeks to combat the excesses and abuses of the corporate class? Don't they realize it governs almost every troublesome aspect of society - the criminal justice system, the education system, the employment sector, the banking system? I'll never understand it.
From my standpoint as an Asian, what I can say is that even if you hide your minority status you cannot run away from it. You can choose to not frame issues from a minority position, but once things actually matter, the first thing to be used against you will be your status.
Consider, for instance, that women are not even a minority, they can be well to do and well educated, but they are still discriminated against and often the first weapon used against them is their gender. One look at the result of the recent Stanford rape case will tell you that.
Being picky about 'framing' doesn't really help change the result. Republicans rattle on about how their message just wasn't being delivered right, and that's why they're not winning the presidency, but we all know that their message is reaching their voters just fine. It is unfair for minorities to be told by white progressive how they (the white progressives) know best, while minorities would have to stifle the 'framing' of the issue as one of race or ethnicity.
I think it's more helpful to be quick and blunt, and yes, this is a pill white liberals will have to swallow.
But the accusations are true. The party is corrupted by private money and the process is absolutely stacked against non establishment candidates. Hillary and her supporters have constantly ridiculed, talked down to, and villified sanders and his supporters, the same way she did to Obama in 08. That is what created this divide, if you dont yoe the li,e and support the party uncobditionally, there is something wrong with you. Nevermind if your grievances are actually justified.
Id also like to see what prominent bernie supporters called blacks low information voters. A few trolls on the internet dont represent an entire movement.
Sorry for the typos, my phone sucks.
I don't hate Bernie, but you're right, retrospective criticism is very easy.
I would've taken him over Trump in an attosecond of a heartbeat. Though I am encouraged by the support Hillary has from a diverse range of US citizens rather than a single specific demographic.
- Status