Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:00 PM Jul 2014

In another thread, Elizabeth Warren's "11 Tenets of Progressivism" ...

Last edited Fri Jul 18, 2014, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)

were listed. And, I noticed ... while she spoke, specifically, to woman's issues and LGBT issues and social justice issues and economic issues; she neglected to mention African-American issues. (Though to be fair, someone indicated that the list was just a summary of what she said, so the exclusion may have been the editorial license of the OP).

Later in that thread, a DUer stated that Warren "really excites the base", and that sent me to the google to see Warren's favorability among African-Americans, because I am not seeing much excitement for Warren among African-Americans.

While I didn't find much (in the short time I searched), I came across this:


(Another pundit's) idea that liberals killed the Clinton candidacy of 2008 and could do the same in 2016 if they backed Warren or another credible challenger. But while liberals were a necessary part of the Obama insurgency, they weren’t sufficient to stop the Clinton machine. To wit, self-identified liberals were just 39 percent of all Democrats in 2008, followed by moderates (38 percent) and conservatives (21 percent). Or you could just look at Clinton’s record in the primary, where liberal opposition couldn’t block her victories in New Hampshire, California, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, and Arizona.


Clinton’s problem had less to do with liberals and more with African-Americans, who formed a critical share of the Democratic primary electorate. Scheiber points to this in a footnote, but it’s worth a full take. Put simply, a Democratic presidential candidate can’t win the primary without substantial support from black voters, who tend to vote for the establishment choice. Accordingly, it’s when African-Americans back a challenger that the establishment candidate falters, which is to say that if Hillary Clinton had kept a decent share of the black vote, she would have become the Democratic nominee, regardless of liberal disdain for her candidacy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/liberals_support_hillary_clinton_african_american_voters_will_give_her_the.html


The entire opinion piece (as well as the OP, that it is responding to) is(are) well worth the read and further discussion.
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
In another thread, Elizabeth Warren's "11 Tenets of Progressivism" ... (Original Post) 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 OP
That - JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #1
Indeed frazzled Jul 2014 #2
That is exactly what ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #3
Critical insight there. redqueen Jul 2014 #4
My concern is ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #5
That is interesting, sadoldgirl Jul 2014 #6
Actually, HRC's active support ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #9
She mentioned immigration. eom 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #19
do you think she could have made it an even 12 or narrowed it down to an even 10? wyldwolf Jul 2014 #7
well, her opponent in that election had a distinct advantage among African American voters bigtree Jul 2014 #8
Points well made ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #10
right, 'all' bigtree Jul 2014 #11
Oops ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2014 #12
good thread bigtree Jul 2014 #13
I'm in the 14% that says JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #14
kick bigtree Jul 2014 #15
It's my contention that Warren is uncomfortable with an array of minority issues because of her past Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #16
Don't forget the unions! JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #17
It sure did take her a long time to come around (mid-90's?). nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #18

JustAnotherGen

(31,823 posts)
1. That -
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:08 PM
Jul 2014

Is a very interesting read.

I seriously was not aware of how much impact we had in the 2008 Primary. Keep in mind I kind of threw my Primary vote away - I'm the 1.4% in NJ (about 15K) that voted for Edwards. His key words - Infrastructure/ Poverty / Health Care / Social Justice.

My 2016 candidate will have those at the top of their platform.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
2. Indeed
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:13 PM
Jul 2014

The Clintons have a long and storied history with the black community, and she certainly would have garnered that vote had a compelling and well organized Barack Obama not come on the scene. If you recall, he did not have the black vote at first, but gained it only after showing viability in the polls and iowa caucuses.

Ignore the base--and black voters are a large and powerful part of the Democratic base-- at your peril. Warren has no record in civil rights or issues of race (and New England is not known for it's grat race relations). On this score, Clinton will have an advantage. (disclosure: I'm not a Clinton supporter, though will be a strong one if she wins the primary.)

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
5. My concern is ...
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:30 PM
Jul 2014

that Warren will pull the entire (non PoC) DU crowd and lose the PoC, because &quot h)er main push is economic rather than social because not only is that her specialty, it is fundamental for equality of every race and gender."

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
6. That is interesting,
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:31 PM
Jul 2014

but EW did not mention Hispanics either. To me "equality for all" seems very inclusive though. What I find rather disconcerting is the fact that EW helps other candidates right now, when it is truly necessary. OTOH I don't see HC doing anything of the sort, just getting on the stage to promote her book. Should that be rewarded in 2016? Just a question.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
9. Actually, HRC's active support ...
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:59 PM
Jul 2014

would, as we see here on DU, hurt those candidates that Warren is helping.

wyldwolf

(43,867 posts)
7. do you think she could have made it an even 12 or narrowed it down to an even 10?
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:37 PM
Jul 2014

11 is just an awkward number.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
8. well, her opponent in that election had a distinct advantage among African American voters
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 03:46 PM
Jul 2014

. . .but I take your point about specifically addressing that voting bloc and getting and keeping them engaged in the political process - including getting them to the polls. That's an effort that I don't think should be taken for granted, either.

Couple of things . . .I noticed in the other thread that you made a distinction between the fight for economic justice/fairness and the struggle to achieve racial and gender inequality. That's a fair distinction, and I would note that, in the past, many civil rights leaders regarded those needs as inseparable. That's what I think MLK intended by advocating an economic and social bill of rights.

As he once asked, "In years will the right to liberty for the black man mainly mean that he is perfectly free to move from one slum to another and that he can periodically choose among politicians who do nothing?"

That said, someone who may intend to lead the nation does need to focus on and directly speak to issues which have a disproportionate and particular impact on black Americans, like voting rights, work discrimination, sentencing disparities, representation in courts and the legislature.

However, a national campaign will need to do more than just convince black voters that the candidate is on their side - it will need to convince the rest of America that the effort is in their interest. That's what I believe is the value in emphasizing economic issues, because those concerns cross racial lines and it can be argued that 'we're all in it together' and that the solutions to these economic concerns will undeniably embrace more than just one bloc of Americans. In that respect, I think Sen. Warren is correct in her focus.

The other point I have is more specific to Clinton and her relationship with African Americans. I'll let this polling and anecdotal info speak for itself:

Pew Research findings: "HRC's image did suffer among blacks in '08, as @nytimes reports. Fav rating sank 23 pts. But she's recovered since." A Pew Research report from December 2012: "Clinton's favorable ratings among blacks plummeted in the spring of 2008: By May, as Obama secured his hold on the nomination, just 59% of African Americans viewed Clinton favorably...A year after the election, a survey by Pew Social and Demographic Trends found that Clinton’s overall favorability mark...among blacks – 93% — was as high as Obama’s."

Potential African-American support higher since 2008 - Results from a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll yield similar results. Among all potential primary voters (those who say they typically vote in Democratic primaries), 47 percent say they will definitely support Clinton in 2016, another 35 percent say they would consider Clinton, only 4 percent say they would not consider supporting her and 14 percent say it's just too soon to say. The "definitely support" percentage is very close to Clinton's 48 percent of the votes cast in primary states in 2008. However, Clinton's definite support percentage is now just as high among African American as it is among other Democrats. According to a compilation of primary state exit polls produced by ABC News, Clinton won an average of just 15 percent of the black vote in the 2008 primaries against Barack Obama. Obama's narrow delegate lead over Clinton rested on his overwhelming advantage with African Americans. YouGov, RCP 2008 Democratic popular vote, ABC News: exit poll key groups, see also HuffPost: 'Why Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Be Threatened by Elizabeth Warren'


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/hillary-clinton-black-dem_n_4374252.html


and this:


In taking a pause from the campaign trail in 2008, Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton remembered Dr. Martin Luther King.

"While our problems were grave, he saw us not as we were, but as we could and should be," Clinton said about King.

"Dr. King saw the darkness of a nation torn apart by petty human differences, but he imagined one knit back together by our shared humanity," said Clinton.

"But as far as we have come, we know the journey is far form over. Some days when you open up the newspaper and you read the headlines, it feels like we have tumbled right back down that mountaintop."

"I believe that we should appoint a Cabinet-level position that should be solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as were know it in America," Clinton said.

It would be "a position that will focus the attention of our nation on this issue and never let it go," she said. The post would be filled by "a person whom I would see being asked by the president every single day, 'What have you done to end poverty in America?' No more excuses, no more whining -- instead, a concerted effort."

"Isn’t it about time we came together as we have in Memphis to find the solutions to make America what it can and should be?" Clinton asked. "When I say solutions, I mean good jobs. Jobs you can raise a family on. Jobs that give people a shot at the middle class, to be able to stay there and live with dignity and respect. When I say solutions, I mean respecting the role of the American labor movement that has given that dignity and respect to so many. This time, once again, to give back the support we need to those who help workers organize and demand their rights."

"When I say solutions, I mean finally addressing the scourge of poverty that stalks so many," she said." "I believe, mayor, Memphis has about a 25% poverty rate, down over the last years, but still far too high. I believe we should appoint a cabinet level position that will be solely and fully devoted to ending poverty as we know it in America."

"It’s the kind of solution that Dr. King's son Martin has been passionately advocating for," she said. "When I say solutions, I mean schools worthy of our children that give each child a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. How about appointing Supreme Court justices who will actually uphold Brown versus Board of Education and not reverse the progress that has been made? When I say solutions, I mean quality, affordable health care for every American. No exceptions. Everyone entitled to health insurance."

"I mean restoring America’s moral leadership in the world, leading the fight against AIDS, Malaria and TB, against poverty and genocide. We cannot let our brothers and sisters in Africa and around the world continue to suffer needlessly. And I mean ending the war that has claimed too many of our precious sons and daughters; ending it as quickly and responsibly as humanly possible. And yet we must demand that our government pass laws that reflect our values. Hate crimes laws, anti-discrimination laws, equal pay laws and so much more. But that is not enough. The solutions we seek are not just about what government does or business does or labor unions or even faith-based institutions do. It is what each and every one of us is called to do," she said.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5385218
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
10. Points well made ...
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 04:19 PM
Jul 2014
.I noticed in the other thread that you made a distinction between the fight for economic justice/fairness and the struggle to achieve racial and gender inequality. That's a fair distinction, and I would note that, in the past, many civil rights leaders regarded those needs as inseparable. That's what I think MLK intended by advocating an economic and social bill of rights.


A key word in the above observation is: "ALL" ... that is NOT the language I am hearing ... well ... not in terms of race. In fact, what I'm hearing is quite the opposition.

bigtree

(85,996 posts)
11. right, 'all'
Fri Jul 18, 2014, 04:31 PM
Jul 2014

. . . that's the most important equation.

I think that's what she's spoken to, but I'm all for challenging these candidates to fully spell that out.

JustAnotherGen

(31,823 posts)
14. I'm in the 14% that says
Sat Jul 19, 2014, 09:50 AM
Jul 2014

It is just too soon to say. I would like to see the full field of candidates after the midterms in November.

Neither Warren to Clinton excite me enough (at this time) to get out and canvass for them. I had that excitement when Clinton ran for Senator in NY - and I gave my time to get her elected.

My number one pet issue right now is infrastructure investment. That could spark a serious return to prosperity. People swinging hammers at a fair wage helps a lot of people and has a trickle up effect.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
16. It's my contention that Warren is uncomfortable with an array of minority issues because of her past
Sat Jul 19, 2014, 12:47 PM
Jul 2014

as a Republican openly opposed to equality, to affirmative action, to choice, to AIDS research.
Some say 'sure she was a Republican, but she changed' and if that's the case then Warren has an extraordinary opportunity to share her narrative, to tell us how and why she changed, to share with us her regrets for the years in which she was an enemy of the average person in service to Reaganomics.
In my view, Reagan Republicans were walking evil, and by the second term anyone who did not see that was either in agreement with them or was a stupendous fool.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
18. It sure did take her a long time to come around (mid-90's?).
Sat Jul 19, 2014, 05:00 PM
Jul 2014

Sudden conversions are always a bit suspect, by their nature.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»In another thread, Elizab...