Can we give decent burial to the meme that Bernie Sanders didn't appeal to black voters.

[LongTomH]

Anyone who worked on the Sanders campaign knows that's false, as an new Harvard-Harris poll points out:

However, a new survey conducted by Harvard University and The Harris Poll disproves all of those comments about the Sanders coalition with hard numbers. According to the survey results, which were conducted among 2,027 registered voters between April 14 and April 17, 2017, Sanders is actually more popular among women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans than white people and men.

According to the survey, 55 percent of men and 52 percent of whites approve of Bernie Sanders. However, Sanders has the support of 73 percent of African Americans, 68 percent of Hispanics, 62 percent of Asian Americans, and 58 percent of women. And even though Sanders identifies as independent rather than Democratic, 80 percent of Democrats approve of him.

That won't come as a surprise to anyone who worked on Bernie's campaign; I saw young black people at the Bernie HQ, both in Des Moines, IA and here in Kansas City. I've still got a copy of KC's African-American newspaper, The Call with an article attributing Bernie's win in Michigan to support in the black community.

I will go on to mention that Bernie's supporters are still around, and still active. I'm now a Democratic Precinct Committeeman; I have a friend from the campaign who is both a committeeman and now, a delegate to the Democratic National Committee.

Edited to add:For those complaining that I'm "refighting the primary," this post was in response to an earlier thread maintaining that "Bernie Sanders brand is damaged because he didn't appeal to black voters, especially black women.

[brush]

1. Of course some supported Sanders but many more POCs supported Clinton

That's why she gained her insurmountable lead in the early, Southern primaries where huge numbers of POCs voted for Hillary.

Hell, most of those voters supported Sanders because he ran as a Dem, but reserved their vote for Hillary.

Ya can't change history.

[loyalsister]

17. Until the general election

African American turnout was down, and it was not just voter suppression. I had very few conversations with people of color who were not just voting defensively.

[StevieM]

195. Turnout was about the same as it was under John Kerry, which is impressive given that

there is now a great deal of voter suppression. Also, the Russian bloggers did a great job of smearing her.

It is hard to imagine that Bernie would have done better among AA voters, given how badly she beat him in that category in the primaries.

In any event, this election was dominated by the FBI from beginning to end. They certainly would have targeted Sanders if he had been the nominee.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

30. Southern primaries

Which some Sanders supporters referred to as the Confederacy.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. That was because Sanders was not even on the radar yet

He got no press from the MSM at all. He was dismissed as an also-ran. People want to go with a winner. I'd like to see how he would have done with AA in those states if those primaries were held near the end of the campaign once his clear populist message was well known.

I deplore that false meme in here as well. I don't see why so many go out of their way to insist that Bernie had no AA support, especially women. And worse, that he was anti BLM or didn't care about black people. Why can't both Hillary AND Bernie be recognized for being supportive of the black community? Why does it have to be one or the other?

In spite of that, I still think its time for new voices, fresh faces to come forward in the Democratic party. Ones that hold Sander's ideals that so many share, but someone who new voters can latch onto.

[ehrnst]

47. "Why can't both Hillary AND Bernie be recognized for being supportive of the black community?"

I still hear many Sanders supporters say that anyone who disagrees with Sanders is corrupt, no matter how many ideas they have in common with him.

That dualistic thinking wasn't part of Hillary supporters. So it's not her supporters that you need to address that question to.

[Gothmog]

55. I know that in Texas the Sanders message did not resonate with African American or Latino voters

The polling cited in the OP will not change these results in my opinion

[Jim Lane]

110. You're half right, half wrong in your characterization of the camps.

I don't disagree at all with your subject line about the politicians themselves. But now we move on to their supporters.

You write: "I still hear many Sanders supporters say that anyone who disagrees with Sanders is corrupt, no matter how many ideas they have in common with him." As someone who enthusiastically voted for Bernie Sanders, I agree that this occurs within our ranks, and it should stop.

You then write: "That dualistic thinking wasn't part of Hillary supporters." Sorry, but you're kidding yourself. During the primaries, right here on DU, there was far too much vitriol flowing in both directions. Currently, you can still see plenty of this kind of dualistic thinking from Hillary supporters. Who else do you think was so thrilled at the idea that a political unknown might run against Bernie in next year's Senate primary? And that's in addition to all the denunciations of Bernie that continue to be posted here.

During the primaries, I was called a "bedbug" on DU, when some Hillary supporter used that term to demean everyone who voted for Bernie. Over on JPR, I was then called a "bedbug" because I voted for Hillary in the general. As a proud member in good standing of the Order of the Double Bedbug, I can assure you that dualistic thinking is found among some of the supporters of each of these politicians.

[ehrnst]

112. Yes, there is anger among supporters of HRC at Bernie

But I have seen overwhelmingly that the anger at Bernie was not fomented by HRC, nor was it because Bernie didn't walk lockstep with HRC.

I have found that numbers of Sanders supporters that are furious at HRC are so in large part not so much because of what her message and platform was, but they believe anyone who disagrees with Bernie is corrupt, and as such could in no way be similar to him, or acceptable as a candidate.

Colleagues of Bernie have stated that he holds this kind of dualistic view in his interactions with other progressive legislators, and I have seen it present itself when other progressives disagree with him. Many of his statements concerning the Democratic party are clear on this.


I have not heard the term "bedbug," let alone used it. So we both learned something here.

[Jim Lane]

124. The anger at HRC was not fomented by Bernie.

You write, "the anger at Bernie was not fomented by HRC...." but the reverse is true as well. I remind you that Bernie ticked off (indeed, permanently alienated) some of his previous supporters when he endorsed Clinton and campaigned for her.

A January 2016 piece in BuzzFeed, "The Bernie Bros Are A Problem And The Sanders Campaign Is Trying To Stop Them", acknowledged in passing that there was nastiness in both directions but chose to focus on uncivil "Bernie Bros" and the campaign's response:

Shortly after Monday night’s Iowa Democratic candidate town hall in Des Moines, Sanders’ director of rapid response, Mike Casca, tweeted a simple but urgent request to the Sanders’s digital cohort. Cool it, he begged. The tweet is now permanently pinned to the top of his feed.

. . . .

Behind the scenes, Casca reached out to the Clinton rapid response director, Christina Reynolds, and to Walsh, via direct message onTwitter to apologize for the Bro behavior.

. . . .

The effort has not gone unnoticed. A prominent woman who backs Clinton and has been trolled by the Bernie Bros asked that Casca’s efforts be included in any story written about them. “He is in a field apart when it comes to taking the high road and asking their supporters to follow,” she said.

On Reddit, Sanders’s digital director, Héctor Sigala, told Sanders’s digital army to join the fight against the Bros. The campaign speaks very frankly with its digital cadre, whose volunteer efforts are a huge part of Sanders’s current success and whose political and grassroots sophistication is the envy of most of the candidates running for president this cycle.

As for the current disparagement of Bernie from HRC supporters and other more "establishment" Democrats, the single most common charge seems to be divisiveness. Sure, unity is a good thing, but there are genuine disagreements on some issues relating to how to oppose Trump and move forward. The people who value unity above all else seem to imply that the way to achieve unity is simple: "Everyone who disagrees with me should STFU or else they're being divisive." (The parallel among the progressives is "Everyone who disagrees with me is a DINO who should go join the Republican Party." )

For example, a majority of House Democrats are now co-sponsoring Conyers's bill for single payer, but the top leaders, Pelosi and Stoyer, are not. Somehow I never see the more centrist Democrats criticize Pelosi and Stoyer for being divisive, even though, from a numerical point of view, it's their side of the single-payer question that's undermining unity. When the shoe is on the other foot, those people understand that disagreements about policy are perfectly appropriate. I think Pelosi and Stoyer understand this, too, but some of their allies don't.

[ehrnst]

152. If we're going back to 2016.....

"Sanders’ digital outreach staffer Hector Sigala also warned supporters running Facebook groups that there were “a lot of trolls” working to convince supporters things that were “obviously fake.” Many of the fake accounts pretended to be Democrats that were going to vote for Donald Trump or Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Many of them were from the alt-right gathering site 4chan, according to him."

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/sanders-staffers-confirm-that-russian-trolls-were-pushing-anti-hillary-memes-on-social-networks-and-comment-threads/

Sanders never addressed that himself. Why? (If he did tell his supporters about this misinformation campaign, please show me where.)

I'm not sure how the Buzzfeed article that you posted shows that HRC fomented anger at Sanders. And I have seen firsthand the rage that was talked about in the article, and have been the subject of it when I factchecked anti-Hillary rants.

Single Payer or bust seems to have become dogma now - in the same way that "defunding Planned Parenthood will eliminate abortions" is on the right. Anyone who brings up the data and reasearch that shows that it might not be as simple or clear as it sounds is called a heretic.

That's what is divisive. Crushing any informed, researched dissent as "corporatist corruption." That isn't coming from Pelosi.

[Jim Lane]

154. The view you're criticizing me for is the opposite of what I meant

You write: "I'm not sure how the article that you posted shows that HRC fomented anger at Sanders." I don't think she did. Here's what I wrote in #112 but with emphasis added:

You write, "the anger at Bernie was not fomented by HRC...." but the reverse is true as well.

I think both candidates conducted themselves better than did some elements among their supporters.

I have no idea whether Bernie personally addressed the (comparatively limited) problem of Russian trolls. His digital outreach staffer did, and that's what a campaign has a digital outreach staffer for. There were some things going on in the other camp that Clinton didn't personally address, but there's no point in rehashing that.

As for divisiveness, you're looking at only one side of the coin. Of course Nancy Pelosi doesn't denounce "corporatist corruption." Neither, on the other hand, do the progressives denounce demands for "purity". Each side has its buzzwords to summarize disagreements with the other. Where there are disagreements, there's no basis for saying that only one side is being divisive.

[ehrnst]

158. I think there is a danger in false equivalency.

I think that sheer raging against another candidate isn't something that was and is even nearly equal on both "sides."

If you are saying that a candidate is not the one who should be addressing misinformation being spread by their supporters, even one that they are not "endorsing," I suggest that you read this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/this-dem-asked-a-pac-to-drop-its-plans-to-tar-his-rival/2017/06/07/5155efcc-4bf9-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html

If you think that Russian Trolls was a "comparatively limited problem, I suggest you read this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html

I am not looking at only "one side of the coin," thank you.

Mea culpa for not seeing the true emphasis on your earlier post.

[George II]

72. This whole discussion is skirting dangerously close to re-fighting the primaries.....

...but come on, he announced his candidacy 10 months before the first primary, and before the first southern primary there were already five Democratic debates. "No press"?

On top of that:

The Mississippi Primary took place after 22 other states had voted, he got 16% of the vote.
The Florida Primary took place after 24 other states had voted, he got 33% of the vote.
The North Carolina Primary took place after 27 other states had voted, he got 40% of the vote.
The Washington DC Primary (not southern but predominantly AA) was the very last primary, he got 20% of the vote.

He got lots of press and exposure, the voters just weren't enamored of the message.

[ehrnst]

113. Yep. (nt)

[still_one]

177. "dangerously close". Not even close, fully immersed

[George II]

178. Yes, I was being nice. Some just can't let it go.

[still_one]

179. I know George

[Jamaal510]

87. He was all over MSNBC (esp. Chris Hayes' show), CNN,

Sunday shows, and on Thom Hartmann's program for starters. He arguably got more coverage and airtime on those shows than any of his rivals from the primaries. In fact if anyone has a leg to stand on about a lack of coverage, it's Martin O'Malley.

[Akamai]

117. I believe Bernie got much less air time than HRC even after he started

drawing huge crowds.

I agree with the argument that corporate America did not want to talk about his issues, such as: income inequality, free education for poor kids, restoring Glass-Steagel
and breaking up the "too big to fail banks," getting out of wars' reducing the bloated military budget (how much money is enough for the military?), etc., etc.

Those issues are still critically important and I look forward to more continued focus on them.

It seems to me that Perez and Ellison are working on these issues and Bernie's group, Our Revolution, is also gathering strength over the summer.

These issues are more important than Bernie, as Bernie himself states.

[karynnj]

46. Liking Clinton better does NOT mean they did not like Sanders

In any primary, you might "like" several candidates. Their platforms will all be relatively similar within the Democratic party. In 2016, Clinton started as someone about 70 percent of Democrats said was their choice in early polls. Part of that was name recognition and part of that was a core group of people who had wanted her to be the nominee for years - some for more than a decade.

Clinton was seen as by far the most likely person to win the nomination -- and importantly, very very likely the next President. In contrast, Sanders was a relatively unknown Senator from the wonderful state of Vermont, an independent, a slightly disheveled Democratic Socialist, who retained the Brooklyn accent of his youth. I know no one who in May 2015 thought he could break 15% of the primary vote -- and that would have been generous.

A vote for Clinton can not be interpreted as a vote against Bernie.

[ehrnst]

48. "A vote for Clinton can not be interpreted as a vote against Bernie."

That's not what I still hear from many Sanders supporters.

[LiberalLovinLug]

99. I highly doubt that

[ehrnst]

116. Doubt all you like. It's been my experience. (nt)

[all american girl]

155. but if bernie would have gotten his wish

and allowed the super delegates decide, he would have lost my vote...no one is allowed to tell us that our discussion was wrong....because she didn't lose...she was just a dem....

[ehrnst]

156. Good point. (nt)

[LiberalLovinLug]

100. This

You are making waaaay too much common sense. Stop that.
Most of us that supported Bernie, who thought he was the best choice, still supported Hillary when she was the nominee. As did Sanders.

A tiny minority went with the Green party.

But obviously, just look at the numbers. If Sanders had up to 48% of support of grassroot Democrats just before Hillary won California, by some polls, and Hillary won the country by 3 million votes, it goes without saying that the vast majority of those former Sanders supporters pivoted to Hillary in the general.

I think some here have a gripe with those on JPR. Guess what...go to JPR then and give em hell! Stop stoking division on DU where near everyone here either always was, or converted to backing the eventual nominee. It is annoying as hell.

[ehrnst]

114. I believe that Sanders supporters often believe that disagreeing with him

is an indication of corruption, or being in the pocket of "big (fill in the blank).

[karynnj]

122. I think that many of the people who became Sanders supporters had long argued that most Republicans

and many (third way, DLC, ...) Democrats were indepted to the various big money people who contributed to their campaigns. You can find these claims going back at lest to 2004 (the earliest I ever looked at DU) and likely back to when DU started.

I tried long ago to argue that they may be looking at what is essentially a "chicken or an egg" situation -- where it may be because of the policies that these leaders propose that they get those donations rather than they back those policies because they get or want to get those donations. (A less controversial example would be to note that a person who is an environmentalist will get donations from people concerned about environmental issues.)

Some Wall Street millionaires and hedge fund managers were politically liberal and leaned towards Democratic candidates. They saw their role as providing the capital that is needed to grow new innovative companies that would make the new technology of the future, etc. Our political system requires every Congressman, Senator, Governor, etc to raise a large amount of money every election. This means that these people will be invited to glitzy events to raise money for campaigns with Clinton (Obama, Biden, Kerry , Gore ...) As long as these people are giving money because they trust and like that candidate and agree with the policies she/he has, this is NOT corruption, but the entire campaign financing system is rife with the potential for corruption.

I KNOW the sensitivity here is that Sanders, who really is NOT a favorite with most of those wealthy WS Democrats, did exploit as a point of difference between himself and Clinton that she had connections that he didn't to Wall Street and to Goldman Sachs in particular. She explained this as having been the Senator from NY. That was true, but the connection predated that and was openly there during the Clinton presidency. This was a legitimate difference between them and one that in prior elections would have been countered just by saying that Sanders was the one out of the mainstream - the most liberal Senator in the country.

The dilemma Clinton faced - and would have faced even if Bernie did not run - was that a significant portion of the country was furious that "Wall Street" nearly drove the financial system over the cliff and it was "main street" that suffered for it - as they continued to get big bonuses - after one or two bad years. This part of the country evectively turned against mainstream politics - in bothparty's primaries. Imagine Bernie Sanders had run in 2008. HRC's Goldman Sachs speeches didn't help, but it may have been that she was already too defined with Wall Street. This might be a case where her 20 plus years in public service meant that she was already defined. Consider how little traction shifting on TPP gave her.

TPP is something where I absolutely disagreed with Bernie Sanders. However, I understand that this is that he firmly is against trade deals and blames them for the dislocation of jobs. It bothered me when he said this in Michigan, where the jobs were mostly lost years ago to non union southern states before they left the country entirely. In addition, many economists state that as least as many jobs are lost to automation.

HRC clearly saw that being for the TPP, in the Democratic primary, was not a good position. However, TPP was the crown jewel of her main foreign policy accomplishment - thepoorly explained, but highly praised in some places, pivot to Asia. She was on record saying it could meet the gold standard of trade deals. Given where the country was, I get why a straight forward attempt to defend the treaty - as Obama, Biden, Kerry et al did (albeit without running political campaigns) would be risky. I would bet that Bill Clinton might have bet the campaign on his ability to explain why it was a good idea. The alternative, was to move against it, which many people saw as disingenuous and likely to revert to being for it when elected.

Now, people say hindsight is 20/20, but in fact, no one knows what a major change would have done to the campaign. I think that had Clinton opted to explain the trade deals and stood for something that was seen as not politically advantageous, it might ironically have helped her be seen as more honest and genuine. Not to mention, it would have been a reason for going to the states most impacted by economic shifts in the past and explaining the need for the US to insure that some of the new gains from the trade deal to the winners would be used to restore the areas harmed. She could even make the case that this was progressive - and would lead to economic and environmental gains and that - if implemented by her - would be done by simulaneously providing opportunies for those losing.

Before you say that it could not be progressive, consider that in an NPR interview with Jeffery Sachs, Bernie's economic advisor, agreed that it is true that trade deals do "expand the pie" - making the total world economy bigger and that the US would overall gain. However, there would be winners and losers -- and a deal needed to help make the "losers" whole.

I suspect that taking this on would have shown Clinton, taking what could be seen as a courageous stand defending work that she had been involved in. Not to mention, it is an inherently optimistic message - always good - and while she would need very good speechwriters to make it approachable, it would be showing the competent, wonkish side of Clinton. I suspect that THAT is closer to who she is that the role the campaign gave her - of being a Trump attack dog for the last month. Many others could have taken the attacks on. (Then again, this might be why I would not be a good campaign stratigist. )

[ehrnst]

197. This! (nt)

[nikibatts]

140. Thank you.

[TexasProgresive]

2. I voted for Sen. Sanders in the Texas primary.

That said, I think you should put discussions about Mr. Sanders to rest. The primary is over and worst somehow tRump is in the WH. We have much more important things to be about.

[susanna]

106. Thank you...wise words. n/t

[missingthebigdog]

3. Can we give a decent burial to refighting the primary?

How is this in any way helpful moving forward?

[uponit7771]

5. IKR !?!!?

[LongTomH]

8. Then why invest so much effort in attacking Bernie?

[Arazi]

11. Agreed

[missingthebigdog]

12. Kindly point out where I attacked Bernie.

Frankly, I have been uncharacteristically quiet about my personal feelings about Bernie and the effect he has had on our country, as I have never had a post hidden here and do not wish to waste one on that.

Instead, I recognize and respect the wisdom of the administrators of this site in prohibiting refighting the primary. It is over; the winners and losers are clear, and continuously ripping the band-aid off is keeping us from healing.

We wouldn't both be here on DU if we didn't share common views regarding the trajectory we would like to be on. Let's find out what we have in common, and agree to disagree about Mr. Sanders.

[LanternWaste]

13. not being a sacred cow kinda guy-- I see criticism rather than attacks.

For the same reason why invest so much energy in aggressively rationalizing his actions.

Although, not being a sacred cow kinda guy-- I see criticism rather than attacks.

[emulatorloo]

33. Some apparently see tepid criticism as a viscious attack

Most DU'ers are aware that our Dem politicians are human. By nature, humans aren't infallible, they make mistakes just like everyone else.

We'll continue to have discussions about our Dems leaders Strategy, statements, how to implement policy. Always been the core strength of DU.

[emulatorloo]

23. Nobody "attacked" Bernie. You need to have your "Bernie Attack Alarm" recalibrated

Seems to go off too often

You should also consider the fact that a "new" poll has nothing to do with the 2016 election. And "approving" of someone doesn't translate directly into wanting that person to be president.

[ehrnst]

49. Commenting on Bernie's badmouthing the Democratic party is not "attacking."

And yes, he does do that. You brought the topic of criticism of Bernie up with your post.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. I hear some "progressives" saying we need new, young blood in the D party.

So great, lets all agree Sanders, who isnt a D in the first place, should be supportive but on the sidelines, and to be fair that would mean WHEN we find someone as good as Pelosi, we can replace her too. But not until we find someone as good as she is.

So new people is what we need, unless we have to choose in 2018 from R's vs not new people, then the choice is clear, to me at least.

[Demsrule86]

86. I completey agree with you. I don't hate Bernie Sanders, but there was nothing good about 2016

I want different candidates...fresh and young...future of the party types.

[Demsrule86]

85. I am not a Bernie fan...but jeez, he is one guy...who cares?

[leftstreet]

10. +1

[BainsBane]

21. No shit.

[uponit7771]

4. Didn't does not eqaul Doesn't ... nice try though

[Blue_Tires]

6. I work at an HBCU, and Sanders wasn't even on the radar

just sayin'... Anecdotal evidence is easily refuted with other anecdotal evidence..

If Bernie was that popular among black folks he would have won the primary by 20 points -- And his campaign wouldn't have been so flippant and dismissive of the black vote...

[cwydro]

19. Thank you. nt

[BainsBane]

22. And we wouldn't see the People's Summit

Proposing to replace primaries with caucuses. It's pretty clear what that's about.

[ehrnst]

45. Caucuses are the antithesis to the popular vote. (nt)

[Gothmog]

57. There are a ton of games that can be played in caucuses

[hughee99]

162. I always thought Superdelegates were the antithesis to the popular vote. n/t

[ehrnst]

167. They are the antithesis to someone like Trump from getting the nomination.

Samantha Bee explains it:

Have Superdelegates stood in the way of the popular vote thus far?

The Black Congressional Caucus explains why they support it:

"We passed a resolution in our caucus that we would vehemently oppose any change in the superdelegate system because members of the CBC might want to participate in the Democratic convention as delegates but if we would have to run for the delegate slot at the county level or state level or district level, we would be running against our constituents and we're not going to do that,” said Butterfield. “But we want to participate as delegates and that's why this superdelegates system was created in the beginning, so members would not have to run against their own constituents."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502


And Bernie Sanders certainly became supportive of it once it became his only hope for the Democratic nomination.

[hughee99]

169. No, she didn't explain it. You can argue that superdelegates serve a purpose, you can even argue

that they're necessary, but you can't argue that they're in keeping with the idea of the popular vote when 650 individuals have more influence over the outcome of the primary than 2 million California Dems.

[ehrnst]

171. You could say that about the Iowa Caucuses.

And can you tell me when the Superdelegates didn't go with the majority of Democratic voters?

[hughee99]

174. You could say that about the caucuses too, but the superdelegate system is a much clearer example.

As for your "didn't go with the majority" suggestion, what does that really matter? You've given a few hundred people the capability to overrule millions of Dem primary voters, whether they've used it or not yet isn't really relevant, if you're actually a believer in the value of the popular vote. Otherwise, what you're saying is that you believe in the importance of the popular vote, as long as they come up with a result you find acceptable. If they don't, though, you support a small number of party insiders overruling the will of the Democratic party's own primary voters.

You know I'm right, you just don't want to admit it.

[ehrnst]

175. No, you're not right.

And I don't know who you think I am, but "I" haven't "given a few hundred people the capability to overrule millions of Dem primary voters." That is as ridiculous as me saying, "You want to silence the Black Congressional Caucus," isn't it?

And I think the fact that this group of knowledgable people have matched the will of the Dem voters is a testament to the group of people and millions of Dem voters.

The idea of knowledge and experience seems to be disparaged now. It's not like former presidents, senators and governors know anything about what might make a good candidate, amirite?

That's the theory that DT promoted in the election, wasn't it?

You are unhappy with the decision that the majority of Dems made, and you just don't want to admit it.

[hughee99]

183. Actually, you're completely wrong.

You can believe that the popular vote is the will of the people, and that the people's will should be respected, or you can believe that the people's will needs to be checked by a small group of people who "know better" but you can't believe both.

Personally, I don't have a lot of faith in the popular vote, and accept the reality that having people with more experience having the ability to override the popular vote (to some degree) isn't a bad thing, but I don't try to pretend the popular vote matters, except when I don't like it. You tried to dismiss my argument as being a sour grapes Bernie supporter, but that's not the case.

You're trying to pretend like you can take BOTH sides and you can't. Either the popular vote expresses the will of the people and should be respected, or the people don't know what's best for them, and if they "get it wrong" you need to be able to disregard what they say.

[ehrnst]

186. Actually, you're not getting it at all.

And you're clearly not going to.

[hughee99]

189. Your inability to make your argument clear should be an indication that your argument might be wrong

You can believe that the popular vote is what counts, and that the will of the people should be respected.

OR

You can believe that a small number of people who "understand things better" than the common person should have the power to override the popular vote IF they think it's best.

You can't honestly believe both are true. That's my argument.

I'll even help you out. To make your argument, just explain how both things can be true.

[ehrnst]

190. Actually, your language choices keep making my point.

Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 03:31 PM - Edit history (2)

And yes, experience in politics, and working with politicians does give someone a "better understanding" of how a peer might be more or less qualified for a more senior position in politics than someone who has only seen the public persona of a that peer.

Why is it that people ask for references when you apply for a job? Are the colleagues who actually have worked with the candidate aren't "common people" but "corrupt insiders" because they would be able to tell you if this person presents themselves better in an interview (or at a podium) than they actually perform at the job? Or that they might not be the best inteviewer, but they are the person that can work in a team and get things done?

The distain of "experience" as being somehow a corruption is what DT proclaimed through the campaign, and you seem to agree.

Politicians are also "common people," even if you don't think they are, and have aligned with the majority of "common" Democratic voters. Which is a much better record than the Electoral College. And I think that the Black Congressional Caucus might have some idea of what they are talking about, even if you don't think so.

Is my position clearer to you now?

[hughee99]

194. Ah, I see what's going on here. You're talking about something different that I am.

Last edited Sun Jul 23, 2017, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

You seem to be trying to convince me that people with insider experience should be listened to. Since you haven't been reading my posts, though, you didn't notice that I already conceded that. (see above)

"Personally, I don't have a lot of faith in the popular vote, and accept the reality that having people with more experience having the ability to override the popular vote (to some degree) isn't a bad thing, but I don't try to pretend the popular vote matters, except when I don't like it. "

You seem to think I'm arguing that the popular vote is the most important thing, but that's not it at all. In my last post I greatly simplified my argument, but since you're not reading my posts anyway, it's understandable why you're not addressing them.

My original post was pointing out that if you think caucuses are bad because they're the "antithesis" to the popular vote, and you think the popular vote is the most important thing, then you must dislike the superdelegate system too.

What you've demonstrated is that you don't like caucuses because they aren't in keeping with the idea that the popular vote is the most important thing, but that you like superdelegates, even though they're NOT in keeping with the popular vote.

I'm not arguing that the popular vote should rule above all, NOR am I arguing that superdelegates are a bad thing, I'm just saying that you can't honestly argue that BOTH things are true, depending on whether it helps or hurts your argument at the moment.

[ehrnst]

196. No, not arguing that at all.

I'm not arguing that the popular vote should rule above all, NOR am I arguing that superdelegates are a bad thing.

Can you say that the statement "caucuses are are an antithesis to the popular vote" is false?

Can you say that the statement "Superdelegates are supported by the Black Congressional Caucus" is false?

Can you say that "Superdelegates have experience and insight not available to most Democratic voters" is false?

So yes, one can have the opinion that all of those are true, and honestly argue that that are.

Is that clearer?

[hughee99]

198. It is clearer.

You think the popular vote is important and use that to argue against caucuses. Then, you don't care at all about the popular vote when arguing for superdelegates.

And I think the argument that the idea of superdelegates is far more antithetical to the popular vote (650 people whose opinion is more valued than millions of voters) than the caucus system is.

If you aren't sure that's the case, about superdelegates vs. caucus voters, think of it this way. Two million california voters could all vote for one candidate, and 650 superdelegates could cancel out all of those delegates and then some.

Explain a caucus scenario in which one candidate has a MAJORITY of the total votes and comes away with nothing, or even significantly less than a split. A scenario in which the will of the participants isn't even close to being reflected in the final delegate total.

[ehrnst]

199. In caucuses, people who don't know more about the candidate or the process than the rest of voters

Last edited Mon Jul 24, 2017, 10:12 AM - Edit history (3)

but are louder and more excited decide for the majority. Caucuses favor the choice of people who don't have an hourly job, childcare responsibilities, problems with travel to the caucus location, and favors the view of those who dominate a discussion.

A presidential primary, run by the state, generally works like any other election. A voter stops by a polling place, chooses their favored nominee, gets an “I voted” sticker, and leaves. Those unable to vote during regular polling hours can usually vote early or by mail. At the end of the day, those votes are counted (and can be recounted if necessary) and results are made public.

Caucuses, on the other hand, generally require voters to show up at one specific time and spend several hours in the process, hearing speeches for the candidates, dividing into groups, selecting delegates, and so forth.

Carleton’s Steven Schier said that the average caucus attender, unlike the average primary voter, must be dedicate a good chunk of time to the process. He likened nominating caucuses to a famous quote attributed to Oscar Wilde: “The trouble with Socialism is that it takes too many evenings.”

Caucus participation lags behind even low-turnout primaries because so many people are unable to be there in person at the anointed time. This means military personnel serving away from their homes can’t participate, nor can people who have to work during the caucuses, parents with small children who cannot find babysitters, and those babysitters who can be arranged. While some states have taken steps to allow absentee balloting and a tele-caucus option, “it’s not widespread,” Putnam said.

https://thinkprogress.org/america-is-supposed-to-be-a-democracy-so-why-do-we-still-have-caucuses-ffbbdf32caf

"Explain a caucus scenario in which one candidate has a MAJORITY of the total votes and comes away with nothing, or even significantly less than a split." A majority of total votes from what? There is no vote before a caucus. Unlike when the Superdelegates vote.

And one could argue that you are arguing the inverse - that you support caucus members deciding for the population, but you don't support Superdelegates even being involved....

You are the one who pitted superdelegates against the caucus system. I said the the caucus system in the primary is the antithesis of the popular vote. True. Superdelegates are made up of people who have direct knowledge of the candidate and the job they will do. True.

Not conflicting at all.

By your standards, what is conflicting is to oppose the concept of Superdelegates, and support the idea of Senators. Senators give the population of Delaware the same say as the population of California, which gives each person in Delaware many times the power of each person in California.

Right?

There are situations where the popular opinion is balanced by a group that has a greater depth of knowledge of an issue and the legislative implications. The Senate and Supreme Court are two such cases. Also the concept of representative democracy...

If the popular vote determines everything, and we had a direct Democracy, the South would still allow two sets of water fountains.

My thoughts are that that the popular vote has to be involved in the determination of representation, and early. Superdelegates don't enter into the actual selection until the Convention. Primaries occur much earlier.

The dualistic thinking you have displayed doesn't seem to take into account different situations, such as that in the primaries and the party convention.

That kind of binary world view of doesn't map to politics, or even most of life, and those that carry that world view usually call any mention of variations or grey areas "hypocritical."

That's why you don't get what I actually think or have expressed.

[hughee99]

200. In my experience, people who complain about binary thinking are almost always trying to paper over

their own inconsistencies. As I've said already, I don't have a lot of faith in the popular vote, I see then for people who know more having a say in politics. What I haven't said is that caucuses are bad (which is what you're looking for). Okay, I'll say that now. It's an unnecessarily convoluted system for picking a candidate.

However, everyone who walks into the caucus is a "voter", none of them are forced to caucus for anyone against their will. You may not like the system, but all the people who show up are allowed to make their own decisions, and if their candidate doesn't make it, they're free to do what they will. It's not a perfect system (or even a good system) for determining the will of the voters, but at least everyone there gets to have their say... as opposed to a system where a small group of people tell the voters their wrong, and have the power to overturn the outcome. A caucus is a bad way to determine the will of the voters, but superdelegates is a great way to disregard it. THAT'S the antithesis to the popular vote. If you think superdelegates are a good idea, you can't be putting your faith in the value of the popular vote.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree with you, and don't think you'll be able to convince me I'm wrong. I guess I will simply put it this way... I know you don't like caucuses, when you object to them, use an argument other than "they're the antithesis to the popular vote" because that's not your real problem with them, and you don't put much stock in the popular vote anyway.

[ehrnst]

201. You don't agree with me. That's correct.

You were the one who posited that I'm being inconsistent, and I pointed out why I'm not being inconsistent.

Those with binary world views often say that about things they don't agree with.

[hughee99]

202. It's funny that you're pointing out my "binary world view"...

You don't like the caucus system, and I've agreed (though not for the same reason as you gave, that it is the "antithesis to the popular vote&quot . You like the superdelegate system, and I've agreed. The only real difference is that I don't pretend to put stock in value of the popular vote, but only when it serves my argument.

[ehrnst]

203. Now it appears that you haven't read my posts.

The part about where the popular vote should be at the start of the process of selection.

But that doesn't serve your argument that I "pretend to put stock in the value of the popular vote.

Is that clearer?

[hughee99]

204. I've read all your posts.

"My thoughts are that that the popular vote has to be involved in the determination of representation, and early. Superdelegates don't enter into the actual selection until the Convention. Primaries occur much earlier. "

You are interested in what "the people" think, but think the ability to override them is necessary, because you don't really trust them. I'm not even saying you're wrong to not trust them, just that you don't.

And of course the superdelegates don't enter into the actual selection until the convention. How can they know what to fix, if necessary, until they have all the results. But if you don't think they enter into the equation until the convention, you're not being honest. There's a reason why they keep a running tally of the "pledged" superdelegates from the start of the primaries, even if those pledges aren't binding. Those delegates are being counted, even if they're not official yet.

[ehrnst]

205. Oh, so you're upset that people consider their endorsement

as valuable. That would be the case if they weren't Superdelegates?

I'm interested in how "the people" vote, yes. I'm also interested to know what the candidates' colleagues have to say about them, and they don't need to be Superdelegates to endorse someone.

I never said I didn't "trust" Democratic voters. But as this election has shown, the people can definitely be fooled by a reality tv star. Samantha Bee put it best, but you dismissed that. Yes, I think that it's good to have a mechanism such as a driver education teacher brake to keep us from going off a cliff. And thus far, Democrats, unlike Republicans, haven't shown that they are willing to drive over a cliff.

There is a running tally of Superdelegates, and we have seen demonstrated in more than one Convention how they can change their affiliation, or simply not express their affiliation until the convention. So that tally can change at any time, right?

So tell me, what do you think that the Black Congressional Caucus gets wrong about their support of Superdelegates?

[hughee99]

206. Again, I don't have an issue with the superdelegates, so why would I think someone who supports

them "gets it wrong".

I don't have a problem with superdelegates. I don't have a problem with the drivers ed instructor having a break, but I accept that the break and superdelegates are necessary because I acknowledge that we can't really trust the Democratic voters (or the drivers ed student).

"I never said I didn't "trust" Democratic voters. But as this election has shown, the people can definitely be fooled by a reality tv star."

In other words, you didn't say you don't trust the voters, but then directly followed it up with a reason you don't trust the voters.

If you can't acknowledge that you don't trust the voters, why do you think superdelegates are necessary? If you actually trust the voters, they shouldn't be.

[ehrnst]

208. I guess you got me.

I pointed out that a lot of voters got things wrong about Trump, so that means I don't trust any voters, including Democrats.

Binary thinking in the form of a straw man.

And you have "no issues" with Superdelegates (despite what you've written in your posts), and are able to say that you "trust voters" even as you claim that the inverse is not true.

Got it. Excellent 'splaining.

[hughee99]

210. How about this...

You don't really trust the voters, but you do think it's important to know what they want, and you don't believe a caucus is a good way to do that.

Is that a fair assessment?

And nowhere did I say I don't like the superdelegates. I did say that they're antithetical to the will of the voters, but then I also said I don't trust the will of the voters.

[ehrnst]

211. Nope.

But that won't stop you from 'splaining more.

I am a voter.

"And nowhere did I say I don't like the superdelegates. I did say that they're antithetical to the will of the voters, but then I also said I don't trust the will of the voters."

I think that you simply like to 'splain even when there is nothing to 'splain, for the joy of 'splaining to someone else that they are in need of 'splaining by someone that clearly sees their flaws, and often gets frustrated when said 'splainee doesn't express the appropriate humility and thanks for being deemed worth your time 'splaining them.

Proceed. Knock yourself out.

[hughee99]

212. You won't say that you don't trust the voters, but have argued that there are reasons

not to trust them, and that there are mechanisms in place to override their will, if needed, that are important to have.

Until you can resolve those two opposing opinions, there's nothing more for me to 'splain.

[ehrnst]

213. And yet you continue.

Begging for someone, anyone to tell you that you have superior debate skills no matter what the other person did or didn't say, damnit!

Two go in, one comes out! Only one can remain!



Proceed.

[lunamagica]

82. Yes, it was pretty clear as it was absurd. Presidential elections don't include caucuses in any

Last edited Mon Jul 24, 2017, 04:47 PM - Edit history (1)

statechoosing a candidate based only on caucuses would mean political suicide.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. There is an agenda, and you aint part of it.

I mean the truth is there are two groups of white people in America, well 3, but two as it relates here.

One are openly racist and supportive of the traitor and a DOJ which will take rights away from non whites, and one who cares about their wallets, little else, and if social issues have to suffer, so be it.

The 3rd group are white liberals who care about social issues first. Always first.

[bettyellen]

7. "You saw young black people" - WOW. This is how you choose to refight the primary?

Just stop- people responding to this will be alerted on.

[riderinthestorm]

9. Thanks for posting this nt

[LonePirate]

14. Yeah, Sanders' huge margins of victory in the Deep South primaries last year prove this point!

[obamanut2012]

16. lulz

[WoonTars]

39. Which of those states that Hillary won in the DS primaries...

...did she win in the fall?

So much for huge margin of victories...

[LonePirate]

53. Silly me. I thought this thread was about Bernie's appeal to the pre-eminent Dem bloc in the South.

I didn't know it was one of those threads about which Dem candidate would have won what states last November.

[WoonTars]

61. Which is why you brought up Hillarys performance in the DS

...to begin with, right?

Silly me.

[LonePirate]

63. No, I brought up Bernie's performance in the Deep South. I never mentioned Hillary in my first post.

[WoonTars]

64. I stand corrected. You only inferred Hillary's performance.

.

[ehrnst]

115. You are aware that primaries are only among the party, right?

For instance, you know that a Dem winning in a deep red state against a Dem primary opponent doesn't mean one will win against a Republican general election candidate.

Is that clearer?

[WoonTars]

159. That was precisely my point...

Winning states in primaries that you have no earthly chance of winning in a GE doesnt mean shit...

[ehrnst]

176. So those states shouldn't get a say in who the Dem candidate is?

You say that their votes "don't mean shit."

I think they would beg to differ... as would the rest of the Democratic party.

[ehrnst]

51. Indeed. (nt)

[obamanut2012]

15. just staaaaaahp

[NCTraveler]

18. .

"I saw young black people at the Bernie HQ"

[BainsBane]

26. "I have a friend"

[Gothmog]

75. LOL

[JHan]

67. I lol'd

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. That made me lose my coffee.

[ehrnst]

168. LOL!!! (nt)

[rockfordfile]

20. Truth is he didn't at the time.

[BainsBane]

24. A new survey isn't votes

Every poll had Clinton beating Trump. Only she isn president now, is she? If Sanders had black support, he would have been the nominee. He wasn't though, was he?

[emulatorloo]

34. Thanks, plain and simple.

[ehrnst]

44. You don't get the Democratic nomination without the support of Black women.

And Bernie hasn't really had to address that population, as Vermont is over 98% white.

I think that an explanation for why he seems to think that social justice issues aren't as profound as they really are.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. When black voters have a choice between Bernie and kamala, who do you think they'll pick?

It's not like he's not going to have rivals in 2020.

its not Bernie vs no one, it's going to be Bernie vs kamala, Bernie vs Cory etc.

[Fresh_Start]

27. Bernie's problems have grown since 2016

many people who did or would have voted for Bernie in 2016 have been turned off by his continued attacks on democratic unity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. I would have happily voted for him in 2016 if he won the primary

Pretty sure I can't say the same for 2020.

[ehrnst]

42. Same here. (nt)

[pirateshipdude]

59. Correct. You are right on. Eom

[pnwmom]

29. You're comparing apples and oranges. Bernie didn't appeal to enough black DEMOCRATS

in the primary. When you look at the general election, or the whole population, his numbers are better.

[SaschaHM]

31. There's a huge difference between approving of someone during a poll and voting for them.

They may do the former now, but Black voters over 30 didn't do the latter during the primaries.

However, if Bernie 2020 and his supporters want to ignore that, then that's completely fine with me. I don't want him to be the nominee.

[Gothmog]

58. That is so very true

[JCanete]

66. Absolutely. It shouldn't be ignored, but that vote was in the context of the Clinton name being a

known commodity. The Clintons, being very prominent, have done a lot of visible work over the years to be associated with being responsive to the needs of the black community. It sounds to me like the record is far more mixed than that, but still. Sanders was almost entirely unknown to most people when the first states were holding primaries, and even if people were just getting wind of him, the familiar well established option is certainly less of a wild-card.

The fact is that his 73% favorability is post election, now that his name-recognition is so much higher than it previously was. None of that necessarily translates to votes. That has to be acknowledged. Somebody else may seem like a better, more practical candidate to a huge chunk of these voters, and as somebody else pointed out, a lot of these voters aren't necessarily democrats, so may have no influence on a primary. But if the question is whether or not Sanders' brand is damaged, as another OP posited, I think this should put that notion to rest.

[R B Garr]

101. Way off base. They are loyal to Obama and Sanders

dissed him by suggesting Obama be primaried. It wasn't because they didn't know Sanders. That was explained to us by an AA poster here who was in the know about that base of the Democratic party. That was a large reason, but there were others. Wish she was here to explain it. Made a lot of sense.

[JCanete]

108. they as one uniform block of people? I'm sure there were some people who aren't happy about

Sanders suggesting that, and even some that still like Sanders in-spite of not liking that he said that. I don't think that would the most important basis to choose one's candidate for President for most people. While I'm totally willing to concede that there was work being done making sure people knew he had said this, and that pictures of him getting arrested were of somebody else, etc., this was in-fact the way that the Clinton favoring wing of the media wanted to introduce him to the black community, because it WAS an introduction. For the most part, Sanders name recognition was still pretty shitty up to the South Carolina primary, and most people were still just unfamiliar with him. You can accept that fact without us pretending we know what the response would have been had they had time to get familiar with him before casting their ballots, but at least one poll suggests that Sanders name isn't mud among the black community at large, today.

[R B Garr]

120. Your first sentence was very predictable. Unless someone

went door to door and spoke with every single AA who voted, then only your theory is correct. As I recall, that was offensive to them as well -- not taking what they say seriously and just inserting what you insist is correct and which inflates one man who would be revered, but they just didn't educate themselves about him so, of course, they are wrong.

This is a summary of what was said, I can't speak for her, obviously. But I do remember the pushback on her observations. edit-he admittedly didn't try to win the South, so that was an awareness in his part of something.

[JCanete]

128. I didn't say that. In fact I was very specific about neither of us knowing what his reception would

have been. It has nothing to do with "they just didn't educate themselves about him..." wtf is that bullshit. It is just the reality of our politics that sometimes a race is presented in a way that it seems already foregone. Clinton's nom certainly felt foregone, and other candidates generally don't get as much attention from voters when that is the case because they aren't expected to actually be contenders. For that matter, it is entirely reasonable to me that Sanders would be discounted outright by the black community if their first introduction to the candidate, through many of our "liberal" media sources, was a big push to make him the "out of touch" old white man who was pretending to have been involved in civil rights, who dissed Obama, and who, was supposedly, according to that media preemption, a candidate for white people. It's not like I've ever done any in-depth, or really any cursory research on Cruz or Kasich. I had a feeling I knew enough about them without even knowing them that I never went, "hmm, better check out these candidates. Maybe they're for me."

We make choices about where we spend our time and energy, and when we feel confident in our short-hand calculations, we often make our decisions based upon them. That's not white-splaining or any other bullshit you want to apply to me. It is simply a human reality. And I'll reiterate...this has nothing to do with what the reception might have been. I have no idea. It may not have changed the numbers of these early elections at all, had sanders been more of a known commodity. But the results we did get also say very little about whether or not Sanders was 'rejected' by black voters. That's a convenient interpretation for people here, who don't like him. It isn't the reality.

[R B Garr]

130. Actually, we do know what his reception "would have been" because it

already happened and we saw it for ourselves. No need to go back and make into something that it wasn't.

[ehrnst]

149. +1000 (nt)

[ehrnst]

139. But you said that you couldn't support any politician or party that

put industry or lobbyists over public good.

Or changed their opinion based on public reaction.

But you seem to support Sanders.

[JCanete]

143. What I didn't say was that democrats weren't doing this. I did say that it takes criticism to make

the party good. When it responds in the right direction, that is awesome. I didn't actually say that people who change their opinions because of public reaction were unsupportable. I didn't say that at all.

[ehrnst]

148. Ah yes.

I suppose you apply that same metric of criticism being helpful, to criticism of politicians who run for national office who have some issues reaching certain segments of Democrats? That sort of criticism?

Or if they have put lobbyists and/or corporations over public good? And when someone points that out - it's valid criticism?

You apply that standard to every politician who makes a run for president on a Democratic ticket?

Or just some?

[JCanete]

151. I don't know what you mean. I don't have a problem with that criticism at all. I didn't weigh in on

this thread because I had problems with criticism about Sanders. It was about whether or not his brand is damaged, not whether or not there are things he could do better. I have no issue with somebody claiming his brand is damaged either, for that matter. I just don't think that is meted out in the evidence.

I would certainly be surprised at myself if I ever posted anything to suggest that Sanders is not to be criticized, but if you have me on record saying anything of the sort, please produce it.

[ehrnst]

144. I'm sure there are some people who aren't happy about the statement lumping "black voters" into

one block when it comes to what they think of Sanders - in the OP.

[GaryCnf]

123. Maybe I can explain it to both of you

I am black and I consider Obama the greatest president in history but I did not care at all when Sanders criticized him. My admiration for Obama is based upon my rational evaluation of the totality of his presidency. It wasn't hero worship or racial identification. I would hope that you believe most black people evaluate him the same way.

When he pursued policies I disagreed with, I said so. I am not going to think less of a white guy for doing the same thing.

By the same token, when I decided who to support it wasn't because one candidate got more or less press, as your debate opponent here seems to suggest. I was as informed as white voters making the same decision at the same time. The fact that more black voters broke for Clinton instead of my candidate shows nothing more than that we face different consequences than voters who are not black and not because we are ill-informed.

This entire talk about what black people think carries a real danger of suggesting that our loyalty to the Party is based on some kind of group think. I'd just as soon it stopped entirely but if it isn't I think there should be some acknowledgment that we are making decisions using the same weighing process as all other voters.

[JCanete]

150. Thank you very much for your input on this subject. I just want to clarify what I was saying.

I never ever ever suggested that black voters were less informed than white voters, and I don't even
think that sanders voters are necessarily more informed than Clinton voters. They represent a spectrum. Hell, white voters carried Trump. How could that possibly be my argument? But the reality IS, most people, across the spectrum are not on political boards every day of their lives keeping up with politics. The fact is there was low name recognition for Sanders by the point of the South Carolina vote. What I have no business claiming is what that vote would have looked like had he been more familiar, but it isn't an unreasonable thing to not give much consideration to the underdog you haven't heard of. Putting energy and investment into a candidate who will likely be forgotten in a couple weeks isn't typically what people do, and I would certainly suggest that if certain messaging about the candidate precedes him, this might make taking a look even less likely.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if black voters were slightly more informed than white voters, simply by virtue of the direct consequences of tone and policy on black lives, but there's nothing scientific about that assessment.

[ehrnst]

141. He has dropped 12% in approval ratings (Morning Consult) in VT since last September.

Perhaps his constituents have a different view.

[geek tragedy]

32. news flash: black people are more liberal and Democratic-leaning that white people, on average

White people in this country are, on average, fairly rightwing, especially if they're uneducated

[Awsi Dooger]

107. Yeah, I don't know what this thread is all about

Sanders would have done great with blacks in the general election. What were blacks going to do, pout and switch to Trump simply because they preferred Hillary in the primary?

The dynamic would certainly have been different. Sanders had more upside than Hillary but every attack would have abused the word socialist and I'm not sure Sanders could have effectively countered. This is a scared country. We were offering two options that sparked unwarranted fear -- a woman or a socialist.

Bottom line we have no governors so we have no bench. Until the governorships are prioritized and fortified we'll continue to have low number of viable choices and not necessarily an ideal nominee. It was extremely fortunate that Obama emerged, although any Democrat would have prevailed in 2008 given Bush's sustained inept approval rating for 3+ years following Katrina.

[mythology]

35. This doesn't really say anything

Shockingly a liberal official appeals to more of the population that traditionally votes Democratic than the population that traditionally votes Republican.

But when given a choice, his campaign didn't translate that into votes against another Democratic candidate. Also of note in the GE Clinton won 88% of African American voters.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. Thank you

a lot of people are busy trying to damage Sanders' brand while at the same time remarking how damaged it is.

[Cigar11]

37. I have no problem Backing a Democrat ...

... who Backs The Democratic Party

[JCanete]

69. I have no problem backing a democratic party...that backs the people. That's kind of why, as

part of the party, we have to police our own party. Real talk is not our problem. Public criticism of our direction, is not our problem. What matters, is what direction we choose.

[ehrnst]

119. Can you give an example of where the Democratic party didn't "back the people?" (nt)

[JCanete]

126. Any time the Democratic party or its candidates are expedient, rather than truthful, or

appeasing of one lobby/industry or another over the nation's well-being, because they think it is the only way to get elected. Al Gore came out years after his office run and said that he knew that pushing ethanol was not actually good for the environment, but that he did it because he was trying to court the farm lobby. And that is as straight shooting as you can be, because at least he came out and said it. Most people aren't likely to do that on all of the other issues that have been compromised in order to get elected.

What is our record on the prison industrial complex over the last 20 years? What principles have we've given up and let fall out of public discourse? Why does Debra Wasserman Shultz get in the way of ending payday loans? What ever loving good do payday loans actually do for people? It is nearly indenturing, and it is certainly robbery. There is no nuance to suss out here. And guess what. She changed her position because of public criticism. That's why you have public criticism.

[ehrnst]

138. Expediency in politics....

So, any Democratic official that does what ***every single politician*** who has served for more than a few years has done at one time or another - Appease a lobby/industry or another over something that someone thinks is "the nation's well being."

Or changing their support for something because their constituents want something different.

So, in your world -

No good or moral politician chooses expediency over something that someone somewhere is convinced is "the nation's well being."

And there is always a clear choice between the "nation's well being," and "corrupt expediency" and never, ever a decision between "bad for the nation's well being" and "worse for the nation's well being." It's always, black or white, good or evil, and compromise is corruption.

Got it. You could never, ever support a party or politician that has compromised.

Every decision that a politician makes is as clear and uncomplicated as "choosing prison slavery" over "not choosing prison slavery."

Do you picture politicians twirling mustaches while they dream of destroying the earth?

Just out of curiosity - do you drive a car?

[stonecutter357]

40. lul.

[ehrnst]

41. I don't think that it can be buried just yet.

"Sanders’ main challenge is connecting to black women, the Democratic Party’s most important voting demographic. If he wins them over, he has a shot. As much as people think I hate Sanders, I really do believe that he is a dynamic candidate. He deserves respect. In return, Sanders needs to respect and honor the fact that black women can lead his assent, just as they did for Obama. Or, they can hand him his second L in 2020, just as they did when he didn’t take their votes seriously in 2016."

http://www.theroot.com/bernie-sanders-black-women-problem-1796995081

[Cryptoad]

43. Glad to see the O Shit Pot getting stirred Daily!

[MrScorpio]

50. If he runs again and gets the nomination, I'll support him

Until then, I really don't care.

[Eliot Rosewater]

56. If a kumquat runs and gets the nomination and has a D by it's name, gets my vote too.

[FairWinds]

60. One good way to bring the party together . .

would be for the establishment Dems to get behind
Medicare for All.

Then progressives will enthusiastically get on board,
instead of doing so with reluctance.

There are other progressive issues that the Dems should
push for as well such as fair trade, card check, fight for 15,
anti-interventionism.

But Medicare for All is the bottom line for me.

[BainsBane]

62. How about quit insulting people?

Not calling them establishment because thry disagreed with you in a now ancient primary? It is interesting how you all have manged to caegorize the poor and marginalized as "establishment," while the white and affluent supposedly aren't.

The issue with single payer has always been getting it through the congress, which is why Sanders declared it a non-starter in 2009. John Conyers has introduced a Medicare for all bill every year for a very long time. Yet we hear not a word of support for it from self-described progressives.

Now I understand focusing on what becomes law is " establishment" compared to the all important matter of what is said on TV. But if " progressives" ever decided they want to pass Medicare for all, they could start building coalitions in congress rather than spending their time insulting Democrats for not doing the work they can't be bothered to. What exactly is stopping you from doing that? What do you sit back and wait for people you clearly see as inferior to yourself to do the work for you? Why aren't Bernie and Tusli meeting with the GOP leadership to try to get a bill up for a vote? Saying one supports single payer is easy, as easy as liking strawberry ice cream. Making it law is the hard part. So how about progressives start working on that?

I'm all on board for anti-interventionism, and that means reducing defense spending. Are you going to tell Bernie his continued support for the f35 is unacceptable? Are you gong to tell him you oppose hs many, many votes for increased defense spending?

And the war at home, that kills more than 30,000 a year through gun violence? When are progressives going to stand up against that, including demanding waiting periods for gun sales and ending civil immunity for the corporate merchants of death?

[JHan]

77. Do these folks know that yet another of Conyers' bills is languishing in committee

Stage as we speak ( last I checked ) ?

Sigh.

( great post too )

[brer cat]

96. +1000 nt

[R B Garr]

102. Great post, as always! It's Conyers bill. For years.

Makes you wonder why that's not acknowledged.

[FairWinds]

129. gimmie a break - in what universe is . .

"establishment" an insult. It is just a descriptive label.

And they are not called that because of an "ancient primary," but
because we disagree with them on specific issues.

In addition to those issues already discussed, support for charter schools is
also a trademark issues for many establishment dems, including some from
my own county here in Ohio.

Progressive Dems, including me, oppose charter schools. We see them as
corrupt, and as tools used to wreck public education. In my view, Dems should
not take charter school money (or money from for-profit "universities&quot , and should
oppose them at every turn.

I am not saying that Establishment Dems are bad people. Not at all.
It is just that we disagree with them on a number of issues.

[BainsBane]

133. Why did you decide to leave that response to this OP?

Is it because you believe African Americans are "establishment"?


That you label others doesn't make it accurate or acceptable. There is little more establishment than promoting the wealth of the already privileged while dismissing the marginalized as inferior. It sure as hell is not progressive, which means moving forward, not turning the clock back.

I see all kinds of buzz words used to camouflage deeply reactionary views. The underlying value system is what matters, not the contrived justifications.

Rather that nursing resentment toward African Americans because some of then support charter schools, you could adopt a non-establishment position of equAl finding for all k-12 schools, which would obviate any need or support for charter schools in the black community. Until then, it's just a transparent use of buzz words to justify continued inequality.

[Hekate]

137. What you said, BB

[mcar]

94. Define "establishment Dems" please

Does that include Dems, or those who caucus with them, who have held political office for decades? I really don't understand this classification.

[pirateshipdude]

97. PP. Ya, for real. And we are suppose to take that seriously. Eom

[FairWinds]

127. The "establishment dems" are the ones who we oppose . .

on the issues as outlined above -

You could also call them Third Way, Neoliberal, and etc.

The Rahm, Rubin wing of the party.

And by the way, all we progressives are doing is continuing the
legacy of FDR. It is the establishment which has abandoned that legacy.

To paraphrase Reagan, it was not Bernie (and the rest of us) who left
the Democratic Party, it was the Democratic Party that left us.

[mcar]

147. There's a Rahm, Rubin wing of the Democratic Party?

Are they the only members? Also, please name elected Democrats who are affiliated with the nearly defunct Third Way.

[ehrnst]

187. Bernie has abandoned "medicare for all or bust"

and has stated that expanding the ACA is more realistic at this point, and that any bill put forth now is going to fail.

By your definition, that puts him in the "establishment" camp.

[BainsBane]

136. Since his response was to a post about AA voters

It would seem they fit his definition of establishment. That is seriously fucked up.

[mcar]

145. Sure is

[ehrnst]

118. Can you be more specific on what an "establishment Dem" is?

I keep hearing that term, and have yet to hear it defined in any way other than any Dem who disagrees with Sanders in any way.

[FairWinds]

188. Why do so many on DU seem intent on denying . .

that an "establishment" even exists in the party?

Yet another example: Yesterday I re-watched the PBS doco
"The Warning" about Brooksley Born's effort to regulate
OTC derivatives and prevent what she saw as a systemic
risk to the economic system.

The establishment ganged up on her. Greenspan, Rubin and Summers
jumped in to prevent any sort of OTC regulation. They went after her
personally, not just politically.

Born was, of course, right. And it shows why progressives need to keep
fighting to reign in Wall Street.

The Dem establishment is bad for the country, and bad for the party.

In general, establishment Dems promote austerity, and go along with
GOP policies - such as the financial deregulation promoted by Phil Graham
and the other GOPPERS.

Hope this helps . .

[ehrnst]

191. I think that you use "establishment" as a perjorative and not an actual description.

Like those on the right use the term "elitist" for Obama. His intellect, lack of "black male anger," an Ivy League education and lack of deference to their anger was called "establishment." I agree that Harvard is "establishment," but don't consider it a threat to progress.

I think that "experience" and "efficacy" isn't considered the boogeyman that many who hurl the term "establishment" as an insult do.

If the "establishment" gets us funding for Planned Parenthood, marriage equality, Title iX enforcement, protections for health care specific to women, acknowledgement and action against man made climate change, 30 million more people on health care coverage, Medicaid expansion, then I really don't consider that bad.

Can you be specific on where Dems promote austerity? Can you tell me which party administration implemented Dodd/Frank?

Can you tell me what party Greenspan was a member of?

Please clarify.

[BainsBane]

163. The more I think about you post

The more offensive it is. You chose to make this response to a thread about AA voters, an entire race of people you describe as establishment compared to more affluent "progressives." You talk as though it's the responsibility of black voters to cater to you, like they owe you something.

No one owes you a fucking thing. Black people are not responsible for assuaging your egos. Aerage incomes of AAs are far lower than other groups of Americans, and exponentially lower than white men. African Americans or the poor don't exist to cater to the bourgeoisie or the rich who call themselves progressive. It is not their responsibility to promote your issues or your class and race interests.

If you want to promote particular reforms, do the work. If you want to build support for those ideas, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than telling black people they are responsible for catering to you.

I happen to support the issues you mention, but your use of labels to characterize an entire race of people is repugnant. And that you and others persist in using terms you know people find insulting tells me that the issues matter far less to you than asserting your own wholly unjustified sense of superiority. You use disparaging labels to create an us vs. them divide rather than seeking to build support around the reforms you list. If you truly wanted to encourage support, you would use persuasion and listen to others about their concerns rather than throwing around labels and talking about how the marginalized are responsible for making "progressives" feel better.

Your ability to undermine support for issues you claim to care about is truly stunning. No wonder none of the "progressive"-anointed candidates have ever won a single race, even in deep blue districts.

[FairWinds]

170. The NAACP also opposes charter schools . .

does that make them racist?

In fact, I have worked on AA democratic party campaigns
for years, including as treasurer. How about you?

Of course your post is insulting, but that appears to be your aim . .
You wrote "You talk as though it's the responsibility of black voters to
cater to you, like they owe you something."

You establishment Dems seem to go to great lengths to divide the party
by driving away progressives, . .

and to avoid discussing issues.

Could we just have a discussion about the merits of charter schools?
Do you support Ohio's ECOT?

[BainsBane]

180. This thread is not about charter schools

You interjected charter schools as an excuse for your glib remarks about African Americans. It is not the issue of this OP, which talks about African American voters. You interjected it and are now seeking to use it to distract from your labeling an entire race of people as establishment. You are free to post a thread on the subject at anytime.

I also told you I agreed with you on the issues you listed, yet you couldn't abide that. You had to insult me, to proclaim yourself superior. You pretended in a prior post that progressive vs. establishment was determined by positions on a list of issues, only to then turn around and call me establishment despite my agreeing on those issues. You're so anxious to maintain a divide, you can't abide agreement. Whatever underlies your contempt for great swaths of the citizenry, it has noting to do with issues.

The fact is none of the issue positions you proposed is particularly controversial. It's all standard fare in mainstream--ESTABLISHMENT--political debates.

What sets you apart is your eagerness to label the poorest, most oppressed Americans as "establishment " and that they somehow owe you. We hear a lot in contemporary politics about how people of color and women have it too good, that white mean earning 7x the average income of African Americans isn't good enough for them. They feel owed, resentful that they have to compete in the work place (or political arena) based on competence and ideas, rather than falling back on being born into privilege.

I told you why it's unacceptable to categorize an entire race of people as "establishment." It's not only unreasonable, it's a lie--a BIG LIE. Whiteness and affluence are far more establishment than living under the kind of oppression that black people do. People who are stopped by police because of the color of their skin and even killed for that same reason are not the "establishment." They don't owe you or your favorite member of the political elite yet another vacation home. They don't owe your kids an Ivy League education while their children bleed in the streets.

SOME African Americans support charter schools because their kids go to the worst schools in America, and so-called progressives like you have no interested in doing a damn thing about that inequality because you benefit from it. Only it turns out you don't feel you benefit enough, so we see an elaborate justifications contrived to promote the further deepening of inequality to benefit those who already have more.

The debate over charter schools is very standard. There is nothing anti-establishment about it. A principled, leftist position would be to stand up against the chronically unequal K-12 educational system, and the way it punishes the poor and people of color by ensuring they stay poor. But then that would require actually holding leftist values of equality. You instead are focused on a rather sad effort to prove to yourself that you are somehow superior based on a label (the meaning of which you have changed completely in the span of two posts). No one confident in their own abilities or views needs to do that.

I'm not hearing a thing from you in terms of issue positions that doesn't sound very mainstream, establishment. Campaign treasurer is hardly the vanguard of a revolution.

To answer your question, yes, I have volunteered on campaigns of African Americans, among them my congressmen Keith Ellison and of course our last President, Barack Obama.

Why on earth would you think I would know about local Ohio school resolutions? It is really so difficult to understand that your community and your life is not the center of the entire universe?

[FairWinds]

185. Oh, you know Keith Ellison?

Great - he can tell you all about the Dem party establishment

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/in-the-dnc-race-establishment-dems-preempted-the-left.html

[FairWinds]

193. How about Florida ? Ya got Florida ?

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/07/23/floridas-education-system-one-betsy-devos-cites-model-chaos

Dems should NOT be siding with Betsy DV or Rick Scott on education issues.

I used charter schools only as an example of how progressive
Dems differ from establishment Dems - such as Arnie Duncan.

And, rotten grammar aside, this is a vicious lie by you . .

". . progressives like you have no interested in doing a damn thing about that inequality because you benefit from it."

[ehrnst]

192. Most of Europe uses multiple payers to achieve universal health care coverage

Even Medicare isn't Single Payer.

Even Bernie has said that right now single payer won't pass, and we should concentrate on saving and expanding the ACA.

I guess that means he doesn't meet your bottom line.

Universal Health care is the goal, and there are other, more realistic ways to get there than single payer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care

See also: Vermont Single payer.

[JHan]

65. It's great blacks support liberals isn't it, but did you look at that poll?

Not just the editorial that spun it...Are you sure you want to rely on it? Did you see how many African Americans were polled in that poll? What was the break down not just by race, but also gender and age?

And that poll does not * negate the salient points raised in the original roots article.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. this has been the week of white people telling black people

what their community does or does not support.

there was a great Joy Ann Reid thread about it in response to Matthew Iglesias

[JHan]

70. I saw that...posted about it in AA group

It was epic . Matt went quiet. Lol

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. oh man. sorry i missed it. yeah thread was epic.

[JCanete]

73. That's a totally valid point, and I personally neglected to look at the actual polling data, before

citing those numbers in some of my posts. I tried to find the breakdown just now but am so far unsuccessful. Have you seen it?

[JHan]

74. It's interesting data ...from what I can see

I can't see all of it at the moment because my iPad display is messed up - 11% of 2027 people polled were AA. I'm not seeing the kind of break down the article assumes in its editorial ( when I go home I'll take a look at it on my Mac)

Still, the original roots article the op is responding to raises some good points and I don't see how the data I'm seeing is supposed to refute it- heck Terrell even acknlowleges Sanders' dynamism.

[regnaD kciN]

78. At THIS site...?

[awesomerwb1]

79. In 2050 you guys will still be debating this stuff

but Hillary, but Bernie, blah blah blah.

Let's pause this for now (forever hopefully) and just focus on taking our country back.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

80. AMEN, I've been black most of my life and I LOVED Bernie...I HATE it when people

think & believe that they can speak for me & people who look like me.

[Voltaire2]

81. I have to ask which part of your life was it where you

weren't black?

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

83. REALLY? It's a figure of speech, Voltaire....

SMDH. but IN SOME countries, (brazil is a perfect example), because I have european GGrandparents, as well as Asian GGGranfathers & Native american , (Choctaw, Seminole, Blackfoot, Creek & Mixtec), they see people like me as VERY different that North Americans do.

[Voltaire2]

88. OK just never heard it before.

[emulatorloo]

104. Never heard that before. I've been fat white guy all of my life. Doubt anything about that is

gonna change. Except the fat part.

[The_REAL_Ecumenist]

109. LOL! FUNNY!

[Jim Lane]

111. I had a full head of hair for much of my life, but THAT's changing. (n/t)

[left-of-center2012]

84. EVERYONE needs to move forward...

and unite against the GOP in 2018 and 2020.

[JHan]

89. So yeah, nothing I can see in the poll data supports the slant taken by the blog...

I am not seeing the breakdown they are seeing.. and the blog is very anti DNC. But we don't care about that.. we'll use spin to dismiss a very cogent Roots Article about a strong democratic demographic.

Cool beans.

[ismnotwasm]

90. Its incredibly insensitive

We white people are often literally numb and blind to the experience of the othered unless we make a real effort not to be

And we repeat the same mistakes over and over and over and over...

[JHan]

91. in this case ...

.. it's the intellectual dishonesty that's wrong.

The original roots article went to great pains to point out the existence of black Sanders supporters - NO ONE ARGUED OTHERWISE.

It's a thoughtful, and direct, piece and using spin and "fake news" to refute it is just amazing to me.

The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the Roots website is kryptonite

[ismnotwasm]

93. True that!

I loved the original Root article, It was thoughtful and powerful--one well worth paying attention too if one cares about political direction.

[emulatorloo]

105. You nailed it.

[uponit7771]

125. +1

[LexVegas]

92. ...

[Motownman78]

95. Even if Sanders had won

As we see with Trump, the President is truly weak and irrelevant. Sanders agenda would have gone absolutely nowhere just like Trump's.

[GaryCnf]

121. I was not going to add my comment to this thread

because I think the discussion that has developed in it is poisonous and I was hoping the comments would die out and it would eventually just drop from the screen. It has not.

I am black. I am a Marxist. I proudly supported Senator Sanders in the primary just as I proudly supported Secretary Clinton in the general election. I have in my short time here already supported and will continue to support the 2016 platform of the Democratic Party from all attacks whether they come from leftists or from centrists. I resent white people lecturing me about where black people stand when it comes to politics, but maybe not as much as I resent other black people and even more so people of color who are not black doing the same thing because the second group's lectures suggest that I have betrayed my brothers and sisters. When I speak now I speak for myself. You are free to decide whether anyone shares my opinions.

I believe that social justice is impossible without economic justice. Yes, capitalism oppresses black people above all others and not just incrementally but geometrically. It does not follow though that social justice must precede economic justice. Capitalism requires oppression. Replacing a white capitalist with a black capitalist may be of great benefit to that particular black person and other who have advanced but so long as capitalism exists I will be oppressed and I will be oppressed multiple times more than someone who is not black. That is why I supported Senator Sanders and why I do not support the notion that seeking economic justice first is somehow intrinsically racist. If Senator Sanders were to defend the racist trappings of capitalism, it is one thing. For just a small example, if he were to defend redlining, or the use of criminal justice system as a tool of oppression, or discrimination in lending practices, I would gladly join the none too subtle suggestions by some in this string that Sanders is oblivious to racial injustice. But simply because he believes like I do that social justice flows from economic justice? I will not.

Does it then follow that my profession of support for Secretary Clinton in the general election and support for our Party's platform are insincere or even dishonest? No. As a black person I am oppressed in ways unknown to any other identifiable group and I am not equally oppressed by both political parties. A more moderate than I Democrat might call for calm and support the use of the National Guard and defend the non-prosecution of Wilson after the shooting of Michael Brown BUT Jeff Sessions will send cops out with instructions to shoot people like me. This idea that there is even a mildly rational choice about which party to support in the general election is one of the privileges of not being black. I don't get a protest vote. As a matter of fact, If I believed that both Sanders never had a chance in the primary and that his presence would not push the Party platform to the left, I would have not even supported him in the primaries. I believed he could win and history shows that he did push the platform to the left. I have no apologies, just as I have no apologies for fighting for Secretary Clinton in the general election. I have no apologies for fighting for a platform that reflects the Party's growing concern for black people and for other marginalized groups.

I will leave you all free to debate what this group or that group thinks and to post articles about what someone else thinks this group or that group thinks. I have told you why one black person is a far leftist, a Bernie supporter and an unapologetic and unwavering Democrat. If you insist on trying to try to divide this party by insisting that it is impossible, that is up, to you.

[JCanete]

153. Thanks again, I completely agree that social and economic justice are impossible to deal with

separately, and that if we don't actually address the class war already being waged, it won't matter if the deck chairs get rearranged. There will just be a different otherness to oppress.

I also appreciate your statement about not having the luxury of a protest vote. I have close friends who felt the same way and were hurt by my consideration to abstain from a vote in the GE. I did not do so, in large part because as you said, the primaries did push the DNC and clinton further left, but also because ultimately, the consequences seemed too dire. I understand why some might think those consequences are coming anyway, and worse, if we don't wake people up now, but there's always a question of whether or not there's any coming back from something like Trump, and little question about who his Presidency is going to hurt the most in the short-term.

[GaryCnf]

157. Thank you too!

Good discussion

[FairWinds]

172. Well written and argued . .

thanks for that.

[R B Garr]

181. I still think that the Black woman who posted here explained her position and the

position of other AA's very well. I see that you voted for Bernie, which explains your bias. It also explains why you have been free to offer your opinion without being attacked. Unfortunately, the opinions of the AA woman who posted here were not afforded the same respect.

Your quote, which is very generic and sounds familiar:

"I resent white people lecturing me about where black people stand when it comes to politics, but maybe not as much as I resent other black people and even more so people of color who are not black doing the same thing because the second group's lectures suggest that I have betrayed my brothers and sisters."

This sounds more like generic support of a particular candidate.

[GaryCnf]

182. Hopefully I covered that

In my other long post in this string. The point I hope both sides will take from what I said is that there is no "we" when it comes to how black people choose their preferred candidates and these explanations why "we" supported Secretary Clinton or why "we" supported Sanders are simultaneously insulting and patronizing.

When it gets to the point of rejecting our opinions, the point you described, it moves beyond insulting and patronizing to at least for me the point where it is nothing but noise.

Thank you for bringing that up!

[kwassa]

132. Bernie didn't appeal at the time of the primaries. He might appeal more in April 2017.

the date of your survey, long after President Donald assumed office, and Hillary left the scene.

but that doesn't win him any presidential elections.

[BainsBane]

135. Turns out the author of the article

Completing invented his claims, judging correctly that most if his readers wouldn't bother checking the poll.

[R B Garr]

142. +1, yes, this just looks like an attempt to rewrite

history.

[Hekate]

134. Can we give a decent burial to relitigating the primary and proceed to the present day? The country

...as a whole is up Shit Creek without a paddle. Anybody got a paddle? Anybody helping to bail this leaky boat?

[jmowreader]

146. Can we give decent burial to the 2016 Democratic primary?

We have got to save the country from this Russian puppet, who was gonna get installed no matter who he was running against. Whether any particular group liked kor loathed Bernard Sanders is VERY low on my list of things to worry about.

[stranger81]

160. Nope, not ever going to happen.

The centrist wing of the party is having too much fun using that false -- and maliciously false -- canard as a cudgel with which to bludgeon anyone to their left.

[hunter]

161. No.

[Lil Missy]

164. Apparently, he did NOT appeal to black voters.

[kstewart33]

173. Will do so gladly if posts about Bernie end.

This is getting so close to resurrecting ugly divisions within the DU community. IMHO, very fewer DUers want to go back to what this community experienced in the many months before Clinton won the nomination.

It's not worth it. This is Democratic Underground, a site for Democrats. If Bernie becomes a Democrat, then posts are welcome. Otherwise, Bernie posts simply risk lighting a fire that should be forever extinguished.

[yuiyoshida]

184. I know one person who doesn't believe it...

and I won't mention her name, but she was a DUer until she was blocked from posting... I don't know how I feel about it being a person of color. I been having my doubts lately.

[we can do it]

207. Can we give a decent burial to the divisive shit?

[Orsino]

209. Most Dems are gonna vote for the nominee.

Most Dems were already behind the presumptive nominee before the primary began, and were not swayed. That doesn't mean that they weren't going to support a different nominee.

We just don't get to find out.

[Ken Burch]

214. The accurate thing to say was that Sanders campaign was unsuccessful at winning the votes of POC.

The slur is to claim that they didn't WANT those votes.

Of course they wanted them.

Of course they tried to get them.

It's just that they failed to do so.