"White People are Not as Important as Bernie Sanders Thinks"

[pnwmom]

http://www.atlredline.com/white-people-are-not-as-important-as-bernie-sanders-thi-1776048976?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Above_The_Law:_Redline_twitter

By Elie Mystal

Bernie Sanders’s central argument for the nomination is that he is in a better position than Hillary Clinton to take on Donald Trump. He says his comparative strength against Trump is because his message also resonates with the disaffected white men that form the basis of Trump’s support. Bernie can cut into that support while Clinton will be vehemently opposed by that demographic, so he should be the nominee for anybody concerned with stopping Donald Trump.

Even assuming that is true (and the poll numbers do back Bernie up on this point), why do Bernie and his supporters think that is a good argument for all of us non-white, non-men, non-violently angry people out here? Having a way to tap into the boiling nihilism of the would-be Trump supporter doesn’t make me happy. It makes me question whether the message is broad enough for modern America.

Let’s remember, pissed off white people are responsible for much of the bad treatment experienced by women and minorities. Policies that purport to help pissed off white men are often sold in opposition to policies that would benefit women and minorities. I don’t believe that the American dream is a zero-sum game, I do think that we can all move forward together. But when I see a crowd of screaming, angry white people, I don’t think “those guys are really passionate about racial justice and women’s rights.” Historically speaking, a mob of lightly educated white men is not good news for me.

And you want me to like Bernie because he appeals to those people?

You want me to go all in on SuperDelegates overturning the will of black and brown voters, as expressed in diverse primary after diverse primary, because Bernie has tapped into the angry white man vote? Have you Bernie supporters completely lost your minds? In what UNIVERSE am I supporting the guy who is being buoyed by “white rage” over the person who has won more votes without it?

SNIP

[boobooday]

1. Look at his platform and see if you think his policies will make life better for you and your family

[pnwmom]

3. Why do you assume I haven't read BOTH platforms?

[boobooday]

5. Because it sounds like you are basing your decision

On other factors. On what you imagine other people are thinking or feeling.

That's all.

[pnwmom]

8. You assume that anyone who reads Bernie's platform will be struck with how superior it is.

Well, I'm not, and many others aren't either.

[boobooday]

10. No, I just wondered because your post was all about

How you don't want to vote for Bernie because angry white men are voting for him. But doesn't it make a difference what they are angry about? Hence the question about the platforms.

[pnwmom]

12. It isn't a SELLING point for many of us that Bernie appeals to angry white men.

We're supposed to like him, for example, because it will bring in the Independents who like guns. But Trump also appeals to independents who like guns.

Meanwhile, Bernie supporters criticize Hillary for reaching out to Republican moderates who are feeling estranged from their party, and who might prefer a SANE President over an insane one.

Why is it that it's fine for Bernie to go after gun-toting Indies but not for Hillary to go after Repub moderates?

[Cha]

219. Nailed it again.. thank you, pnwmom~

[fleabiscuit]

41. +1 Nailed it.

[Pharaoh]

56. what don't you like about Bernie's platform ?

And what do you like about Hillarys campaign?

This isn't about race, it's about economic equality no matter what color you happen to be.

[pnwmom]

64. Hillary supporters strongly believe it shouldn't just be about economic equality

and that a rising tide leaves some boats sinking.

[Recursion]

122. Speaking personally, I'm wary about "breaking up the banks" as an end in itself

There are financial sector restructurings that could be good and restructurings that could be bad and I get no indication from the platform even what basic kind of outcome Sanders is looking for here (he's frozen on this in both interviews and debates, too). Does he want a Ma-Bell-style equity split? Capital requirement increases? Mandated asset liquidations?

"The banks" (whatever that means -- does it include insurance behemoths, etc.?) are "too big", in Sanders opinion. Too big absolutely? As a proportion of the GDP? Or is the systemic risk that they are too diversified in their holdings and commitments? This seems to be the Dodd-Frank view, which also has its problems (would a less diversified financial sector actually be better?) I don't know, and if Sanders has a view on it he's not saying. He just knows that this line polls very, very well, so he keeps using it. But I don't agree with "breaking up the banks" as an end in itself, because I don't believe in itself it's a good thing.

I'm incredibly disappointed in how little actual work he seems to have put in to most parts of his platform, but "break up the banks" is probably the worst offender, even worse than his single payer plan that predicted pharmaceutical manufacturers would pay us to take their drugs.

"In the first weeks of my administration, the Treasury department would draw up a list of institutions that are too big to fail." Well, yeah: Treasury already does that. It's part of Dodd-Frank. I know he knows that (he's on the committee that receives that report before anybody else) and I assume he also knows his supporters don't know that. That bothers the hell out of me.

And what do you like about Hillarys campaign?

Not a damn thing, personally. I think we managed to whittle ourselves down to our worst two possible candidates.

[pnwmom]

152. His interview with the NY Daily showed how little thought he'd given to that subject.

Here is another problem with regard to the banks.

He says the Export-Import bank is a "handout' and we should get rid of it, even though it's used in part at least to help fund some orders (like Boeing airplanes) that are too big for commercial banks to handle -- and the bank's activities return a small profit to the treasury every year.

But he also says we should break up the large commercial banks that we do have.

There is a disconnect in his thinking here.

[Recursion]

153. Yeah, the Ex-Im pandering has been nauseating

It's a bank that receives no taxpayer money and exists to support US exports. How this is not a no-brainer for Democrats is beyond me.

[PATRICK]

142. A blow for logic

and common sense.

And there has been little sensible discussion of the valid support of HRC by black Americans. They consider the Clintons are in their corner with performances and support they find credible. They know they chose- in some number- Obama over the Clintons before and they owe a return for her support of party unity. The Clintons have continued over the years to build that support. They have a great organization of voters where so many Dem bases- like unions- have been crippled by losses.

Now getting to the platform, theoretically Sanders may well be better, but they don't know Sanders and they do know platforms are often written on air when it comes to the poor. Trashing the platform or disagreeing on its merits as such should demand some substantive debate.

But no, it is all dismissive regarding the actual ideas which is all about Sanders running in the first place. So by now we can forget about logically convincing any more people who have been exposed to both camps and have made their decision. Yet the most important part about getting TOGETHER is precisely understanding and - heaven protect us- actually mentioning the details of the work we plan to do together to win the election and save our lives. Ideas that have brought way over a third and possibly a half of all elected Convention delegates to the table.(The table, not the foot of a throne.)

[Recursion]

147. This is really what drives me crazy, I think, if I had to pick one thing

And, hell, I was (and in some sense still am) an O'Malley supporter, and if you want to talk about a candidate who actually got screwed by the media ignoring him, I'm free all week.

But anyways: yes, that. Not just the always having a (often poorly-thought-through) answer for everything, the being literally unable to comprehend that someone else could hear that answer and not be persuaded without being somehow duped, brainwashed, or bought off.

Mystal said it best: fuck Trump voters. Yes, that means some white voters will rant and rave about "wanting their party back". Tough.

[Lucky Luciano]

6. Ok so what part of his platform sucks? nt

[pnwmom]

9. I think his platform is raw pie in the sky that doesn't have a chance of being

baked in the Congress.

And if both candidates go into the election yelling about how terrible Obamacare is, the voters will believe them -- and decide to pick the cheaper replacement plan, which will be the Rethugs'.

And that Hillary's plan to use the Federal Student aid plan to convert loans for tuition into grants has a much better chance of passing than Bernie's plan to make public colleges free for everyone -- including the rich. And that it's crazy to think that Bernie's plan to ask every state to cough up funding for 1/3 of the program will be accepted by Republican governors (the majority of whom rejected ACA because it would require them to pay for 1/10 of the cost after three years.)

[Lucky Luciano]

19. I think nobody really expects congress to work with Hillary or Bernie.

Hillary, and less likely, Bernie will need to use the bully pulpit like it hasn't been used since LBJ. They will have to get their supporters to bang down the doors of congress until they go their damned jobs. All pressure all the time. Neither democrat will succeed without the full force of the citizens behind them. The thugs have taught us that well - politeness in modern politics will not work. Smash the doors down. Make them cry uncle. Make them own their thuggery and wear it as a badge of shame. Crush them. The president is only symbolic without us as their army.

[wallyworld2]

43. If you think

this congress is just chomping at the bits to work with Hillary and passing what she proposes, you'd be absolutely wrong.

Unless she is proposing to cut back on social security like her husband Bill , 'Clinton Wanted Social Security Privatized' http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/clinton-wanted-social-security-privatized

[MyNameGoesHere]

18. It's so monotone eom

[Cryptoad]

26. Have Read it all

it raises taxes on me and I am disable, living in poverty..... maybe u should read it
Thank Goodness he lost to Hillary!

[Lordquinton]

35. Who lost to Hillary?

[rock]

90. How many Bernies are running?

That's the one she's talking about.

[Lordquinton]

124. Didn't realise what group I was in

Came here from the front page and it looked like I was in GD

Take care

[Cha]

220. Mahalo rock for the "How many Bernies are running"..

Last edited Tue May 17, 2016, 08:47 AM - Edit history (1)

damn.. one's enough already.

[rock]

231. LOL!

Maybe too many. Mahalo Cha!

[greiner3]

50. I'm disabled from 2 separate causes

Rely on SSDI for all of my income and I relish the time there are both no cost public universities and Medicare for all. What is YOUR point??

[Thinkingabout]

55. If you are on SSDI and disabled you are either on Medicare or will be after two years of

Disability.

[Cryptoad]

140. My Point? People living in poverty should not

be taxed. if u agree , u need to read the fine print in Bern's plans

[Perogie]

58. Please show me source that backs up this claim

[fleabiscuit]

86. I believe the BS plan has been referred to as...

“magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”

You have it backwards, it's up to BS to prove he is right.

[Cryptoad]

141. Its all on his web site unless

he has taken it down... it didn't go over to well!

[brush]

2. Woohoo! Brilliant reasoning.

I like.

[Triloon]

4. white rage?

nope, no race card in that hand...

[gollygee]

11. This is the African American group

We talk about race here. I am a group host and I am telling you to not use the term "race card" in this group.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

21. It is all they have, the race card. Personally I think Bernie is ten times better for all

Americans of all colors and religion and background and so on.

H O W E V E R

Bernie did not get much of the minority vote not because the minority voter didnt know his platform, as most of the white Bernie or bust types will say, but because they knew it and they know American politics and they know that most of it isnt going to happen and as problematic as Hillary is in many ways, her incrementalism is more likely to succeed.

I dont believe it is better to have Hillary, but I know why others do and it makes sense AND the last thing anyone should be doing is blaming those who dont vote for Bernie, but that is what they will do.

I WILL blame anyone who does not vote for the Dem...for very obvious reasons, but what is going to happen is the black folk are going to be blamed for a drumpf presidency when in reality it is the Bernie or bust folks who will be to blame.

[That Guy 888]

27. I understand incrementalism but...

it depends on how tough a negotiator is, and how dedicated they are to it. I question Clinton's commitment to ideas that aren't hers, or don't benefit her(like 90+% of our professional politicians). Demand $15 an hour and you might get $12 an hour, start at $12...

I WILL blame anyone who does not vote for the Dem...for very obvious reasons, but what is going to happen is the black folk are going to be blamed for a drumpf presidency when in reality it is the Bernie or bust folks who will be to blame.

Liberals and Bernie or busters think they're going to be blamed if drumpf wins. I put the blame on Hillary's campaign tactics. It's like she is using karl rove's tactics of splintering the party into tiny segments for easier manipulation. For me to turn around and support her after her campaign smeared everyone who backed Sanders as racists, sexist, etc.(this came from Clinton or her surrogates not some Clinton supporter on DU) feels too much like an abusive relationship. However, I live in Texas and my vote for Democratic Presidents is more symbolic than anything else. Our major cities go Dem, the country people go 75%-85% republican so we're a red state for a while longer.

[bettyellen]

212. 12$ has wide support in congress - 15$ does not. Pulling a number out of your but or bluffing like

it's a poker game are not admirable gambits. Working with congress is.

[Sejon]

52. Incrementalism

Ie. one step forwards, two steps back.

[Triloon]

32. thank you

Thank you, I didn't see that I was addressing the African American group. And I didn't know the metaphor I used was verboten. I withdraw it. But that doesn't change the racist self indulgence of the OP.

[pnwmom]

68. "Racist self indulgence"?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

82. Amazing, isnt it. Wow

[Number23]

71. There is nothing "racist" about minority voters trying to figure out why some think that the angry

hordes that constitute the majority of Sanders supporters should have their votes/thoughts matter more than ours.

If you think it's racist, you can just trash this forum. Thanks.

[Triloon]

107. No, I dont think thats racist and

I agree with your main point completely. One vote is equal to another regardless of the passions behind it. What I was reacting to in the OP was the use of White Rage and white anger and white this and that. As if white rage and white pain is different and less valid than black rage and black pain. It seems like a pretty fundamental thing. Invalidating an entire groups stance on the basis of race alone... is racist. I feel like a fool for saying something so obvious. Maybe I took that part too seriously. Anyway.. I'll butt out of your group.

[KPN]

135. "Angry hoards" is off base hyperbole.

[Number23]

137. "Angry hoards" isn't English. Angry hordes, which is what I wrote, is exactly what alot of people

of color are seeing on both sides of the political spectrum this year.

[KPN]

176. Haha. You are right! And I thought I was a pretty good speller!

Yeah, I sense that. But I find characterizing Bernie supporters as "angry" white males offensive. I'm white and male, but lumping me with the Angry white males who support Trump is off base. I'm not a racist, bigot, misogynist, etc. Yeah, I'm angry at the corruption and establishment politics, but few aren't -- nothing unique in that.

BTW, are you saying that POC are not angry?

[lovemydog]

194. I don't speak for anyone else, but I'll say

anyone who by now, May 16, 2016, doesn't grasp that one democratic candidate has received more votes and more delegates than the other democratic candidates is a bit obtuse or nutty, regardless of skin color.

I'm not accusing you of being that way. But you've got to admit there are quite a few Sanders supporters who are still acting all angry and outraged, at least here at DU. They're hardly what most reasonable liberals would characterize as the 'good listener' or 'plays well with others' types.

[KPN]

234. Mmmm ... but doesn't it really go both ways to a degree?

We're all guilty, no?

Let me just say this in defense of Berners: the perception is that the primary has been rigged by the DNC in just about every way conceivable which really is anti-democratic at its base. Perception is reality. Given that, frustration, outspokenness (standing up for "right&quot , protest seems justifiable, especially in light of the corruption that has taken over our governance system.

[lovemydog]

242. Yes, it definitely goes both ways.

Some of the gloating, obnoxious behavior and standard characterizing of all Sanders supporters by some (or even many) of the Clinton supporters really is childish & insulting too. I agree with you that some of the ways the rules are set up are so byzantine and confusing as to give the appearance of corruption and I'd even go further than that and say that it is corrupt. I hope the large majority of Sanders supporters will get involved with changing these rules and making them much more transparent and much less in favor of old school cronyism. My main objective here has always been to help bridge the gap between the left (of which I consider myself) and the more mainstream democrats (who I don't much care for in real life because they kind of bore me and I don't think they inspire much of anything to really admire with the possible exception of President Obama but that's more the exception to the rule rather than the large majority of them). Thanks for the nice conversation. Hope you keep enjoying it here and of course offline too!

[gollygee]

105. There is nothing racist or self indulgent in the OP.

As you've been informed. I don't think this forum is a good match for you.

[Recursion]

7. "We want it back." For some value of "it".

This is the year of white people saying that, unfortunately.

[pnwmom]

13. +1. nt

[rbrnmw]

217. right here before our eyes even

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511965222#post2

[Recursion]

239. And here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1989336

[Mary Mac]

14. reminds me of Dorothy Parker

I would vote for Bernie to protect the Palestinians. Otherwise I am with her.

[Squinch]

15. The sad thing is that to appeal to people of color and women, a candidate will HAVE to alienate

a certain segment of angry white men. Angry white men are angry because they now have to economically compete with women and people of color with a few of their unearned advantages taken away.

They are not doing well in the competition when they only have a lot of unearned advantage rather than ALL the unearned advantage.

Also, many of those angry white men will never vote for a woman simply because she is a woman. A smaller number would never vote for a Jew just because he is a Jew.

Bernie chose to appeal primarily to a smaller demographic that cannot win without the other demographics. And he chose as his message the old saw that "all boats rise on a rising tide." Women and people of color have had long and bad experience with that theory. When we go after "all boats rising," the white men's boats rise, and the rest of us are expected to make the sammiches.

His message simply cannot appeal to the majority of us who are not falling for it.

[Number23]

23. Exactly. Over the last 40 years, for the first time in the history of this country, white men

actually have to compete with everyone else. And even though the playing field is still nowhere near level, so many of them are still screaming mad and running through forests with hunting rifles playing soldiers getting ready for the eventual apocalypse. The wailing and gnashing is to be expected but anyone that thinks that women, minorities, gay voters etc. are willing to continue to play second fiddle because alot of white men are "angry" has got that shit ALL wrong.

It's been said too many times to count that Sanders' appeal is the flip side of the same coin as Trump's. This article articulates that view well.

[That Guy 888]

33. I don't see where Sanders explicitly or even "dog-whistled" that he only wanted white voters.

This seems like the Clinton campaign tactic of accusing her opponent(and her opponents supporters) of racism or sexism. Then expecting the people she insulted (unless you don't consider those insults) to vote for her. Very stupid. That's why she's been pumping how much we have to fear drumpf.

Bernie chose to appeal primarily to a smaller demographic that cannot win without the other demographics. And he chose as his message the old saw that "all boats rise on a rising tide." Women and people of color have had long and bad experience with that theory. When we go after "all boats rising," the white men's boats rise, and the rest of us are expected to make the sammiches.

Never saw that. I did see Sanders campaigning on income inequality. If Clinton talks about it at all, it's because of Sanders. Clinton is a 90's politician in 2016.

[Recursion]

36. Praising the economics of the 1950s and 1960s and New Deal is a pretty clear example

And what's interesting is how many people who really positively respond to that talk still have trouble seeing how it's a dog whistle.

[That Guy 888]

37. What happened before the New Deal? What made the New Deal New?

Did the New Deal erase racism in the North or South? No. Did it make life incrementally better? For everyone equally? It was a step. FDR was a great President, but far from a perfect President.

In the 50's and 60's large segments of America (I imagine mostly white) were able to support their family with one income (not totally uncommon), buy a house (more uncommon), one sometimes two cars, and send all of their kids to college(quite rare). Some people (including non-white people weird as that may seem to you) would like to be able to do that.

And what's interesting is how many people who really positively respond to that talk still have trouble seeing how it's a dog whistle

Sometimes what you see isn't what others see. That's something to keep in mind.

[Recursion]

38. It was a step that locked minorities out of the middle class

The housing policy that began with the New Deal and continued through the 50s and 60s were a pretty explicit con to raise white home values at the expense of black home values.

In the 50's and 60's large segments of America (I imagine mostly white) were able to support their family with one income (not totally uncommon), buy a house (more uncommon), one sometimes two cars, and send all of their kids to college(quite rare).

And once white people started having to compete with non-white people (and men with women) for those jobs, wages went down for the people who had those jobs (though they went up for the people finally allowed to have them).

Frankly the whole "income stagnation" narrative is a dog whistle, because incomes for non-whites have been rising, not stagnant, over the past several decades.

[That Guy 888]

45. It was partly what FDR thought he could get, and partly he wasn't as good a Dem as his wife.

The housing policy that began with the New Deal and continued through the 50s and 60s were a pretty explicit con to raise white home values at the expense of black home values.

Was that what FDR intended? I know that the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII was exploited by people who wanted to steal their property.

And once white people started having to compete with non-white people (and men with women) for those jobs, wages went down for the people who had those jobs (though they went up for the people finally allowed to have them).

And it was all politicians and not business? I wish I could find the PBS documentary that had it, but their was a segment interviewing a union rep who talked about how business owners exploited racism for cheap labor.

And once white people started having to compete with non-white people (and men with women) for those jobs, wages went down for the people who had those jobs (though they went up for the people finally allowed to have them).

Now that is a lie. Stayed stagnant maybe, went down for those that had them, no. Are you a southern republican? "Sorry I'd like to pay you what I used to, but them women folk and blacks stole your money".

Frankly the whole "income stagnation" narrative is a dog whistle, because incomes for non-whites have been rising, not stagnant, over the past several decades.

That you will have to show me. Across America? Not as a result of the law catching up with pay discrimination?

Why is it racism when Sanders talks about income inequality but it's not when it's Clinton imitating Sanders?

[Recursion]

48. Sure thing. I made some charts a while ago

This first chart isn't mine but I think is telling:



and may have to do with why black and white democrats (at least in my opinion) see the 1990s very differently.

Anyways, I made the charts below from the spreadsheets from here. All dollar values are adjusted for inflation.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

Here's the poorest African American quintile line:



And the second:



And the third:



Here's the poorest white quintile line:



So while the poorest 20% of whites are pretty much where they were in the 1970s (or slightly below), the poorest AA quintile is doing significantly better.

Interestingly, here's the poorest two white and AA quintiles superimposed:



The 1990s was when the second black quintile "caught up" to the poorest white quintile, which I think is what a lot of the white rage is about.

I also don't get your point about it being "politicians or business". Can you expand on that? Neither of the two operate in a vacuum.

[That Guy 888]

53. That doesn't help what you posted.

Specifically:

And once white people started having to compete with non-white people (and men with women) for those jobs, wages went down for the people who had those jobs (though they went up for the people finally allowed to have them).

How much of the rising income of African Americans in the 90's had to do with corporation relocating to the south chasing tax breaks?

[Recursion]

57. I don't understand your question

How much of the rising income of African Americans in the 90's had to do with corporation relocating to the south chasing tax breaks?

Err... I don't care? In general the rust belt did badly and the south did well since the 1990s (the 1970s, really), which in general helped African Americans more than whites, which is what I'm saying (obviously there were black people hurt in the rust belt and white people helped in the South, too).

Also, I'm not sure if you meant to quote the same passage from me twice, or contrast two different quotes?

[Squinch]

106. Exactly:

The 1990s was when the second black quintile "caught up" to the poorest white quintile, which I think is what a lot of the white rage is about.

I think if you plotted that for women, you would find similar trends.

In the long run it is inevitable that these trends will continue.

White men have never had to worry about being on the bottom of the heap before. Now many of them, who were raised to assume they would have all the benefits and advantages that their fathers had, find they have fewer of those advantages. They feel cheated and displaced and terrified. I would feel bad for those who feel this way if it were not the fact that all of those advantages were bought at a cost to all women and all people of color. They were bought at a cost to me.

Everyone wants to feel like they are above someone else and if the group below them starts to rise, it terrifies and enrages them.

[Recursion]

143. The men/women question is interesting and more difficult

Because our best income data series are for households, which at least normatively since the 1970s or so have had one male and one female earner (conditions apply, void where prohibited, your mileage may vary). I have seen a series that supports your suggestion on male and female wages, but that's a surprisingly different question some times... Anyways, if I can find a data series that answers that question I'll post it.

[Squinch]

192. Please do. That would be interesting.

[Recursion]

215. OK, here's what I found

It at least at first blush supports your suspicion: male wages started stagnating when female wages started to really take off, which is (again, like with race) when they were allowed to actually enter the full job market.

[Squinch]

237. And woohoo. Women are now almost where men were in 1950. Which is sad. And we're losing ground.

Thank you for this great information!

[Recursion]

240. It's an interesting demonstration of how actual income matters less than how fast it's changing

Someone who makes $50K but hasn't seen a raise is going to be bummed, while someone who went from $30K to $35K is going to be happy. And someone who goes from $72K to $70K is going to be furious.

[pnwmom]

116. Wow. Thanks for putting this all together, Recursion. n/t

[Digital Puppy]

189. Good stuff here...

Thanks!!

[BumRushDaShow]

62. ...

Sometimes what you see isn't what others see. That's something to keep in mind.

And sometimes what others see and try to explain, is not only marginalized, but dismissed.

Anyone wholesale praising FDR, as is du jour on DU, ignores the fact that POC were not truly made a part of, or experienced the "wonderful" benefits of the "New Deal". While white households could have one wage earner support the family, blacks always had to have multiple earners, usually doing the most menial of labor - cleaning out white peoples' toilets or cooking their food or shining their shoes.... just to stay afloat. We were not allowed to live where whites lived, nor could we be buried where whites were buried. A large number could not go to school with whites, and yes, even under the hallowed FDR, someone like my WW2 vet father, could not even fight for this nation alongside of white soldiers. My mother, with a sec ed degree in the '50s could not teach in the high schools right here in Philadelphia... although she was "welcomed" to teach elementary kids. Brown v Board finally started to break down that barrier but the segregation and discrimination in hiring continues.

Romanticizing the '40s, '50s, and '60s, is bullshit for a good chunk of this nation.

The last time whites died here in the U.S. for their principles was the Civil War in the 1860s. Meanwhile, POC continue to die today for just trying to be recognized as human beings.

It's disingenuous to say

Some people (including non-white people weird as that may seem to you) would like to be able to do that.

while assuming that POC who critique what is going on and how past experiences often make us jaded, are odd and somehow don't want a better life. The thought process that many of us use is based on the reality as we see it, we experience it, and we live it, and not how others keep trying to define it for us, and what they think the "solution" must be to get there. Hundreds of years of those proffered "solutions" and "saviors" have more than established that the results were never meant to be for our benefit.

[Number23]

76. I will never, EVER understand why this simple point eludes so many here

Romanticizing the '40s, '50s, and '60s, is bullshit for a good chunk of this nation.

It's like Jim Crow, discrimination in housing and education etc. were just things they learned in history books that were these abstract concepts that never actually happened in the real world.

Hat tip folks: They're in the history books because they actually FUCKING HAPPENED. And are still happening today.

[BumRushDaShow]

79. +infinity

[lovemydog]

125. +1

[pnwmom]

115. What you imagine is true -- and that's the problem. FDR's programs lifted white boats much higher

than black boats. AA didn't begin to see improvement till the civill rights movement of the 60's.

So when Bernie and others harken back to the 50's and the New Deal, they aren't appealing so much to black people -- they're appealing to whites.

And remember . . . part of the lifestyle of the 30's, 40's, and 50's was that -- in addition to being able to buy homes, cars, etc., -- many middle-class white people could afford a maid, at least part time.

And that maid? She was usually black.

[Scootaloo]

132. And the assumption is that Sanders seeks to be so discriminatory?

Because when he's talking about strong corporate tax rates and regulation, antipoverty programs and federal assistance to the needy, you - among others - immediately argue "He's only going to help white people!"

Why? What is your basis of evidence for this claim? Is there one?

[Recursion]

139. It's mostly that it's always been what happened before

White populist wants to "lift all boats", does something, spooks when his white supporters don't like seeing money going to minorities, and either backs off or gets backed off by the same white supporters. Happened with WJ Bryan. Happened with LaFollette. Happened with FDR. Happened with Kingfish. Happened with Wallace. Happened with LBJ. Happened with WJC. This isn't exactly the first time people have heard "we'll make it better for everyone".

[Scootaloo]

144. So it's the accuser's own bias and assumptions.

Independent of any actual evidence on Sanders' part.

[Recursion]

146. In shocking news, people's experience often informs their future behavior

even when it does not always achieve the best possible result.

I'm sorry if this was not known to you before.

[Scootaloo]

148. There is much experience with Sanders doing this?

[Recursion]

149. Some of it's even posted in this thread.

Pwnmom has provided some very good links about Sanders's fraught relationship with minority communities in Vermont.

[Scootaloo]

150. One link, actually. Posting it twice doesn't make it multiple examples.

And I hate to tell you but it doesn't actually answer my question of whether there is much experience with Sanders yanking hte rug out, like he is accused of going to do.

Further it leaves a question about why there is such implicit, fawning, servile trust in everything Clinton says and does, despite her record of doing exactly what Sanders is accused of maybe going to do.

See, that's the puzzling thing for Sanders supporters. Sanders is assumed guilty of shit he has never done and is hated for it. Clinton is assumed innocent of all the things she has done, and is revered for it.

It's quite an interesting double standard, how the Jewish candidate is assumed to be sneaky and treacherous no matter what the evidence shows, while the white candidate is assumed to be perfectly flawless even when evidence stands against her. Especially coming from people who like to wring their hands about white privilege.

[Recursion]

151. Well, browse the group more and it may make more sense

Or it may not. People don't always make sense to each other. I appreciate that you seem to actually recognize that others respond to people differently than you do.

Personally I don't like or trust either of the remaining candidates. They both really, really turn me off. But I acknowledge that lots of people feel differently.

[Scootaloo]

155. Well, I've been through it, for over a year now.

And the "black people vs. Bernie" thing never seems to have much grounding beyond "I think he's bad!" paired with a lot of raw nonsense - like "Bernie's going to shut down HBU's!" or... well, the argument presented in this subthread, that because Bernie is alluding to the New Deal, and the New Deal happened in the 30's and 40's, and people were lynched in the 30's and 40's, Sanders MUST be pro-lynching. Or the notion that moving to Vermont is proof that he's a racist (another of pnwmom's intellectual gems.)

What I see is a bunch of people who hate Sanders "because" and are reaching for any fig leaf, no matter how scratchy or scant, to cover up the nature of that "because." Ever noticed that the "because" mutates week after week, as each one is broken down or debunked? The "reasons" aren't reasons at all, they're cover stories for something else. What we've got here is someone starting with an opinion, and then grasping at any straw to justify that opinion... no matter how ludicrous.

Of course, taken as a whole, these fig leaves paint Sanders as a scheming, deceitful, innately racist, treacherous money-grubber with the blood of christian children on his hands. Which is kind of to be expected, given what those fig leaves are actually covering up.

[pnwmom]

158. No one has said anything remotely like: "Bernie is pro-lynching."

But several here have strongly disagreed with the belief that a rising tide lifts all boats. It doesn't. The leaky boats can still sink to the bottom.

"Of course, taken as a whole, these fig leaves paint Sanders as a scheming, deceitful, innately racist, treacherous money-grubber with the blood of christian children on his hands. Which is kind of to be expected, given what those fig leaves are actually covering up."

So now you're accusing the millions of people who don't support Bernie of being anti-Semitic.

Wow.

[Scootaloo]

164. No, I'm not

So now you're accusing the millions of people who don't support Bernie of being anti-Semitic. [/div

Nope. I'm saying that those arguments are antisemitic. 'Cause that's exactly what they are. I'm also pointing out that people who hold Sanders guilty of shit he's never done while exonerating Clinton of everything she has done, are not only being antisemitic, but are extending an overflowing heap of white privilege to Clinton.

I imagine that since you've been doing both for over a year, having it pointed out is a little uncomfortable, huh? But there's good news. You can stop doing that stuff. Like... any time. I mean, it won't clear people's opinion of you, but you can still set it down and walk away from it. Support Clinton on her merits, oppose Sanders on shit he has actually done (if you can find any - maybe stick with the merits of Clinton.) Or hell, you believe in "It's Over™" so maybe just move on.

Actually the fact that you - among many others - hold "it's over" but are still absolutely devoted to tearing every aspect of the man apart and dragging it through the mud really does underscore what I'm saying, I think. You're not so invested in supporting Clinton as you are in destroying Sanders. I think that level of hatred comes from somewhere, and it's not policy differences.

[pnwmom]

179. No, they aren't. Recognizing that a rising tide does not lift all boats is NOT anti-semitic.

And it's a ridiculous argument to say that it is.

You cannot point to a word I've ever said about Bernie that is anti-Semitic. It's just your way of trying to shut down the discussion.

[Scootaloo]

184. Of course, that's not what I said, either.

But since you mention it? Actually, yes, a rising tide does lift all boats. I live next to a harbor, seen it happen a few times each day. The only way it won't happen is if someone goes in and scuttles some of the boats. So... you are accusing Bernie of doing that scuttling.

Your argument is that Bernie is a schemer. That he's deceitful.That he's plotting and conspiring against black people in the shadows. Muhuhahaha. You have absolutely no basis for this, you admit you have absolutely no basis for this. You assume that Bernie must be bad. That he's a craven, sneaky, greedy thing. You have repeatedly tried to blame him for Sandy Hook, directly against any and all evidence, to paint him with the blood of those children. I'm sure you understand the concept of tropes and allusions, dog whistles and coding, yes? Lord knows you sure do talk like you do.

Be aware of yourself. Take a look at your fellows.

[pnwmom]

206. I've never said he is a schemer, deceitful, craven, greedy or that he's plotting and conspiring.

So maybe you're projecting?

P.S. I do disagree with some of his votes on gun control.

[Scootaloo]

238. Per JAG's request, i'm stepping out of this thread

If you would like to continue this, you know how to PM me

[JI7]

216. actually, it's Debbie Wasserman Schultz and now Barbara Boxer and Barney Frank who are all Jewish

who are regularly accused of doing things for financial gain , and all the other conspiracy crap that goes with it.

[JustAnotherGen]

186. Please step away from the thread

The anti Semite smear is aok in GDP but it's not acceptable in this Group.

Nope. I'm saying that those arguments are antisemitic. 'Cause that's exactly what they are. I'm also pointing out that people who hold Sanders guilty of shit he's never done while exonerating Clinton of everything she has done, are not only being antisemitic, but are extending an overflowing heap of white privilege to Clinton.

I imagine that since you've been doing both for over a year, having it pointed out is a little uncomfortable, huh? But there's good news. You can stop doing that stuff. Like... any time. I mean, it won't clear people's opinion of you, but you can still set it down and walk away from it. Support Clinton on her merits, oppose Sanders on shit he has actually done (if you can find any - maybe stick with the merits of Clinton.) Or hell, you believe in "It's Over™" so maybe just move on.

Please go address your complaint on the threads/posts this happened. That's not the point of this thread - and disagreeing with Sanders, disliking him, not respecting his policies or his past doesn't make one anti Semitic.

I don't know what the history is between you and pnwmom - but I do that per Skinner in response to bravenak in a thread back here a few years ago - you aren't allowed to call a member racist. I'm jumping to anti Semite being considered a personal attack on par with calling someone a racist.

Step away and address it on the threads in GDP where the blatant offense you allege took place.

[Scootaloo]

187. If you insist.

[Number23]

199. Thanks, JAG. I've had enough of the ever so casually incessant "anti Semitism" claims too

Obviously, this person hasn't realized that this forum has been hip to him/her for years. Or maybe they thought it was just a universal slip that no one ever responded to their posts in this forum. Ever.

[JustAnotherGen]

201. Was trying to warn him also

That what he wrote could result in a hide. That's what happened to bravenak. *sigh*

[Number23]

202. Bravenak would have likely been hidden by that person for anti-Semitism, real or not

The folks that haunted her steps would not be coming into the AA forum to alert on his/her posts for anti-Semitism. They'd be looking to alert ours.

[JustAnotherGen]

221. True - so true

I've been alerted on for calling out anti semitism. There is one foaming at the mouth persona at DU who is quite comfortable throwing "the Jews" into every post they can. I've never received a hide for it - because when I do call it out - I'm right. I stick to the post at hand. I don't bring in stuff from other threads - past posts.

Do I think there are anti Semites at DU? You betcha! Just like the down low "don't like the black folk" "don't like the Muslims", etc etc. I've never read any such thing from pnwmom.

That would be like reading an anti black post from BTA, anti women post from lovemydog, or etc etc.

[pnwmom]

205. Thanks JAG.

I really don't know what the poster was referring to, but it wasn't in this thread.

[Cha]

222. Mahalo, Gen~ You and the other hosts in your AA Group are so

patient!

I have zero patience for that. 0

[Recursion]

161. Yes, you're describing how people react to politicians

You have your reaction, and reach for a "because" and/or "despite". Just like millions of liberals love Sanders despite his gun control record. This is how elections work.

Sanders did not connect, in general, with voters of color.

By the gross-scale structure of our party's primary, voters of color have a veto (ironically, that structure was mostly originally designed to give the now-non-existent white southern Democrats a veto). Nonetheless, it is what it is. Asking why might -- possibly -- be illuminating, or it might not. People vote viscerally, and viscerae are in general opaque to others.

You can't win a Democratic primary in 2016 without at least 40% of the black vote and 30% of the Hispanic vote (or 35/35 each, if I'm adding correctly). Sanders didn't make that. There's probably some hand-wringing to be done about whether he could have while still inspiring the enthusiasm among white liberals that he does. My own guess is "no", but I'm open to the argument that I'm wrong.

[Scootaloo]

166. Of course there was a magnificent interference campaign

If you missed it, the very day he officially declared his candidacy, he was being accused of supporting slavery in Virginia and for police abuse in Chicago.

You think that came out of people's experience with Bernie Sanders?

Every week, on schedule, a brand new "Bernie is a racist!" outrage. No matter how far-fetched, no matter how baseless, no matter how absurd, they were coming out, right on time.

Yup. People have their gut reactions. And if propaganda didn't work, nobody would spend a cent on advertising.

[betsuni]

167. Your words: "1StrongBlackMan openly engages in racism to try to defame and belittle

people of color supporting Sanders. And my response to their bigoted bullshit is that neither of them are qualified to demand a single goddamned thing of me, or of anyone else around here."

On schedule, a brand new "You people are racist!" outrage. No matter how far-fetched, no matter how baseless, no matter how absurd, they come out right on time.

[Scootaloo]

183. Actually it's quite based

How about you read the thread that you're quoting from. 1SBM's de-blacking of people who don't share his political views is in the very sub-thread you're excerpting from.

No. People who happily, merrily engage in nasty bigotry like that are not entitled to demand I apologize for the words of some other rando on the internet. If they want that, they're going to need to lead the charge themselves, just as I said in the post you're quoting.

[betsuni]

165. ...

[Scootaloo]

180. Of course.

Serving a dry burger is just the same as arguing - sans any evidence - that Jewish guy is scheming, deceitful, disloyal, racist, greedy, and sinister.

But I'll bet you hold dismissing the Alabama primary because it'll go Republican in the GE is a racist dog whistle, yes?

[Number23]

198. I don't know what's worse. Your baseless charges of anti-Semitism that you keep thinking you are

slyly making in this forum or your idiotic "everyone called Sanders a racist" trope when that has never, EVER been done. Have people called him racially clueless? Hell yes and with damn good reason. But I have never seen anyone call him a racist, except for his "supporters" as they scream that everyone else has done so.

Please stay out of this thread. And personally, I wouldn't mind if you trashed this forum. Thanks.

[Cha]

223. As you know.. those are their go-to blanket memes for anyone who doesn't like burnie..

we're either "anti-Semitic" or we accused sanders of being "racist" or both. Which you so astutely pointed out is not true in either case,

They wouldn't have any insulting talking points without those two stale ones.

Like I said it another thread in another group.. the upshot is that sander's lost.. So what can we learn from that?


Mahalo, 23~

[Squinch]

193. You are not getting the argument. No one is saying anything about lynching.

BS insists that you don't need to address social issues because if you fix the economic issues all the social issues will disappear.

This simply isn't true, and history and experience prove it.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to BS and his followers.

BS and his followers repeatedly responded by saying, "No you are wrong. You simply don't understand what I am saying."

When in fact, they were wrong and did not understand the facts they were dismissing.

It has nothing to do with BS being scheming or deceitful. I have only seen those words used by BS supporters as they project words into others' mouths because BS supporters seem to be really wanting to find anti-Semitism where there is none.

This position of BS and his supporters IS racist and sexist, but it is an ignorant rather than an intentional racism and sexism. They are not listening to the rational and real concerns of people of color and women. They assume that, because they don't see the issues that women and people of color are concerned about, those issues don't exist. That is unintentional, but it is racist and sexist nonetheless.

Women and people of color have seen this throughout history. White men do not understand the worlds we live in. We do. And we know when the reality of our worlds are being dismissed. BS and his supporters have dismissed that reality.

[pnwmom]

208. +1. n/t

[Number23]

197. If you can't understand why many black people are not supporting Sanders this late in the game

and have to resort to the type of childish BS you're making it out to be then that's no one's fault but your own.

What I see is a bunch of people who hate Sanders "because" and are reaching for any fig leaf, no matter how scratchy or scant, to cover up the nature of that "because."

I see no hate for Sanders anywhere. What I see is many minorities having the unmitigated gall to voice their opinions of the man's MYRIAD shortcomings as a candidate and his supporters doing everything in their power to dismiss them.

And to be honest, considering the man has been running for president for over a year and is STILL not able to intelligently articulate why he's doing so, that statement you made about searching for fig leafs that don't exist could far more justly and rightly be applied to his supporters.

[pnwmom]

156. All have is a bunch of hot air on Sanders part. And his past in Vermont indicates

that he wasn't particularly responsive to the concerns of his African American constituents.

[Scootaloo]

162. His past, as cited by three people, and contradicted by three other people in the same article?

Speaking of your dailybeast article, here's an examination of it.

And yes, hot air is all you have. You're throwing accusations, based purely on your own assumptions that Bernie is an asty deceitful person. And yes pnwmom, I DO know exactly why you assume that about Bernie. You don't make it subtle.

[bettyellen]

213. things like focusing on college for everyone- when our HSs are so messed up-

that will help middle class and above kids MUCH more than POC in poverty. He did not discuss lower grades- or child care until he stole it from Hillary.

[passiveporcupine]

46. You are, of course, right

Bernie's message is not about race at all, and he reaches out to everyone. It's the people who refuse to hear his message who try to make it about race.

[Recursion]

51. I'm not sure there can be an economic message that's "not about race" in this country (nt)

[passiveporcupine]

54. I don't see how it can be "just" about race

So many of us are affected who are white. It affects us all, even if it affects people of color more. The message is to fix it for all of us, not just poeple of color, but he admits and agrees that there are things that need to be done just for people of color.

That does not make it all about race. The people who try to make it all about race are denying the rest of us who are white and poor a place in this fight.

[Recursion]

59. Well, OK, but take the whole wage stagnation narrative

That's a white experience and a white narrative about it. Wages for nonwhites have risen significantly in the past few decades.

You can say "I want to undo the economy of the past 20 years" and claim that's helping "everyone", but the numbers are a little more complex.

[Squinch]

102. I'm not saying he did dog whistle that he only wanted white voters, and I don't actually think

he wanted to find himself the candidate for the angry white man.

BUT he has only one message. That message is of pursuing economic justice while ignoring social justice and assuming that economic justice would take care of social justice issues. That simply doesn't work for women and people of color. We've heard that song before and it simply isn't good enough to address the issues we need addressed. It addresses the primary needs of white men, but not other groups.

Way before this became a problem for him, people of color were warning him that he had to address their needs for social justice support. He simply ignored that until what should have been an obvious Democratic position became a point of departure for women and people of color from Sanders. And he never did anything after that to get us back.

I don't think he realized what he was doing. I don't think it was intentional. But that in itself is a problem. People were in his face telling him he was losing women and people of color, and he could not adjust to that fact. He could not do anything but repeat his speech, which did not address this issue.

I think he's still confused about why he lost those demographics, even though he was told over and over why it was happening as it was happening.

[pnwmom]

114. He claimed that he didn't campaign in the south (though he did) and then that it didn't matter

that he did so badly there because they were conservative states.

Yet he was happy to rack up wins in red states outside of the south (mostly caucus states).

And those southern states that he claims were too conservative to matter are full of African American Democrats. In at least one of the states AA voters made up more than 70% of Democrats. So when you say those voters don't matter, you're saying millions of AA voters don't matter.

[DLCWIdem]

157. racism in his supporters messages

Not only that there is alot of racism and stereotypes in his supporters messages. I was on a site which had one on his supporters talking about her wins in the south. The writer was commenting on the old south and the stereotype of black men being paid for their vote. The writer meant as a slur on Clinton but didn't realise how insulting it was to AA. Everyone seems to be offended when people talk about the millenials liking Bernie because theyget thier student loans paid but the overt messages in his campaign is ignored.

[Cha]

224. Thankfully that crap did not go unnoticed & down the rabblit hole.. one does wonder

though... what genius over there @ camp sanders came up with those excuses for his losing to Hillary in the Southern states and why didn't the rest of them shout him down?!

Or maybe they all came up with it simultaneously including tim robbins?

Who's sorry now?

[KPN]

16. Tapping into the boiling nihilism of would be Trump supporters?

That's baloney. Bernie isn't going to attract those people.

Anything I say here as a white male opens me up to criticism, but I'm going to go ahead and just say that characterizing Bernie supporters as angry white males is off base. I'm really tired of being characterized as an angry white male because I happen to be white, male and support Bernie over Hillary.

Frankly, I think any Democrat is angry at Republicans, so can we stop the division please? I'm angry at the GOP, and frankly the moderate and blue-dog Dems for yielding to them, for a lot of reasons.

Bernie's positions and priorities are being mis-characterized based on his lack of bedside manner. When you are getting surgery, what do you prefer, bedside manner or serious, dedicated professionalism?

I frankly think he is mis-characterized simply because he happened to spend most of his life in a very predominantly white State. Look at his voting record when it comes to civil/equal rights. He has been there 100%. Look at bills he has proposed over the course of his career.

Supporting Hillary over Bernie is fine, but characterizing Bernie as someone who appeals to angry white males really pisses me off. I lived and worked in Africa for three years when I was young. Throughout my 35 year career, I set aside part of my income and made direct deposits to two charities every year. I changed the charities based on things that affected me or my extended family/friends many times over the years, but I gave half of those earmarked donations to the UNCF in each of the last 20-25 years of my career.

If you can't tell, I'm tired of these kinds of generalizations. Support who you will, but don't do so on the basis of bad assumptions.

[pnwmom]

20. Hillary lived in D.C. and in New York but still found the time to stay connected

with voters in the south, who are largely African American. Bernie could have made that a priority, as she always did, but instead seemed to expect that joining in some marches in the 60's was enough.

He also didn't make much of an effort to connect with minority voters in Vermont. So it isn't just that he "happened" to live in a predominately white state. First, he chose that white state over the diverse state he grew up in. And then, after he got into Congress, he made no effort to reach out to voters in other states. And he didn't pay much attention to African American voters in Vermont.

Look at the exit polls. Bernie has his strongest support from young white men who are inspired by his call for "revolution," and his lowest from older black women who are not. This is no accident.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/vermont-s-black-leaders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html

Back in 2006, the Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, a Brattleboro-area civil rights organization, hosted a Candidate Night. The race for the open U.S. Senate seat between Bernie Sanders and Richard Tarrant, a Republican and one of the wealthiest people in the state, had grown increasingly acrimonious.

The audience of African-American activists and other Vermonters of color should have been a friendly one for the socialist congressman. Instead, remembers Curtiss Reed Jr., the executive director of the group, it became something of a showdown. Sanders “was just really dismissive of anything that had to do with race and racism, saying that they didn’t have anything to do with the issues of income inequality,” Reed told The Daily Beast.

“He just always kept coming back to income inequality as a response, as if talking about income inequality would somehow make issues of racism go away.”

And since winning that race, Sanders’s approach toward Reed and his organization has been one of “benign neglect,” the activist added. “We are a major statewide organization. It would stand to reason that you would check in with your major constituents, but voters of color are simply not on his radar.”

[Thinkingabout]

60. Yes, she stayed in touch, will stay in touch. She is also smart enough to not rely

On the angry white man's votes, not enough of them.

[KPN]

133. Well, you kind of missed my point. I'm not saying that you should favor Bernie over Hillary.

That's your choice and you have your reasons. And if you feel strongly about those reasons, who am I to argue about your feelings? You have to do what you have to do, support who you feel deserves your support. That's fine.

I was only trying was to broaden folks' perspectives about who Bernie's supporters are and are not, and dispel the notion that they are "angry" white males. That discounts probably more than half of his support.

Your response piqued my curiosity on a couple of things though. What does it mean to "stay connected with voters in the south"? What did Hillary actually do?

As someone who distrusts the Clintons based on their record, even though I voted twice for Bill, "staying connected" strikes me as a calculated move. But I am already biased against her as I said. ... My problem with the Clintons is that they have consistently relied on social issues to demonstrate their liberalism while contributing to our country's structural economic issues. So have many other elected Democrats. The Republicans have played the same game but from the opposite side of the coin, creating a tension and public attention around social issues and away from economics.

It's perfectly understandable that racism might be the priority issue for African Americans. I would never dream of questioning or criticizing that. It is obviously a huge national issue.

If Bernie could have garnered more African support by staying more connected with voters from the South, perhaps that was a mistake on his part. If so, it was an honest one and certainly not calculated. I doubt that Bernie ever wanted to or seriously considered running for President prior to a few years ago. It seems likely that it has been Hillary's game plan since Bill left office in 2000 and probably earlier. So, yeah, she has probably courted demographic groups more effectively with that goal in mind.

As for Bernie's focus on an unfair economic system, that has been his primary message and cause for the past 35 years. I have an aunt who lives in Vermont and knows Bernie personally. She says he's been talking about economic inequities and the resultant socio-economic problems since the late 70s. Do you think he doesn't believe that income inequality isn't at the root of all of our major problems, including racism? Trump is tapping into that same economic issue in a less inclusive manner. Hillary on the other hand is skirting it.

[pnwmom]

160. In many small and yet significant ways, Hillary has stayed connected ever since she moved

to Arkansas after her marriage to Bill.

For example, she has stayed connected to the Delta's, the largest black sorority in the U.S. She has stayed connected to the Children's Defense Fund and Marian Edelman.

And remember Hurricane Katrina? Afterwards, she went down to Texas and spent time with the victims. Then she went back to D.C. and sponsored a bill to investigate the FEMA response and what went wrong. The bill didn't pass, so re-introduced it the next year.

And when that didn't pass, a group of black ministers in the South arranged for their own conference on what went wrong. And one of the invited speakers was Hillary.

You can discount all her networking down there as part of a political calculation, but no one was stopping Bernie from doing more than participating in a few marches in the 60's. Since then he'd never shown any interest in the South or in racial issues till the BLM women first came to his event.

Do you think he doesn't believe that income inequality isn't at the root of all of our major problems, including racism?

I agree that he DOES think that. But many of us believe he s wrong. Fixing our economic system wouldn't automatically bring about racial equality. Ask wealthy African Americans if any of them believe that.

[KPN]

175. Bernie has done a lot more than "participate in a few marches."

Here are some examples:

Hurricane Katrina and Bernie Sanders: From Neoliberal Disaster to ‘Political Revolution’
August 31, 2015 by Adolph Reed Jr, et al

Well, I included 3 links, but they apparently don't appear in the post. But there are many sources of info re: Bernie's commitment to racial justice if you Google. Sorry about that.

[link:http://billmoyers.com/2015/08/31/hurricane-katrina-and-bernie-sanders-from-neoliberal-disaster-to-political-revolution/|

[link:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-bernie-addressed-race-racism-article-1.2518180]

[link:http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/20-examples-bernie-sanders-powerful-record-civil-and-human-rights-1950s|

There's no question that Hillary has made a more concerted effort to communicate with and understand African Americans over the years and that Bernie tends to see things through an economic prism. But if you look at their legislative record, I just think Bernie has been more consistently adamant about and supportive of equal rights and racial justice in America than the Clintons. Communicating is one thing, but legislative action is another.

As for wealthy African Americans experiencing racism, of course they do! Do you really think Bernie thinks they do not?

Personally, I suspect you are underestimating Bernie's commitment to ending racism in this country, and his economic agenda does far more good for people of all colors than Hillary's, not to mention his position on for profit prisons, welfare reform, the death penalty, marijuana legalization/war on drugs, voter rights, immigration, etc. Cast his agenda as unrealistic if you want, but in today's DC environment it is no more unrealistic than the significantly scaled back proposals Hillary presents.

I know I can't convince you, so I really do wish Bernie had been more calculating in his run for the Presidency by doing more to reach out to the African American community directly and personally. His heart is there.

[pnwmom]

178. I think Bernie needed to do a lot more LISTENING and a lot less lecturing.

I think that's also part of why older voters are less taken with him. We don't respond as well to his lectures.

[KPN]

188. Who is we? I'm 65.

I don't view him as lecturing any more than Hillary. Bernie has got your back and you are letting bedside manner get in the way of seeing that.

Hillary is untrustworthy and always will be in my view. Why do you think so many African Americans are in prison these days? Who reformed welfare to the detriment of African Americans? Who got us into middle eastern wars and is most likely to do more of the same -- to the detriment of everyone aside from the upper class? Who supported and passed trade bills that shipped jobs overseas to the detriment of working people of every color here in the USA? The list goes on.

Neither candidate can fix racism, but both would make significant in roads on law enforcement reform at the federal level and where there is a federal nexus, Bernie is more committed to doing away with for profit prisons -- an industry that lobbies consistently against down-sizing/eliminating the drug war and alternative (non-punitive) sentencing as well as abolishment of 3 strike laws, Hillary accept money from those same lobbyists. And as I said, Bernie is a far greater leader on the economic issue which affects all of us, especially all of our children and grandchildren.

At any rate, I hope this works out for you -- that is, that Hillary meets your expectations. I'm sure she will be the party's nominee. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

[pnwmom]

190. And yet voters over 50, as a group, are much more like to support Hillary

and voters under 30 are much more likely to support Bernie.

[KPN]

233. Can't argue with that.

Hey pnwmom, I admire your moxie and conviction. In the end, it strikes me that we have more in common than we have differences. I've learned something I had never really thought about in this conversation: that racism ignores economic/financial stature. Oh, I knew that at a superficial level, but hadn't ever really let it sink in. Thanks for opening my eyes wider. I think I have a much better understanding of your views, and maybe the view of African American voters in the southern states as a result -- your/their view is understandable and legitimate.

Maybe someday racism will be a much smaller problem. I do have faith in our younger people doing a better job at it than my generation did.

BTW, I agree that Bernie could have done a better job being more directly engaged with the African American -- and probably Hispanic -- communities over the years, as well as responding more directly/effectively to questions about the racism issue during his campaign as opposed to going quickly back to his income inequality message.

As far as Hillary becoming President, if she does, I'm sure she will be a fine President.

All the best!

[pnwmom]

235. Thank you, KPN.

I think we are on the same page now. A black MIT graduate is more likely to be followed around a department store by a security person than a white MIT graduate. A black physician stopped by the police has to worry more than a white physician. A black parent in Beverly Hills has to worry more when his child goes outside than a white parent.

It doesn't matter how high an African American rises financially -- she can still be the object of racism.

So, as you say "racism ignores economic/financial stature." We have to work on both financial equality and all forms of discrimination.

[KPN]

236. Yup. You are right! And thank you!

[DLCWIdem]

163. I have read up on her campaigning a little

This is what I have been learning about her campaign. She does alot of retail campaigning and listens then she tailors her campaign messages. There was an article about her one of her constituents in her home town of New York. The young women had come to a group talked about child care and college. The young women said Hill listened and set up some sort of child care situation which helped the women stay in college. I wish I could tell you more but when I went to find the article again I couldn't find it.

[Martin Eden]

25. +1

Whether "angry white male voters" would choose Trump over Hillary but Bernie over Trump is not an argument against Bernie -- unless he has altered his platform or pandered to attract their votes.

The plain fact of the matter in this election is that millions of voters right and left are angry and fed up with establishment Washington politicians.

Attracting more voters to win the general election -- without compromising principles -- is an argument in favor of Sanders.

If you prefer Hillary's platform and think she would be a better president for our country than Bernie, then vote for her.

The rest is partisan spin and sniping.

[fleabiscuit]

65. BS is an establishment politician. eom

[Duval]

34. Thanks, KPN.

It's hard to understand why some don't know this by now. "Selective Memory"??

[MisterP]

17. "brown"? I presume they mean Mesoamerican, and they're going for Sanders

I don't think she'd get all too many Garifuna votes, neither

[lunamagica]

29. I guess they mean the Latino vote. Most has gone to Hillary

[Starry Messenger]

22. White people haven't been won by a winning Dem in several election cycles.

It's a voting block that has made itself irrelevant. I don't think trying to lunge past the Obama coalition was a smart move by Sanders, it shows he isn't really plugged into what is going on in politics today, either.

[Number23]

24. Sanders' campaign will be taught in books on how NOT to appeal to minorities/the Dem base

Between the:

*"don't you guys know what I did for you people in the 1960s?" angle from his unhinged supporters and -- astonishingly -- even the campaign itself on a few occasions;
* the open armed embrace of Cornell West (which members of this forum said REPEATEDLY was one of the stupidest, most ill-conceived moves of any campaign we'd ever seen);
* sitting back and doing and saying absolutely NOTHING while your rabid supporters crap on every single person of color, including legendary minority activists and politicians as well as minority focused political movements, who dares to support your opponent or not smother you in wet kisses;
* to your open and widely panned decision to write off huge swaths of America with the largest numbers of voters and delegates because they are majority minority communities;
* and the insistence on imagery in his ads that showed nothing but white people, featuring music by elderly white artists that the vast majority of people under the age of 65 had never heard of, it's been pretty much a spectacular fail from day one.

[Starry Messenger]

28. Oh hell yeah.

I still cannot believe the shit that has gone on--the huge bag of racefail that is the Sanders campaign has been gobsmacking. It encapsulated white liberal stereotypes like it was performance art--but it is real!

[passiveporcupine]

47. You can lead a horse to water

but you can't make it drink. Even if it's dehydrated.

This is more applicable to what I see happening in this election than anything else.

[Number23]

67. Funny, I see entitled people screaming that their guy should win over the millions of votes of

others, including disenfranchised minorities.

Like I said, courses will be taught on this primary. On how NOT to do things.

[passiveporcupine]

69. You are not seeing the millions of voters I'm seeing

But I'm not surprised. I think it would hurt you to admit there are millions of us out here who do not see things the way you do.

[Number23]

74. I am seeing the millions of minority voters who are standing up and VERY CLEARLY saying what we

want this election.

The ones you're worried about are the same ones that look at these voters and scream that they are playing "identity politics." That the "rising tide lifts all boats" bullshit is a legitimate policy strategy.

They are not nearly as powerful as they once were, which is why they are screaming so loudly (and impotently) this election. Their influence has been dying for decades and I'm glad to see it.

[passiveporcupine]

81. You have no idea what I'm seeing

I'm seeing poverty, minority first, but white also.

I am not saying anyone is playing identity politics except you. Bernie is most definitely not saying a rising tide lifts all boats. He addresses minority issues. You are just blind to that.

I count all people as equal, but for our purposes, POC count more politically. Bullshit. We all count the same. We all deserve the same. No more white privilege.

You are the ones who are screaming impotently. You are screaming for the establishment. We are screaming for equality.

[Number23]

87. You are screaming and LOSING. TERRIBLY.

Sanders has lost the black vote in every possible way, regardless of age, income, gender or anything. He is losing the Asian vote, the Hispanic vote, the female vote, every vote that constitutes the Democratic base he is LOSING. And he is losing BADLY.

Bernie has been "addressing" minority issues for decades which is why he's removed himself from minority focused organizations because they were too focused on race. : Which is why black Vermonters want little to do with him, because every time they tried to discuss the myriad ways that racism affects EVERY FACET of our lives, he dismissed it. Just like so many of his clueless supporters do.

Even your posts in this forum about "leading a horse to water" speak to a deep feeling that you apparently have that Bernie supporters have the facts, that they and only they UNDERSTAND. It couldn't possibly occur to you and people like you that black voters, women voters etc. see Bernie Sanders, are familiar with him and his policies and have roundly rejected him. And whether you come to grips with that or not, that is EXACTLY what has happened.

I've asked you before to leave this thread and I am doing so again. I won't ask a third time.

[pnwmom]

118. Bernie is addressing minority concerns -- NOW he is. But when he entered into the campaign,

they weren't even on his radar. And they weren't while he was representing them in the State of Vermont.

[brer cat]

78. +1000 nt

[lovemydog]

195. Absolutely.

I'll also add the condescending bullshit of 'anyone who isn't voting for Sanders' is a stupid ignoramus or a corporate sellout.' Written over and over and over by various people who seem to rack up hundreds of posts per day every day.

Completely clueless to you or I or any of our brothers and sisters here or anyone else does every day to advance liberal causes for the long haul, day in and day out, locally and in our personal lives and for the lifelong struggle of helping build a more perfect union. That crap was and remains ignorant, lazy, patronizing, privileged and obnoxious to the highest degree.

[Number23]

200. And what's so bad about it, it's bad enough when his manic supporters say this kind of crap

But the Sanders campaign ITSELF started spouting some of this idiocy too. Remember the "we expected Sec. Clinton to do well in red states" crap? That could not have been a more obvious slap in the face to Southern Democrats, which -- coincidence, I'm sure -- huge numbers of which just so happen to be minorities.

[lovemydog]

204. Yeah, I remember.

It was duly noted. Some of the same folks who bought into the 'confederacy' jabber (along with Stockholm syndrome, out of context MLK memes, Killer Mike & Cornell spokespersons, and Obama as a 'piece of shit used car salesman') are the same ones who insist they've 'always been down' with civil rights. Then wherever it's discussed, they accuse people of 'race baiting.'

[Cha]

226. Oh, and remember when Hillary won Georgia or one of the Southern states.. and then

it was on to Minnesota where sanders told his supporters that he was sure he would win because they "are the smart voters"?

Oh yeah.. they wouldn't stop insulting Black Voters in the South.. and how did that play out with Black ?Voters in the North?..

[Cha]

225. Thank you so much for this, 23..

Sanders' campaign will be taught in books on how NOT to appeal to minorities/the Dem base

*"don't you guys know what I did for you people in the 1960s?" angle from his unhinged supporters and -- astonishingly -- even the campaign itself on a few occasions;
* the open armed embrace of Cornell West (which members of this forum said REPEATEDLY was one of the stupidest, most ill-conceived moves of any campaign we'd ever seen);
* sitting back and doing and saying absolutely NOTHING while your rabid supporters crap on every single person of color, including legendary minority activists and politicians as well as minority focused political movements, who dares to support your opponent or not smother you in wet kisses;
* to your open and widely panned decision to write off huge swaths of America with the largest numbers of voters and delegates because they are majority minority communities;
* and the insistence on imagery in his ads that showed nothing but white people, featuring music by elderly white artists that the vast majority of people under the age of 65 had never heard of, it's been pretty much a spectacular fail from day one.

[wildeyed]

96. I gave up on white people in politics after 2004.

I marinated in my rage, sorrow and disbelief after we sent GWB back for a second term for a month or so. And then I got really, really clear about who had my back in elections. Swing voters cannot be trusted. They want you to suck up endlessly, then abandon you at key moments. And more white people voted for Bush than for Kerry, but almost zero black people voted for Bush.

So the answer was to help more black people and those who identified with what later became known as the Obama coalition to vote, and that would decrease the importance of the swing vote in national elections. To me and many others, it seemed obvious; that was the way to a REAL progressive majority.

GOP understood and immediately began introducing legislation like voter ID to decrease turnout. But Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to understand, and many of his supporters don't get it either. Demographically, we are almost to the point where the white voters previously know as Reagan Democrats and before that known as Dixiecrats are inconsequential. And this is GREAT. That means we don't have to suck up to them anymore. But sadly, many whites, even "progressive" whites, don't see it that way.

[Starry Messenger]

100. I'm totally right there with you.

If something amazing happens and they decide to vote against horrible policies again, great, but I just don't think this should be central to anyone's electoral plans.

I'm reading yet another article on the lack of hope in the white middle class in the heartland, and the conclusion the head of the family comes to for his solution...is to vote for Trump. (WaPo, "From belief to resentment in Indiana"--for some reason I could read it via mobile, but it's giving me a beg-window on the computer.)

Appealing to this group to vote out of a sense of social protection seems futile, even white union employees are considering voting Trump. It's suicidal and reckless behavior.

[wildeyed]

104. I read something where many white union guys have to be

convinced not to vote GOP every single cycle. WTF? And yeah, I am not planning to ride that particular crazy-train to its final destination, either

[Sejon]

103. Demographically, things haven't changed that much

In the relatively short time since GWB's second term.

[wildeyed]

108. But it might be enough.

It was with Obama. Much depends on how well the new voter disenfranchisement laws work for the GOP. It seems that they often have the opposite of intended effect by rousing the groups that they were designed to exclude to greater turnout.

And we have never seen a candidate like Trump, either, so he is hard to predict. But what we lose to Trump with working class Dems, we pick up with moderate and female Reps who would be much less amiable to Sanders than they are to Clinton.

It can come down to very tight margins in a few swing states and the numbers are shifting toward a much less white electorate. It is not a slam dunk yet. But soon. And we are seeing a huge, seismic change in the Republican Party, so that need to play out, too. It appears that the Dixiecrats are going their own way with Trump, and that might lead to a much less racist but more ideologically pure conservative faction which could shift some black and immigrant voters away from Dems in the long term.

Lots of moving pieces in play right now. It will be interesting to see how the game plays out. But I am fully committed to the Obama Coalition. I think it is the winning coalition mathematically, but for me, it is also the most moral and progressive choice. That will not change.

[Recursion]

123. Which is why the "I want the Democratic party back!" shouts disturb me

So the answer was to help more black people and those who identified with what later became known as the Obama coalition to vote, and that would decrease the importance of the swing vote in national elections.

Yup. And the rage we're seeing this cycle is the rage of white people being told for once they can't cut to the front of the line.

[wildeyed]

171. They shout that they want their party back

so they can bring it back to a time when white men ruled it unconditionally, then say that black Democrats are more conservative than whites as a way to justify their candidate's failure with that demographic. In the next breath, claim that their policies are for EVERYONE and BEST for black Americans, and to point out the inconsistencies with that logic is reverse racism or race baiting or race card or whatever stupid RW craptastic dog whistle they feel entitled to use.



I am so over these people. It is one thing to not understand dog whistles and the history of race in this country but REFUSING to listen when it is explained by members of the group being discriminated against is NOT PROGRESSIVE. Real progressives acknowledge the existence of privilege and the willingness to sit with their own, even when it is uncomfortable.

[Recursion]

172. Wish I had a way to disagree with that

But I'm empty...

[beachbumbob]

30. The Democratic Party is the big tent party...and sanders dismisses

The minority vote...the women's vote and the vote of us over 45...,,he knows he is done....it's all about ego now

[passiveporcupine]

49. Sorry, but if you really believe what you jsut wrote

you are seriously delusional.

[Duval]

31. If Hillary wins, you'll get what you voted for.

Don't forget that pnwmom. And, btw, sorry you are disillusioned. Get some rest, please. Bernie has not been "buoyed by 'white rage'".

[erronis]

42. The most intelligent response to the spew from self-appointed guardians to the status quo. Thanks.

[Sejon]

84. A lot of people are going to be thrown under the bus

When Hillary no longer needs their vote.

[Number23]

93. What else explains Sanders' wins? Look at the states he's won? Look at the polls? Look at who is

supporting him? What else explains it?

[Agnosticsherbet]

39. Sanders reminds me more and more of Jim Webb.

[freedom fighter jh]

40. When did Bernie say his message "resonates

with the disaffected white men that form the basis of Trump’s support"? I know he says he stands up well to Trump in the polls, and he does. But can you cite a source for the part about disaffected white men?

Bernie doesn't want to see superdelegates overturn the will of voters of any color. His request is that superdelegates from states in which Bernie won a majority in the primaries vote for him. That's not completely democratic, but it's a lot better than what we have now, with most superdelegates pledged to Hillary Clinton, nearly half of them against the will of the voters.

[pnwmom]

72. He wants more than that, because just getting the delegates from those states will NOT

put him over the top. So he's also targeting super delegates in Hillary states.

[freedom fighter jh]

145. I heard him say he's asking superdelegates from states where he won a majority to vote for him.

What's your basis for saying he wants more than that? (I'm sure he *wants* more than that, but I don't hear him asking for it or trying in any way to get it.)

And what's your basis for saying superdelegates from those states won't put him over the top? Have you done the math? It's not over yet, and he still could win a majority of pledged delegates; if he does, why would the superdelegates from the states he wins not be enough? Of course, that's a rough estimate. It would take a lot of effort to calculate whether his request -- votes from superdelegates from states in which he wins a majority of pledged delegates -- would put him over the top. You'd have to know who all the superdelegates are and which state each one comes from. Do you have that information?

[pnwmom]

154. It IS over with regard to pledged delegates. There are too few pledged delegates left to

give him a majority of pledged delegates. Even if he won 100% of them he still wouldn't have enough.

And right after he said he wanted delegates from the states that he won, and that he felt he deserved, he followed that by saying that he then hoped to persuade OTHER delegates that he was the better candidate because he had been winning the more recent races and that polls showed he was doing better against Trump.

Well, those OTHER delegates would be supers from states that Hillary won. So he's arguing that supers in his states should be loyal to him, but supers in Hillary's states should consider leaving her for him. That's not consistent.

And it's not going to happen. They're not going to be persuaded to ignore the votes of millions of people, heavily minority voters, because he did better in heavily white caucus states, and the polls 6 months out show him doing better than Trump.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/02/bernie-sanders-insists-he-can-still-win-the-math-says-otherwise/

To be sure, Sanders also said yesterday that on top of the super-delegates in the states he’s won, he’d also need to win over many other remaining super-delegates, too, which he said he can still do by arguing that he’s the more electable candidate this fall. At his presser, Sanders acknowledged that in order to catch Clinton in pledged delegates, he’d have to win “65 percent” of the remaining ones, which he admitted would be very hard (though he insisted it is “not impossible”). And so, in this scenario, Sanders would be explicitly asking the super-delegates as a bloc to engineer the nomination for the candidate who trails in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote.

Even some of the liberal groups backing Sanders have said calling on the super-delegates to flip the outcome is a non-starter. And it’s very hard to imagine Sanders seriously continuing with this argument, given that he has been asserting for months that the Dem establishment is rigging the process on Clinton’s behalf. But Sanders theoretically could push this all the way to the convention, by refusing to concede, even after the voting concluded and Clinton still held a lead in all the key metrics.

SNIP

So the question for Sanders is this. If, after the voting concludes, Clinton leads in the pledged delegate count and the popular vote — and he makes one last pitch to super-delegates, and they refuse to flip in significant numbers — will he still force this battle all the way to the convention floor at that point? This, at a time when the party is hoping to unify behind its nominee as an engaged national audience tunes in? Or, if one last pitch to super-delegates in June comes up short, will he concede at that point, enabling the party to unify heading into the convention?

It’s perfectly legitimate for Sanders to keep this going until all the votes are counted. It’s also perfectly legitimate for Sanders to fight on into June, even if he knows he can’t win, for the sole purpose of trying to leverage his national constituency to influence the party’s agenda in the fall elections and beyond. But forcing this battle on to the convention floor — after it’s become unequivocally clear that so doing will not alter the outcome — seems hard to justify. The pressure on Sanders to defend this course of action — and to explain why it is even at all tenable — will likely mount in the days ahead.

[freedom fighter jh]

170. Disconnect

Your own source -- not only your own source, but the part of it that you choose to quote -- says,

At his presser, Sanders acknowledged that in order to catch Clinton in pledged delegates, he’d have to win “65 percent” of the remaining ones, which he admitted would be very hard (though he insisted it is “not impossible”).

Not impossible. In other words, possible. And it's not just Bernie saying it, it's common sense: There are states in which Bernie got upwards of the 65%. Conceivably he can win 65% of the remaining pledged delegates.

[passiveporcupine]

44. It would not matter what anyone said to you about bernie

they could tell you that voting for Bernie would give you a lifetime of peace and harmony, or even a billion dollars.

It wouldn't matter, because you just hate Bernie. For no fucking reason, you hate Bernie Sanders. Nothing will change your mind.

You've made that abundantly clear. (not just in this thread)

[elljay]

66. Absolutely

but we need to give her credit for the extensive mental gymnastics and selective reading she does to prove her point.

[Number23]

80. You need to step away from this thread. If all you can muster up in response to this OP is

"you just hate Bernie" then do yourselves and everyone else a favor and just not return.

[passiveporcupine]

85. Sorry, I've watched this OPfor a long time and every message is the same.

never a nuanced message. It's all hate all the time. If you don't see that, then maybe you are wearing the same tinted glasses.

[Number23]

88. The OP posted an article from the perspective of a minority voter. This is a WIDELY held view which

even the most cursory glance of minority media would show you. You guys want to blame the illuminati, Stonehenge, the man in the moon, EVERY thing in the world on your guy losing when at the end of the day, it was Sanders' horrible, tone deaf and out of touch outreach to the Obama coalition -- the TRUE Democratic base -- that was his downfall.

I am now blocking you from this forum.

[Cha]

227. Hallelujah!

lol@Stonehedge

[pnwmom]

121. I don't hate Bernie. I would have voted for him if he were the nominee, but I don't see that

as a possibility anymore.

I find some of the things he says wrong-headed, and disagree with some of his policy proposals, but he is far preferable to any of the Rethug alternatives. OTOH, as many others have said, I would have preferred Elizabeth Warren. But she isn't running.

[thelordofhell]

61. Bernie's ignorance of the popularity of President Barack Obama has been his downfall

In 2012, he openly advocated a Primary opponent for President Obama and has never backed down from that stance. Notice he didn't run himself because he knew he would get stomped. He has also strongly advocated against Obama's agenda. The African American population has not forgotten this.

This year, donald trump will be the republican nominee for President. A man who has openly derided President Obama and says he's not even an American citizen. He calls President Obama's two successful terms as complete failures. The African American population will not forget this.

In 2008, Hillary was the Primary opponent of Barack Obama and lost. She then put her full force behind Obama to become President, then became his SOS for a while as well. All the while, still supporting President Obama and his agenda. The African American population will not forget this.

Hillary will easily win the Presidency in the fall. But still, we should be ever vigilant and GOTV! I want trump to be so completely dominated that he and other con artists of his ilk will never EVER think that they could possibly win the Presidency Of The UNITED States Of America!!!

[pnwmom]

73. +1. n/t

[gwheezie]

94. This is the impression my friends have of Bernie as well

They supported and voted for Obama and have a tremendous respect and fondness towards him. Accurate or not, Bernie is not perceived as an Obama supporter. That's not Hillary's fault or Obama's fault.

[JI7]

98. it doesn't help that so many Sanders supporters hate Obama

And many have attacked him throughout his presidency.

[pnwmom]

119. +1. n/t

[Cha]

228. Oh lordy... Mahalo for bringing that up, tloh! that was certainly one of his most

bone-headed moves.. running against President Obama.. don't get me wrong.. glad he did it.. 'Cause I knew who was going to win that fight.

And, I will add he wanted Obama primaried for disingenuous reasons.. never gave him credit for anything. So glad he's LOST.. hoisted on his own petard.

I love you for this.. bringing to light the dismal story of sanders failed attempt to run against our popular African American President.

And, for what?.. so he could claim a "revolution" needed to be started? Even though he was 8 years too late? He needed President Obama to be a failure to get votes and outrage.. so sad it didn't work for him.

The Planet is Happier, though.

[libodem]

63. Huh?

I'm so sorry you feel that way. I hope I misunderstood.

It's your business.

I'm not big on pushing my agenda to influence your opinion or I would try and help you see Bernie has been in the center of the Civil Rights Movement from the get go.

It makes me emotional that you'd think he is supporting the "white male system" when he is the true antidote.

Did I miss a sarcasm? My apologies if I read this wrong.

[BumRushDaShow]

77. "Bernie has been in the center of the Civil Rights Movement from the get go."

He left it in 1968 to do things POC were not allowed to do in many parts of this nation -who to this day, continue to struggle to do because of what we look like, what we sound like, what we name our children, how we wear our hair, or what zip code we live in. Our children continue to be beaten, arrested, thrown in jail, and even killed.... not for protesting for civil rights, but for just being children caught up in a society run by "angry white men", who automatically assume our children are a threat. A "menace to (their) society.

[Duppers]

95. +10

[pnwmom]

112. Bernie isn't even the "center of the Civil Rights Movement" in Vermont.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/17/vermont-s-black-leaders-we-were-invisible-to-bernie-sanders.html

Back in 2006, the Vermont Partnership for Fairness and Diversity, a Brattleboro-area civil rights organization, hosted a Candidate Night. The race for the open U.S. Senate seat between Bernie Sanders and Richard Tarrant, a Republican and one of the wealthiest people in the state, had grown increasingly acrimonious.

The audience of African-American activists and other Vermonters of color should have been a friendly one for the socialist congressman. Instead, remembers Curtiss Reed Jr., the executive director of the group, it became something of a showdown. Sanders “was just really dismissive of anything that had to do with race and racism, saying that they didn’t have anything to do with the issues of income inequality,” Reed told The Daily Beast.

“He just always kept coming back to income inequality as a response, as if talking about income inequality would somehow make issues of racism go away.”

And since winning that race, Sanders’s approach toward Reed and his organization has been one of “benign neglect,” the activist added. “We are a major statewide organization. It would stand to reason that you would check in with your major constituents, but voters of color are simply not on his radar.”

[sulphurdunn]

70. It's "Let's Play the Race Card for Clinton" time again.

Remember, Sanders attracts the "angry white man vote." The Pope is a Protestant, and Hillary Clinton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life ...

[Number23]

83. A hearty, intelligent contribution. Can you spare us any further ones?

TIA.

[sulphurdunn]

89. Sure. How about a nugget of wisdom?

Stupidity and bullshit are color blind.

[Number23]

91. You sound like an expert on both!

Please do not return to this thread.

[sulphurdunn]

99. I'm happy you can relate.

From your own personal experience I hope.

Please attempt no landing here.

[Number23]

101. It took you half an hour plus to come up with that?

Sorry to block you from the group as I can see you'd be a source of endless (if completely unintentional) entertainment but you've been asked to not return and keep coming back. With each post even more unwitty and pointless than the one before.

[Cha]

229. LOL.. you otoh have been a genuine

source of entertainment throughout.

[lexington filly]

75. The argument that Super Delegates (or anyone) should vote based upon

national polls of Bernie vs Trump vs Hillary has always seemed ridiculous to me. In the last few election cycles, polls have been notoriously wrong. Remember Romney believed on election night he would win "according to all their polls?" Bernie surprised himself with such a big win in Michigan because polls predicted a Hillary win.

To address what I think is the point of your piece: African Americans have supported Democrats for years and years while getting little or nothing in return. I'm glad to see you all hold their feet to the fire in recent times and make each earn your political support and letting them know you expect results in return. I agree about "all boats rising...." That hasn't affected equal pay for women, or job opportunities, or brought jobs and justice to inner cities.

We Progressives all want to get to the same place. I'm not going to fight anyone over which horse a person believes is the best mount to take him/her there. I'm saving my fight for the opposition standing in our way. Hope DU will too.

[Number23]

92. What a great post. Thanks for that.

[wildeyed]

97. Ride that pony home!

All the way to a Dem sin in November!

[Sejon]

109. Of course, that's what this election needs

More division along racial and gender lines.

[pnwmom]

113. The division is there: look at the exit polls. Why do you think people shouldn't discuss it? nt

[gollygee]

117. If you'd seen some of the posts of his that have been deleted

You'd see why.

He was a return racist troll.

[pnwmom]

120. I seem to have opened

quite a can of worms today . . .

[betsuni]

126. I guess an article about angry white people makes angry white people angrier.

[Number23]

127. Ain't that the fucking truth.

[northernsouthern]

129. I know! It is so messed up! +1

All you do is equate and entire group based on sex and race and they claim it is "sexism" and "racism"! What is wrong with these people who are not aware that 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. or 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination is ok now?

[Number23]

130. That was a whole bunch of nothing in your post

Do you have something interesting or intelligent to contribute or will you stroll in here and do absolutely nothing but prove the point of this OP as several others have done today?

[Cha]

230. Guaranteed.

[northernsouthern]

128. This posted article is a bit racist.

Even assuming that is true (and the poll numbers do back Bernie up on this point), why do Bernie and his supporters think that is a good argument for all of us non-white, non-men, non-violently angry people out here? Having a way to tap into the boiling nihilism of the would-be Trump supporter doesn’t make me happy. It makes me question whether the message is broad enough for modern America.

Let’s remember, pissed off white people are responsible for much of the bad treatment experienced by women and minorities. Policies that purport to help pissed off white men are often sold in opposition to policies that would benefit women and minorities. I don’t believe that the American dream is a zero-sum game, I do think that we can all move forward together. But when I see a crowd of screaming, angry white people, I don’t think “those guys are really passionate about racial justice and women’s rights.” Historically speaking, a mob of lightly educated white men is not good news for me.

So only violent people are white? And only angry white people caused the experience by women? This article is not good. Think about it was written by some other race saying the same things? Also it ignores other groups that are far more supportive of Bernie like Muslims and Asians.

I am in a mixed relationship and I have not treated my lady badly, I do hear stories in her community of men beating their wives...but that has some things to do with culture issues and poverty...
[div class="excerpt"]African American females experience
intimate partner violence at a rate 35%
higher than that of white females, and about
2.5 times the rate of women of other races.
5
However, they are less likely than white
women to use social services, battered
women’s programs, or go to the hospital.
http://www.doj.state.or.us/victims/pdf/women_of_color_network_facts_domestic_violence_2006.pdf

Also the hate aimed at Bernie as a jewish man and not a white person has come from all groups and sexes...



http://www.truthrevolt.org/sites/default/files/images/civil%202(1).png

http://usuncut.com/politics/hillary-clinton-racist-sexist-tumblr/
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/emcee-african-americans-hillary-event-used-anti-gay-anti-semitic-slurs

Let's not forget about the guy int he NY debate...

“You went to Israel for a year. As you know, Zionist Jews—I don’t mean to offend anybody—they running the Federal Reserve, they running Wall Street, they’re running everything,” John Prince, who came to the event wearing a Black Lives Matter pin, yelled. “What is your relationship with your Jewish community?”

Also this line is a bit insulting...

Historically speaking, a mob of lightly educated white men is not good news for me.

Comparing people screaming for equality and and end to wars to racists just because of their race is racist. Also historically speaking John Brown was in a group of "lightly educated white men"...and he started the civil war and died for the cause. It is sad that there were not a majority of people as devoted as him, but this article is just wrong. You do know they targeted Bernie in BLM because they knew his followers would care and listen. And even when he tried to speak up in a debate the Hillary cronies all attacked him for saying white people are poor too, and they also live in ghettos. I hate this divisiveness, they even tried to print stories on how it was not him in the photos being arrested. This article belongs is insulting and the last line is the worst...

I supporting the guy who is being buoyed by “white rage” over the person who has won more votes without it?

In what world are older ex-hippies, muslims, asians, native americans, and the entire youth vote white rage? I one world, the world of a racist article.

P.s. I know what group this is, but it was just a very insulting article.

[Number23]

131. What does any of the foolishness of your post have to do with this OP?

And why are you posting that Facebook idiocy in this forum?

[lovemydog]

134. I have the same questions.

Frankly I can't even make sense of the gibberish above your post.

[Number23]

136. Two posts from him in this thread, both a whole bunch of nothing. Been here a month and SEVEN hides

on his transparency page, some of them with racially loaded language.

I think I smell something...

[lovemydog]

138. Wow

I just read the posts in the transparency page.

I have as much trouble trying to summarize what he's trying to say in them as I do trying to summarize his posts in this thread.

I give up. They're un-summarizable.

[wildeyed]

169. When I see a long post

with a bunch of links to Twitter posts and some crazy blogs, my eyes glaze over and it becomes impossible for me to actually read. It takes sooooo much time, and it is clearly total bullshit. Like a give a single fuck what some random, anonymous person said on Twitter. If they are even people, because the bots are so good now, they actually have conversations and no one notices that they are not real.

Anyone can and will say ANYTHING on Twitter.

I wonder if they save them as cut-and-pastes on their desktop so they can repost on multiple sites, for efficiencies sake

[lovemydog]

182. LOL

Same here. If I can't answer 'who, what, when, where and why?' I figure someone's jibber-jabbering bullshit. Often from a privileged perspective like 'My voice should count more than the stooopid people who vote!!!'

For example, in GDP some folks are doing another outrage du jour about the Nevada caucus. Some delegates were disqualified either because they weren't registered properly or because that day they failed to present proper identification. Here's the funny thing. Clinton already won Nevada, with the most votes.

Oh, but some folks are angry about 'the night democracy died!!+!!!+1!!!' Throwing Barbara Boxer under the bus. Emo bullshit.

I found some objective articles. Clinton won Nevada at the voting booths. The meeting was supposed to go till 6. It went till ten. Some bernie folks kept yelling over each other. Some threw chairs, someone called Boxer the b word and others kept yelling over everyone. The hotel couldn't keep providing security. Most people had to go home and go to sleep. So they adjourned. But it's 'the death of democracy ++11!!!111!!' Although Clinton already won the Nevada caucus, with the most votes.

[wildeyed]

210. I remember another poutrage

about one of the caucuses. A couple of young berners drove from out of state to speak at a caucus. WTF? Who does that? So the legitimate caucus goers immediately voted that no one who wasn't a voter in that precinct could talk. Because who wants to drag that annoying shit out longer than necessary? As a survivor of MANY overly-long meetings, I can tell you how hard I laughed when that happened. HELL YES, make them shut up so we can go home and have DINNER! After they quieted the out of state visitors, one of the Clinton supporting caucus-goers said something racist, which was wrong, but then the caucus ALSO voted to make them STFU. Great!

To me, it seemed like the caucus was functioning perfectly. No rules were broken. They handled the obnoxious people who were trying to derail the meeting efficiently and shut the bigot up. Win! But to the bern-feeling DUers, it was a PERVERSION OF DEMOCRACY!!!!!! Everyone must sit down and shut up when the Feelers of The Bern are speaking, even if they can't vote in that state and were not invited to the meeting I am like, NO, it is a caucus. The rules were followed. That IS Democracy in action.

See, now I am going to have to go into GDP to see the spectacle! Chair throwing? That is some next-level tantrum throwing bullshit

[Beowulf]

159. For everyone's consideration

Robert Kennedy was the last presidential candidate to appeal to minorities and to disaffected white males. After his assassination many of those white voters switched to Wallace. How was RFK able to hold that coalition together? And why hasn't anyone been able to do so since?

[wildeyed]

168. They left when LBJ passed Voting Rights.

Never to be seen again. I guess they like being exploited by rich people and getting less better than sharing with brown people and getting more.

I am at a loss as to why, well into the 2000's, they STILL can't get their heads together and accept that brown people and women deserve equal rights. But I guess they feel strongly that they are entitled to more than they are and are willing to suffer for what they believe in

I am exhausted by their decades of histrionics on the topic and wait with great anticipation for the day when the "Reagan Democrats" no long have the demographic strength to sway elections.

[Beowulf]

173. RFK's campaign was 1968, after the Voting Rights Act

Would Nixon's Southern Strategy have worked as well against RFK? We will never know. What we do know is that RFK was managing to hold onto a portion of that voting block. Since then both parties have used identity politics to win elections. While both parties have been effective with this strategy, the message "you don't have what you don't have because of (minorities, women, lgbt, rednecks," takes the spotlight away from the elite, who benefit most when the 99% argue among themselves. It's a zero sum game they are playing, one group's gains must mean another group's loss. This doesn't by any means excuse the vile racist and violent acts of angry white men. But it does mean there may be issues where common cause can be had and maybe with that revelation some of the racists may be turned. The only politician I've seen since RFK who possibly could have put together a similar coalition was Jesse Jackson. No, he wouldn't ever have drawn a large percentage of white males, but I think he could have had some success with working class whites.

[lovemydog]

185. Good questions.

Some of the white folks who supported Eugene McCarthy and RFK were most concerned about ending the Vietnam War. They didn't want to be drafted and forced to go. After that war ended many of them raised families and stopped caring much more about progressive politics. Some became neoconservatives in the republican party. Others continued being progressive and realistic and fighting the long fight.

Sadly, some of those who only wanted to stay out of Vietnam later became Reagan democrats. They were more concerned about their jobs and getting ahead than they were about continuing the life long struggle for progressive values. I see a little of that now in some Sanders supporters being primarily concerned with union jobs and stopping free trade agreements, over and beyond any other issues. To the point of denigrating President Obama and Hillary Clinton with vicious smearing akin to the smearing done by the far right.

Leaders of a movement going forward must come from people who have been involved in the trenches for some time. If the angry white males (primarily) keep denigrating them for 'selling out to corporate interests' we won't get too far in keeping together the kind of coalition that Obama built. Even the Obama coalition couldn't stay engaged and active enough to win gains in mid-term congressional elections. I'll believe we have a strong coalition when we keep getting liberals elected in local and state and congressional elections. I think that's mainly the responsibility of engaged people. I don't buy that argument that it's all the fault of people like Obama or Clinton. It's a shared responsibility and a lot of the blame, imho, falls on people who have lapsed into ignorant hysteria and actively discourage others from voting for the most or more liberal candidate in every single election.

[bettyellen]

214. "people who have lapsed into ignorant hysteria and actively discourage others from voting " PREACH!

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Love all of this post, but that really says it all.

[wildeyed]

203. Probably had more to do with his brother's death

than anything. And he was a very charismatic man. Both he and his brother were good looking athletic, competitive and macho. Bill Clinton did pretty well with white men, too, right?

Why do you think Jackson would do well with working class whites? That doesn't really make sense to me.

[Beowulf]

207. Mostly because I think he show how certain problems cut across racial lines,

and he could offer something tangible, something meaningful besides resentment and fear. Not all working class whites are blindly racist and many are astute enough to know where their real interests lie and who respects that rather than exploits that. Obama might have been able to attract that voter also, but I never got the sense he was all that interested in the working class.

I think his brother's murder changed Bobby as a politician in profound ways. He was viewed with suspicion by many in the Civil Rights movement when he was attorney general, but after John's death, he toured some of the most impoverished areas of the country and I think he saw suffering that crossed racial boundaries. I think he could show genuine concern and compassion without also looking weak.

I'll leave Bill out of the discussion as he's never seemed all that sincere to me.

[wildeyed]

209. Not all working class whites are racist.

I know some GREAT white male activists and organizers, born and bred in the South, who fight for justice and racial equality. But STATISTICALLY, they don't vote for Democrats much anymore.

Whether or not Bill Clinton seems sincere to YOU is not really the discussion. I looked up how various Dem Presidential candidates fared with white voters, and they like moderate Southern white men. Carter win with 48%, Bill Clinton is #2. Obama was #3, so your idea that he was not interested in the white working class is wrong. Or maybe he just turned out more young whites. Not sure, but not going to bother checking right now.

RFK is too far back to be relevant,plus the situation with his brother's murder further muddies the water.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/19/15282553-obama-performance-with-white-voters-on-par-with-other-democrats?lite

[lovemydog]

243. Wild-eyed, I've often asked myself these same questions.

I'm always hard-pressed to find the answers. I too long for the day when people stop acting like lobsters in a warm pot, who will pull down one lobster to prevent it from getting out of the pot, rather than helping each other get out of the pot together. We're supposed to be smarter than crustaceans, but sometimes in my most cynical moments I wonder why people will do what you describe. That theory has especially been applied to poor white right wingers. Unfortunately there's far too many white self-described progressives like that too. It's evident here to me most every day I visit other parts of DU. The whole 'what I have to say is so much more important than what you have to say solely because it's ME saying it' nonsense.

[Recursion]

174. Thank you

This was a really important article and discussion.

[pnwmom]

191. You're welcome, Recursion. And thank you for your participation! n/t

[lovemydog]

196. Yes, thank you.

And thank you to all participating here.

This group consistently has the most thought-provoking threads and the best discussions!

[YoungDemCA]

181. To be fair, 40-45% of white voters pretty consistently vote Dem in presidential elections

But yes, a majority of white voters are not needed for a Democratic president to be elected.

Good thread.

[bettyellen]

211. Yup. This has been a thing since the beginning- the idea that their vote is crucial.

Obama proved otherwise 8 years ago.

[Cha]

218. "In what UNIVERSE am I supporting the guy who is being buoyed by “white rage” over the person who

has won more votes without it?"

Damn that's good.. I'm passing that on!

Mahalo, pnwmom~

[pnwmom]

232. Mahalo, Cha! n/t

[bettyellen]

241. It is good. No wonder they are trying to pretend the rage is nothing to see here.

[lovemydog]

244. Yeah, very good.

Aloha & mahalo Cha for repeating it. We're grateful to have friends in this group who can state things so brilliantly like pnwmom. The clarity of expression helps me see things in new & different ways. Opens up my mind like a breath of fresh air.

[pnwmom]

245. lovemydog, thank you, but the brilliant writing wasn't mine. It was Elie Mystal's.

[lovemydog]

246. Elie Mystal

Thanks pnwmom! I typed that name to look it up later.