2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe "PoC don't support Bernie because they don't know him" claim is actually true
Despite all evidence to the contrary, many of Bernie Sanders supporters continue to claim that the only reason he is struggling with black voters is that "they don't know him," but if when they learn that "he's been fighting for civil rights for PoC his entire life" they will flock to support him.
But if Bernie really were the great civil rights crusader that his supporters claim he is, he wouldn't have to be "introduced" to black voters. They would already know who he is and what he has been doing for their community.
Bernie's problem is not that black people don't know enough about his record - and if only they are told about it again and again, louder and louder, they will fall in love with him, too. The problem is that if his civil rights record were as robust and exceptional as his supporters claim, they wouldn't have to explain it to black people since they would already know about it.
And this is not an instance where anyone can claim with a straight face that "Bernie doesn't seek attention or glory." This isn't about seeking attention. If he were actually working so hard for black people, the people he's supposedly been fighting so hard for would know it because they're in the arena fighting, too and they know that Bernie was not in the arena with them - at least not long enough or meaningfully enough to develop relationships with any of the people there or even to make enough of an impression that anyone remembered him.
This doesn't mean he hasn't supported civil rights for PoC - he clearly has. But for the past 50 years, he's been doing it from the sidelines, far away from the real, hard, day-to-day work that people who are fighting for civil rights must do. While he has occasionally leaned into the ring to offer encouragement and support, he has not been a presence in the arena. The people who ARE fighting in the ring doing that work know the other people who are also doing it - and if they don't know them firsthand, there aren't many degrees of separation between them. And they don't need to be introduced to them and have their record explained to them after they decide to run for President. If Bernie had been such a fighter for civil rights over the past several decades, black folk would already know it and Bernie's supporters (most of whom also have never been spent any time in the arena) would not need to try to explain it to them.
The fact that this isn't the case should tell you something because it speaks volumes about why Bernie is having so much difficulty getting the support of more than a handful of black voters.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)
TheBlackAdder
(28,168 posts).
HRC's really dissing of MLK, Jesie Jackson, Rev. Wright, Obama, etc. really happens after the 7 min. mark.
Many people complain that they dislike the institutions, but few seem to make the efforts to search.
A lot of people expect others to do the work for them and then be presented with options.
Others rely on church leaders or people who are celebrities to guide them.
.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The more people know about Bernie, the more votes he will get. Unfamiliarity with him is the enemy.
PWPippin
(213 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)... been dished out on both sides
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And you claiming they are because they aren in awe of all of this great work Bernie is supposedly doing to fight for their civil rights is a major part of the problem he's having with black voters.
Black voters aren't familiar with his civil rights record, not because they are ignorant, but because his record is not impressive enough for them to have taken notice of it. And now that it's been shoved in their faces ad nauseam, they STILL aren't impressed because it's not all that remarkable.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Those that are loyal to the party and the Clintons. Those that get there news from the TV media. Those people?
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Check the exit polls.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... track record people would already know him
This critique is fair
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Sanders does have a track record. Big media has kept him under the radar and out of the limelight, but he's been there all along.
YCHDT
(962 posts)being for something or being angry about everything.
Dustlawyer
(10,494 posts)The problem is, Americans are ignorant generally speaking. The propaganda from the MSM has encouraged this.
Bernie was a white man fighting and getting arrested for the rights of black people in 1963, the year I was born. I'm 52 years old. No, he wasn't a big leader of the Civil Rights movement, but he did it! Unlike blacks at the time, he did not have a personal stake in the situation. He wasn't denied admittance to hotels and restaurants. He wasn't beaten because he looked at a white woman, he did it because it was the right thing to do! Not everyone, black or white, that fought for civil rights back then became a household name. Bernie hasn't bragged about his role all of these years, but he has been consistent in his fight for equality for all Americans. To me that is heroic! That is why when blacks learn about him they become supporters.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And then he stopped, walked away from the movement, relocated to Vermont and hasn't done anything particularly remarkable on civil rights since.
And, yes, he was white, but he DID have a personal stake in all of that. The civil rights movement wasn't about "rescuing" black people. It was about rescuing this country from itself, something that EVERYONE, regardless of their race should have been committed to doing. He doesn't get extra credit because he was white. He did what any decent person should have been doing. the fact that so few did it is an indictment on those who failed, not a reason to turn those who stepped up into something bigger than they are.
He showed courage and commitment and I give him many props for that. But since then, while he's supported civil rights, he has not done much fighting. And he certainly doesn't get a lifetime vote from all black people because of something he did 50 years ago. It doesn't work that way.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Let's be clear, the contrast between candidates is what's at question here, not what the average citizen should or should not have done.
The fact is, while Hillary was busy working for republicans, Bernie was busy working for PoC.
Hillary SHOULD have been shoulder to shoulder with Bernie in supporting PoC, but she wasn't.
Even worse, later in life, she would push for a number of laws that would prove to work against PoC, all while using racially abusive terms like super predator.
Supposedly, Hillary learned from her mistakes. And perhaps she has... however, she keeps making others. How exactly am I, or anyone else, supposed to support her when she has a very long, and recent history of poor judgment?
I understand having a "what have you done for me lately" attitude regarding Bernie over the last how-ever-many-years... and those are legitimate questions... but at least equally legitimate is asking that same question of Hillary... and the answers reflect poorly on her.
YCHDT
(962 posts)has been stated over and over again.
Sanders made a huge TACTICAL error in thinking Obama wasn't as popular or endeared with the dem base has he was
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)If Bernie is so wrong, then what does that say about her, hmm?
The tactical error being made is by the DNC and Third Way in thinking Bernie supporters will simply roll over and vote for her. At least 14% of democrats of come out and stated unequivocally, they will NOT vote for her. You can bet there is at least that percentage of independents that feel the same way.
YCHDT
(962 posts)for a couple of years.
People have caught on to this, there's no need to water it down now
Obama is a very popular dem president, to want to peel away from him instead of cling to him is a huge tactical mistake of the Sanders campaign.
For the people endeared to Obama how where the supposed to vote?
Relating to the OP, if Sanders had a track record of supporting Obama during his years and getting things passed this entrenched GOP congress vs harsh critiques couched in "damn good" phrases then I don't think Hillary Clinton would have ran for presdident
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Pretending that what's been tried in the past, and has failed, is actually working, is poor policy.
This isn't an Obama 2.0 presidency... it's a Bernie or Hillary nomination. There's a very clear and present desire to break away from the establishment.
People don't accept Obama's TPP endorsement. The TPP is overwhelming unpopular, yet Obama keeps pushing for it... so did Hillary... 45 times...including calling it the gold standard. People have caught on to this. The huge rallies for Bernie, the enormous individual contributions...they all speak to this.
If Obama's popularity were such a factor, why would Bernie's own popular be so high? The answer is a simple: Obama's popularity isn't a factor. Bernie has received more contributions than Obama did.
YCHDT
(962 posts)but he doesn't.
The dem base WANTS Obama 2.0, Obama is liked, loved and endeared among the dem base.
It's a tactical error not to take the measure of the dem base and to think calling for something they mostly want would win anything.
Can some things be improved, I hope so Obama's not a robot.
Did Obama start a good think that should be continued?!
HELL YES, that is what most of the dem base believe too
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Please elaborate on your vague claim.
YCHDT
(962 posts)question poses; be against Obama... a JKFFDR level popular dem president who is loved, like and endeared by a large majority of the dem base.
Instead
Sanders is hugging him nor or at the least quite of this critique.
A huge tactical mistake by the Sanders campaign
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)He has kept 45% of his promises and compromised away at least as much.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/browse/
YCHDT
(962 posts)technically changed congressional rules with the filibuster 45% is damn good and the rest of course would have to be compromised on.
I don't mind the compromises relative to the obstacles he faced...
That's life
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)???
His compromises brought us Republican policies. Why would anyone want to continue that?
YCHDT
(962 posts)... couching unfair critique in the midst of good job phrases.
Come on people, this line of thinking wasn't goin go pass muster with the dem base
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Did he start a movement or something?
YCHDT
(962 posts)Obama has done?
Has he been that unremarkable to some?!
If that's the case and Sanders leans anywhere towards this, which it sounds like he does, then of course he'd lose this primary.
Not just with PoC but with most dems because that's not the way most dems think of Obama
PWPippin
(213 posts)I meant "ignorance" as in "a lack of knowledge, understanding or education: the state of being ignorant." See Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
In my post, I was referring back to Vattel's post about "unfamiliarity with him is the enemy." This "ignorance" is present among much of the electorate. I wasn't specifically alluding to blacks, but rather to the general populace and the steering of information by the corporate media and the obvious bias against Bernie.
I grant you that Bernie's civil rights record hasn't been as "robust" as others. However, as you have noted, he has been supportive. His lack of immersion in the civil rights movement does not diminish his genuine concern and desire to make life better for all.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)the one who doesn't?
Since this is her 3rd national campaign, it makes sense that she would be more experienced in that. Thinking of it that way, I might have applauded Hillary. But with her experience comes the insincerity and willingness to talk out of both sides of her mouth.
For a lot of people, feeling like someone who is important values them is enough to inspire loyalty. I think that is natural.
It makes me feel sad, though because she has such a long history of claiming to support and stand up for people then selling them out for political gain. When she is put on the spot and shows her true unscripted colors it's tough to believe that people truly matter to her except in the capacity how she can exploit them to further her goals.
I am sickened to remember how she watched as two men treated a young woman as a criminal when they physically escorted her out. Meanwhile Hillary raised no objection and said nothing as the crowd displayed their sense of superiority with their applause.
It's a new model for Bernie and he doesn't have the connections to call some obscure individual to ask them to have a house party. But, Bill Clinton had a fat rolodex and DWS probably hooked her up with local people.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)because he hasn't built up any relationships - which he would have done had he been as much of a civil rights crusader as he and his campaign claim. That's my point.
One of the advantages of building up relationships over many years is that people give you the benefit of the doubt and forgive you when you're wrong if, on balance, they think you are doing good. Hillary Clinton has earned that kind of goodwill in the black community. Bernie Sanders has not.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Bernie is a new comer to national elections and a late comer to this campaign. It is an advantage to have cultivated relationships over 25 yrs. and it wouldn't be a bad thing in the case of the Clintons if they both hadn't been superficially "feeling pain," "fighting for," and going to church with the people they would eventually stab in the back.
Hillary stabbed people of color and women of all ethnicities out in the name of political expedience. If you haven't read about The New Jim Crow and care about the hypocrisy that is the deficient character of the people who initiated, promoted, and claimed the destruction of lives as success.
Bill Clinton's southern background gave him an advantage in building the connections Hillary benefits from.
Bernie's style isn't open armed and similarly warm, but I can't see him allowing two men to man handle a young woman who was making a demand that much of the country endorses. Hillary may have trailblazers on her side (I have talked with several who aren't entirely confident but they do want to play it safe), but there is no indication that Hillary Clinton felt Ashley Williams' Black body or life mattered. She stood proudly white and superior as the audience applauded Ashley Williams being treated like a criminal.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)She was mentored by Marian Wright Edelman and even, to a lesser extent, Dorothy Height.
Hillary Clinton was the one who introduced Bill Clinton to Vernon Jordan.
So even independent of her marriage to Bill, Hillary still had connections in the black community.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)and USED as in exploited. Nothing she has done has not been about political ambition. She worked for the Children's Defense Fund and gained some compassion points with the public that she used to this day.
But between then and now, she promoted the crime bill which increased economic hardship on women when income was lost to prison slavery. Families lost a physical and financial provider. Single mothers lost even the child support income. The increase in mass incarceration hurt children a great deal. To add insult to injury the people who had been thrown into greater poverty no longer had access to the welfare benefits that benefitted children.
Ashley williams appears to be young enough to have grown up after those policies were implemented. She likely has been affected by those policies either directly or indirectly in having to see the destruction the Clintons have called a success.
Hillary Clinton most certainly does owe Black bodies an apology.
Chitown Kev
(2,197 posts)your issue was that Clinton did not have contacts in the black community separate from her husband.
I simply showed that she had some of her own contacts independent of her husband...after all, Peter Edelman did work in HHS.
Whether she lost all that goodwill is an entirely independent and immaterial issue from the point that you tried and spectacularly failed to make
mmonk
(52,589 posts)is questionable in terms of race has become a dangerous strategy when you have a racist demogogue running for President on the other side. My 2 cents.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... states if he had been up front and present in leading true revolutions for change everywhere he would NOT have to be introduced to anyone including blacks AND Hispanics
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Maybe Charlie, who Bill Clinton got to know in the 90s has a relative who would through a house party? Bill Clinton knew how to operate with the southern style that opens doors to build local connections. Hillary inheirited his connections and it gave her an advantage. It wasn't as useful in 2008 because she was running against a very charismatic candidate.
Bernie Sanders doesn't have the connections or charisma, but he does have integrity. Hillary's lack there of is not hampering her as much as it probably should, because the conventional wisdom of US politics is that they're all corrupt anyway.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... Obama is not only popular in the democratic party but he's endeared by PoC (blacks and Hispanics).
What were the Sanders staff thinking!?
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)There is 3% unemployment and 19% poverty in the county where I live and probably many more. The people who are working 3 jobs but still can't afford health insurance feel like they got screwed. When they hear all the glee about Obama saving the economy, they know they are not in that picture.
Bernie has been talking about the harsh realities of economic opression. There is nothing new about economic inequality, but more people are feeling it with their experience being glossed over with economic indicator acronyms. And someone is finally talking about it on the national stage.
What's left of the middle class doesn't want to be lumped in with poor people and some are offended if their "beautiful minds" are soiled by the hardships pther people are facing. Flattery will get you everywhere in politics, as will convincing people who do not have considerable means that they are one of the cool kids. It's extremely effective when a politician is sincere, or if they can effectively play the role. Hillary learned from the best.
Sanders did not start on the groun 20 + years ago, and he is working on a more inclusive outreach not by exploiting a few individuals in each state, but by making the argument that we all do better if we all have greater economic security.
YCHDT
(962 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But, ask the person working 3 jobs and upside down in their house if they believe that's true? Especially when they know how the banks were bailed out.
I trust that voters can understand that there can be valid criticisms without throwing Obama under the bus. I don't fault them for being angry and skeptical of a candidate who was a part of the administration they feel failed them and has deep Wall st. ties.
YCHDT
(962 posts)have he spent it on getting ACA started and passed.
Obama has completed 76% of his agenda, Obama shouldn't be the focus on the main problem however emperfectly he governed
Loki
(3,825 posts)Besides, I think you are talking to a wall. They won't vote for Hillary and would rather see a Trump presidency. Nice thought isn't it? I'm proud of President Obama's accomplishments, even with all the obstruction, the hatred, the outright disrespect that both he and Michelle have had to endure for the past 8 years, and all these people can yell about is 3rd way and DLC. There sure is a lot scarier things out there and they are waiting and willing to do as much damage to everyone as they can.
YCHDT
(962 posts)with getting past the wall on some issues no matter how the facts are stated.
This OP is a right on critique of Sanders, Sanders resume should be full or recent results on a large or small scale in minority areas and nationally.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I am a staunch Obama defender.
But, many of the people I am talking about were big supporters of Obama in 2008 and were really counting on change. Yet, things have gotten worse for them. The pitfall of having such a charismatic candidate at a time when it seems like things can only get better is that a lot of the voters hoped to credit him for improvements in their lives.
What they hear from his administration now is talk about how great things are economically for other people and corporations. As their lives just keep getting harder.
I have no business telling them that they are not smart enough to realize that things are actually getting better when they can't afford health insurance even when working more than one job.
YCHDT
(962 posts)where credit is due.
For these people who can please them?
Also, if the expectation was that there would be ZERO people left behind from a less than 5% UE rate with a falling U6 rate (so that takes care of LP) then that was on its face unreasonable to begin with.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)are real.
3% unemployment and 19% poverty means that there are a lot of people who are suffering despite the most diligent efforts.
You are talking in abstractions, I am talking about real people who are mourning the loss of any expectation that their kids will have a better life.
Maybe you could tell them to their face that they should just suck it up because it's "unreasonable" to believe that they might someday be able to have some hope that things will improve for them. After all, some people are necessarily left behind, as justifiable collatoral damage.
I couldn't.
dragonfly301
(399 posts)but do they like what they see in Hillary? The more they get to know Hillary, the more they like her?
You can choose to answer or not answer - I fall into the camp that no one needs to justify their vote but you wrote the OP I assume in hopes of creating a dialogue...
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)She's been involved in our community and has developed a relationship. We don't always agree with her and don't think she's perfect - but we're not looking for perfection. And when she's made mistakes, we haven't liked it, but we don't judge her on one thing, but on her entire record, with which we are very familiar. We know her, what she stands for, what she's done and what we think she will do. That goes a long way.
Someone who comes into our community only after they decided to run for president and tells us "You should vote for me because I've been fighting for me all my life," is not very effective when we have to say, "And what did you say your name was again?"
dragonfly301
(399 posts)because I don't have a clue what she actually stands for or what she will actually do if elected.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
dragonfly301
(399 posts)and I'm a middle aged white woman - Hillary probably thinks she has my vote in her pocket.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)dragonfly301
(399 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Enjoy your day. I'm off to vote.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)It talks about what AA leaders can expect if they stand up for Bernie.
Not the kind of relationship voters usually want to support.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)Sometimes things go better when it's a two way street.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I'll put you down in the "It's black voters' fault that Bernie Sanders' campaign has completely failed to get them to vote for him" column.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)if that's what your imagination dictates
YCHDT
(962 posts)Isn't it the height of narcissism to claim a whole groups of people need something from him right now when he hasn't presented in full (with results) what he has to offer relative to his claims?
YCHDT
(962 posts)... anything that is needed from him.
If the opposite were true this whole thing would have been over before it started
mmonk
(52,589 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)voting for him.
Relative to the OP if Sanders had shown results in the past all this would've been moot, Clinton might not have even ran
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, maybe, that is the problem, his supporters only listen to themselves.
YCHDT
(962 posts)popular president during a campaign for the base of the dem party.
Dems like, love and are endeared to Obama and it seems like only an echo chamber would think the opposite from the start.
I don't like the fact that Sanders want to hug Obama NOW, he should stay consistent with his message of being anti establishment and needing a course correction.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for a career long independent, who had been critical of Democrats, in general, and this popular Democratic President, in particular, to join (but really not join) the Democratic Party, in order to mount a campaign of "course correction".
For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone thought that was a good idea.
YCHDT
(962 posts)looks like a promise everything deliver little campaign.
At least he'd be good at blaming congress
mmonk
(52,589 posts)branch that do have an impact from labor to regulatory agencies. These things will not be done by any other candidate outside Sanders or Stein.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)to learn something about each of the candidates on your own, instead of waiting for them to knock on your door.
It's called taking some initiative.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)screw any candidate, seeking my vote that advocates that position.
It's called they need my vote ... I don't need them.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when that candidate hasn't made effective efforts to reach you?
If you answer more than zero, I suggest you are full of boat floating shit.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)No sense exerting one's self.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... to win the support of the voter....?
A candidate makes their case to every individual and every voting block ... they (the candidate) either wins that support of they don't. The onus is on the candidate.
I am one of a very few people that are undecided (our primary is next Tuesday) ... i like and respect both candidates ..... and I have significant concerns about each.
I am leaning toward Sanders at this moment .... only because Clinton is polling so strongly in Michigan, i want to send a message. (if it were reversed I likely would be leaning toward Clinton).
I will vote for the Democratic candidate for president .... without hesitation ... i will donate time and money to the Dem candidate.
votes must be earned ... with the changing demographics in the U.S. failing to win majority support of any voting block (Black, Hispanic ....) will be a democratic candidate's undoing. it is their job to win the support
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)
YCHDT
(962 posts)... few who would NOT know him
BLM was a true revolution, people were burning down cities and sitting in the middle of highways...
Sanders didn't embrace them........ at first
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)FOR something instead of mouthing a fight against Wall Street. Wall Street has been and always will be there whether we like it or not, for good or ill. It has been that way through the most dire times and thru the booming times. You have to "fight" them on the same playing field, not around the corner. You have to be able to get on there field, level or not. Hillary can, Bernie refuses.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...because he was a relative unknown outside of Vermont.
Getting from there to Sanders' not having dedicated his life to equality of opportunity, or not having been a civil rights activist is a strange journey indeed. He's catching on rather miraculously considering that a year ago he garnered no MSM coverage. If it's not in time to win against a celebrity of two decades' standing, that in no way diminishes what Sanders did without getting a spotlight to himself.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... for the most part stayed were he was comfortable.
That was a big mistake along with calling for a "course correction" from Obama, someone who's very popular among democrats and endeared among blacks and Hispanics
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Not a mistake at all.
YCHDT
(962 posts)statements like that and embracing Obama.
People have heard him and don't like it when he peels away from a very very popular dem president
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...particularly when it appears to conflict with other needed reforms.
YCHDT
(962 posts)Sanders was listening to his own echo chamber and not seeing what most dems wanted as a whole.
He's still calling for course correction, he's just not stating it now
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...he was speaking to the president he thought could do it. That the message isn't welcome does not reduce its urgency.
We need reforms of the general sort that Sanders is advocating for. We can put them off, again, but we will just have to work harder later. Getting this work done must ultimately mean irritating some comfortable Dems, along with the non-activist citizenry.
We still need to do this work, and sooner rather than later. Speaking these inconvenient truths can be seen as a weakness, sure, but that's Sanders' chief strength.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... from an FDR and JFK level popular president who is like, loved and endeared in dem party circles.
It was't just speaking to the president he thought that could do it, it was he wanted to go away from what Obama had started even if the critique was couched into "good job" phrases.
In relating to the OP
If Sanders had shown a good record of getting these reforms done would Clinton had ran?!
I don't think so, it would be so hard to be his track record which would be the main argument of his campaign
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...as his trying to "go away"? What does that mean?
YCHDT
(962 posts)This is what I mean by "going away" from Obama
This was a big tactical error IMHO
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Also, I really hate being handed videos to watch in lieu of responses?
What do you mean by "going away" from Obama rather than calling for action?
YCHDT
(962 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)The record is there, it just hasn't been promoted. Just like the record is there for Hillary supporting behind the scenes all those horrible law that won her husband the record for most people put into prison under his term. You and I both know the large majority of them were PoC.
The obvious reason for the discrepency is that Hillary has a big name and has been promoted as a friend, but I bet you show anyone the actual record of Bernie next to the record of Hillary, one on one, I don't see how anyone could say they choose someone who helped put in prison a historical number of people over someone who fought side by side with them in the trenches, and even went to jail for their cause when it mattered.
That would not make sense. Just like your article makes no common sense.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... fight for a government option, for instance, with what he claims his leadership could bring now there would be not need for promotion.
I think the critique is right on
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)...not solely because of his leadership.
The public option was taken "off the table" by Nancy Pelosi. Whatever influence others might have had, she is 100% the reason why it never saw the light of day.
YCHDT
(962 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)She made it absolutely clear that it would not even be considered. She was the wall against it happening... Obama wasn't exactly pushing for it either...and the people didn't exactly push for it, even though they wanted it.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... when it came to the public option Sanders leadership was no were to be found.
This critique is fair, Sandes resume should be full of example of his leadership in minority communities and nationwide.
I don't blame blacks for not knowing Sanders looking at all the facts
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)And single-payer was given even less time at the table than the public option.
In spite of that, until his effort was blocked by a GOP procedural move, Sanders supported a more aggressive single-payer system, rather than the watered down version we have now.
He actually made great inroads without public support... and is considered the amendment king for a reason. Imagine how much he could accomplish with voter support.
Hillary, on the other hand, has gotten very little accomplished that didn't end up needing an evolution from a disaster to a "I learned from my mistakes" position. Then she finds more mistakes to make.
YCHDT
(962 posts)leadership it was actually showing results in regards to focussing people to overcome the entrenched in congress that mattered.
I favor free college, I don't favor 2 trillion people sitting outside of McConnels window as a way to get it passed congress though.
Mitch McConnell has shown he doesn't care what Americans think.
I'll say it again, if Sanders resume was full of results like this on a small or large scale Hillary Clinton would not have a case for running for president
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)He's on record passing more amendments during the bush presidency, of all times, than any dem on the field. He got more done during a hostile entrenched congress than anyone else. Hillary HAS NEVER gotten even close to that amount of work done while dealing with entrenched republican controlled congress... in fact, I don't think she's gotten anything done while dealing with entrenched republican controlled congress.
YCHDT
(962 posts)If it was amendments that counted then Hillary would have been stopped before she started.
SP wouldn't even get passed in the state of VT, where was this leadership then?
In relating to the OP if Sanders would've been a key person getting that passed in VT then he could at least tout that.
People have asked for examples of his leadership relating to revolution, not just getting amendments passed which is a good nothch for his record
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Hillary still lacks a record that shows anything of worth... especially during an entrenched republican controlled congress.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... progress made that's a better bet than showing now track record at all.
SP in VT would've change my vote honestly... I think it would've changed a lot of peoples vote this primary
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Senators can affect precious little at the state level... at least, directly. It's the Governors that handle state politics...not senators.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/single-payer-vermont-113711
http://governor.vermont.gov/node/2163
It's not the place of a senator to usurp a governor's authority.
*on edit*
Turns out it was the legislature that kept the bill from being enacted...not the governor:
https://www.thelundreport.org/content/why-vermont-failed-enact-single-payer
YCHDT
(962 posts)to persuade people like the governor to bend towards their will.
Why didn't this happen in VT?
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I wonder how many people know that they are getting fairer treatment on their credit cards, or in many other ways.
And I wonder, if they even know this is happening, if they know it is mainly because of Elizabeth Warren.
Or maybe people need to be "introduced" to her as someone who has been working for their interests.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)She has worked with many civil rights and equity groups over the years - long before she went to the Senate - on issues such as predatory lending and discrimination in the financial sector. But, unlike Sanders, she's not going around claiming that she's a great civil rights champion.
Even if she's not a household name in the black community, there are numerous respected civil rights activists and organizations that would vouch for her and it would not take long at all for people to connect her to the very palpable work she's been doing on these issues.
That is not the case with Sanders. He's been campaigning for the better part of a year and he and his supporters still aren't making any headway in the black community. There's a reason for that.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)No one said Bernie was a well-known force for civil rights in the US, but that he was one of the many who were out there getting arrested and challenging the status quo.
Black people voted for Hillary so heavily in SC simply because she's a known entity and she benefits from this myth in the Black community that the Clinton's are sympathetic to Black concerns. Like I said, it is just a myth because both of them have been working and advocating politically-expedient legislation that directly harms Black people. Most people in the US (Black and white), outside of political junkies like many of the people on DU, hadn't even heard of Bernie Sanders and there's a very good reason why.
I've known of Bernie for a long time, and have watched speak passionately about many issues on C-SPAN, often to empty chambers in Congress. Bernie has always been viewed as an outsider, the crazy socialist independent who's prone to ranting. They, like the media, simply ignored Bernie and pretended as if he didn't exist. The man has always been busy, but he was ignored.
Ask any of the Black voters in SC who voted for Hillary what they like about her, and you won't get much of an answer. They are not supporting her because of what she's saying, but because of who she is and the myth that comes with her.
She has been and continues to be an enemy to Black people (unless they're rich or willing to join her in the master/slave role which Sister Souljah so aptly noted recently).
'
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Bernie has been busy speaking passionately to an empty chamber on C-Span for a long time.
Black people don't know why they support Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is an enemy to black people but they don't know it.
Got it.
Thank you for your input.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)"Bernie has been busy speaking passionately to an empty chamber on C-Span for a long time."
Yes he has, but what it shows is that he's consistently been pushing the progressive views that he is campaigning on now. He's not some faux progressive who's only claiming to be to get votes because it's the new thing. He has integrity, something Hillary is sorely lacking.
"Black people don't know why they support Hillary Clinton"
The only answers I've heard given are based on this myth that she's been sympathetic to our concerns. Her husband Bill had many Black people fooled too. Some have said they support her because she's more electable, and we all know that isn't true. There are many Black people who are aware of the damage Hillary and her husband have done to Black America, but many seem willing to forgive and forget apparently.
So why do you support Hillary?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Bernie has been busy speaking passionately to an empty chamber on C-Span for a long time.
Black people don't know why they support Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is an enemy to black people but they don't know it.
Bernie has been like a John the Baptist (but C-Span has thoroughly documented his cries in the wilderness). Concerned voters of any race can readily see his constancy on behalf of this nation and it's citizens.
All demographic groups in the US contain large segments of ill-informed, low-info, and apathetic voters who are easily controlled by the prevailing political machinery including MSM. Voting against one's own interests is a national epidemic.
Hillary is controlled by her donors and her ambition, and has no abiding concern for Blacks or anyone else. Her actions and attitudes are excruciatingly well-documented and proven beyond any doubt.
The fact that she and Trump are leading their respective Primary races, is a testimony to the pitiful state of political awareness in our country.
YCHDT
(962 posts)it in something.
Right now Sanders is promising things without past results and expects people to take his word for it
Ask any of the Black voters in SC who voted for Hillary what they like about her, and you won't get much of an answer
I've talked to many PoC in the SE states and it's Clinton will continue Obama's legacy while Sanders has called for a "course correction"
People like Obama and the path he's started, the big tatical mistake of Sandes campaign was to think that most of the dem base thought about Obama the way he did
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)Obama and his family, but you'd be hard-pressed to find many who would say their lives have improved during Obama's presidency.
Any unbiased observer can readily see that. There are plenty of Black people who like Obama as a man but are highly critical of his policies which have benefited the wealthy primarily and his ceding of foreign policy to Hillary Clinton and the gang of neocons she sees as her advisors and mentors. Many Black people are critical of Obama, but for those who aren't very engaged politically, they're happy posting pictures on Facebook showing how cute the Obama family is, how proud they are, etc.
Sanders ideas have, until recently, been considered to far out in left field even for the Democratic Party to take seriously, so that should tell you that the problem has been with the Democratic establishment, not the electorate (who don't think Bernie is too far left by any means).
YCHDT
(962 posts)it comes to critique of Obama
Most Black's I've talked to understand the GOP and some dems have stood in Obama's way.
Something that Sanders leaves out of his overall message about the establishment
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)criticism has been warranted, as should anyone with a functioning brain in their head.
You can still like the man and disagree with him, and I think that's what Bernie has pointed out. If someone is so enamored with a person that they can't and won't tell them they're wrong, then something is wrong with that person.
The GOP has been uber-obstructionist (something even Bernie has pointed out), but many of Obama's faults were of his own making.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... DNC that he thinks there needs to be a "course correction" from Obama's legacy isn't a smart thing to do either
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)of opinion there because Obama gave way too much latitude to hawkish foreign policy advisors and caved to Wall Street bailouts as soon as he took office.
Too much of Obama's legacy has been a lot further to the right than many Democrats feel comfortable with.
thesquanderer
(11,972 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511149130 - "Sanders and Clinton are EQUAL in favorability among Blacks who are familiar with them"
The problem there for Bernie is that even if an AA voter ends up liking both candidates, s/he can only vote for one. Hillary has banked up an awful lot of good will. So it is likely to just become "I like Bernie, too." That's not enough to swing the vote.
And then there's a group that simply knows and likes Hillary, and are happy enough with their choice, that they just have no interest in looking at any other candidates.
You know, one argument I've made in support of Bernie is that it's impossible for the Republicans to do to him in three months what they've done to Hillary over 25 years, in terms of demonization. But as you kind of point out, there's a flip side to that same argument... it's impossible for Bernie to build the goodwill in the AA community that Hillary has built over decades. People can argue that Hillary's years of demonization are partially based on things that aren't true, and likewise, people sometimes argue that some of the accolades the AA community heaps upon her have a flawed basis as well, but it doesn't matter... either way, she is perceived the way she is perceived, both fairly and unfairly in both the positive and the negative, and that's the reality of the campaign she is in.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)The difference? Bernie treats those protesters with respect, Hillary very demonstrably does not.
Beowulf
(761 posts)I think many on the left thought all they needed to do was trumpet Bernie's record and PoC would flock to the campaign. That's not how coalitions are built. I also don't think Bernie has ever seen himself as a national figure and I'm positive being president has never been one of his goals. He said at the time he declared that he wanted to make sure certain issues would be addressed in the campaign and to that end there have been successes. I wonder how much discussion of race would have occurred within the Democratic Party had Bernie not run. Outside of pointing to how awful the GOP is in this matter, I doubt it would have been much. What hasn't happened with either candidate is a consensus on what an agenda dealing with systematic racism looks like.
The Clintons have been pointing towards the presidency for at least 30 years and have worked decades building the kind of network necessary to be successful at a national level.
There are differences between running a campaign and building a movement. I think the impatience of many in the Sanders campaign has not been helpful to meaningful coalition building.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
onecaliberal
(32,786 posts)YCHDT
(962 posts)... popular dem president.
This was a huge tactical mistake, among the people who were endeared to Obama how were they supposed to vote?
onecaliberal
(32,786 posts)done the hard work. For pity sake, the woman has done nothing but make speeches to the insanely rich to collect money to run. Who do you think she is going to stand up for? Do you honestly in your heart think she is going to do anything to reign them in? There is NO way.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)First, I respect this post a lot. It's succinct and intelligent and that's why I'm answering.
Second, black voters are only about civil rights? Isn't this demeaning? I think Sanders has tried to argue that the black experience is now about more than civil rights and some of the youth are listening. When he supports the fight for fifteen, he supports minorities because minorities disproportionately receive the minimum wage. When he supports a trillion dollar infrastructure program, that's a huge boost to thousands of minority subcontractors across the country, who could really, really use the help. And the list goes on and on.
Third, in the House and then in the Senate, he has consistently voted for cvil rights with few exceptions. But, ok, maybe better the devil you know. It's not like white people haven't been promising and not delivering for 400 years and that leads me to . . .
Fourth, we know the time is gonna come. Hillary wins, yeah, we're on the Road to Damascus! And then . . . the big Clinton disappointment. Again. Suddenly, Paul is Saul again and he can't find that road. From the churches to the jails, brought to heel, not heal. No time for "Negroes" no more. Oh, yeah, a few of the right folks will be chosen for the cabinet and maybe some nice words will be spoken and some crumbs will fall off the table. So then the community will be disappointed and speak out and rightly so. You think these people are gonna listen? I'm not feeling' it, not at all. No one is gonna listen.
Fifth, what's so star spangled awesome about the Clintons and race? I don't see it. They talk a good game but where are the results?
YCHDT
(962 posts)justice then that minimizes peoples efforts on that issue. People have written here time and time again that this was the wrong message to give to people who've been fighting for racial justice.
Third - So has Clinton on a lot of issues, that people minimize her efforts don't erase the fact that she has. It's more than the "Devil you know" its more about what the OP stated; Clinton has been in communities of color fighting for many causes more than just 40 or 4 years ago. Sanders on the other hand intimated the importance of this in a NPR interview that seemed to say that people shouldn't be voting for these causes first. I don't know what he was thinking
Fourth - If Clinton does NOT disappoint in some areas then she's not human, I expect her to keep moving forward not being perfect. That is the think with some of the critique of Obama; the expectations relative to the obstacles were unreasonable.
Fifth - This has been explained over and over and over again on GDP, I don't believe people are STILL asking this question to this day. At the least she's been there, however imperfect, she's been to the churches .. the town halls... the schools and way before she asked for votes.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)
Here's a guy who was out there in the trenches and is still out there -
Someone like him would have plenty of bragging rights of being involved in the Civil Rights movement. But often the very ones like him who want to "do" just go on and "do" without the need for someone to generate a checklist of what was supposedly "done".
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)why Hillary? Campaign lip service aside, her civil rights record is not just lacking, but devastatingly destructive.
YCHDT
(962 posts)A huge miscalculation IMHO
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)He's done some good stuff, but not everything has been great. Making a continuation of his legacy a litmus test for future candidates is kinda lame IMO.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... get the correct feedback from MOST of the people they're asking votes from
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)David Cicilline (CT)
Tammy Baldwin (MN)
Steve Cohen (TN)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Alan Grayson (FL)
Rosa DeLauro (C)
Steny Hoyer (MD)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Dick Durbin (IL)
There are others, but those are a few who come to mind right away.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)And they are all well known and greatly respected in the black community because of their work over the years.
You can Google them if you'd like more details.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)You could at least get her state correct (WI).
And I have extremely deep respect for Tammy Baldwin and was proud to vote for her to become the first openly LGBTQA U.S. senator. But to say she's done more than Sanders on civil rights issues, especially as pertains to a black political agenda, is a stretch. Again, no disrespect to Baldwin, who I support 100% absolutely, but Sanders has a longer track record.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)What "track record"? He started getting involved in 1961 and then by 1968, he picked up and permanently fled to Vermont (where he had already obtained a residence in 1963), and left that all behind, only eventually dipping in 20 years after that to support Jesse Jackson in 1988.
I.e., HIS focus, in the political arena, has almost always been anti-war and on systems that promote economic changes, not changes in the social constructs that negatively impact POC, let alone anything to do with a "black political agenda".
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)I tend to think that the people who push this argument the hardest are those who have even less interaction with people of color than Bernie does and believe that, because he has more experience with black people than they or most people they know do, that experience is something remarkable.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)And the result is the "objectification" of what they think "the problem" is and what they think will quickly "silence the discord", so that folks fall lockstep behind them...because they (the all-powerful/all-knowing) "know better". I.e., just throw some generic grease on the squeaky wheel and that will fix it rather than looking at why the wheel is squeaking in the first place.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)A heck of a lot of psychologizing and generalizing here. If you're going to claim that Tammy Baldwin supports a black political agenda more than Sanders, and you can't even name what state she's a senator for, well...go on and do what you do.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)It was a typo. But if you want to obsess over that, so be it.
Moreover, I did not claim that Tammy Baldwin "supports a black political agenda more than Sanders." First of all, I wasn't asked that - I was asked to name some current members of Congress who have been a "presence in the [civil rights] arena" and I did. And second, I have no idea what a "black political agenda" - that is a term YOU introduced into the discussion but it is not one I've ever used.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)It was an attempt at a shorthand for something like "policies that support anti-racism and greater justice, including in black communities," maybe a synonym for "presence in that arena."
Not meaning to be overly literal, but it happens that Tammy Baldwin is my home state senator and the only current statewide Dem in a higher office at this point.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)I actually do believe that rejecting militarism to promote domestic programs, economic changes to reduce the flow of capital out of communities, an end to mass incarceration, encouraging and leveraging self-empowerment among communities, and educational access are part of a "black political agenda," and these are all things that Sanders has championed. It sounds like you may feel that these are separate from a black political agenda, and I can see where that stance is coming from, since the white savior syndrome is a non-starter and it's an additional monumental task to dismantle structures of white supremacy that are coded into US culture and affect black people. I just don't personally think it's an either-or situation, so I would disagree when you seem to say that either you promote economic/military change or you seek changes in social constructs. I think that action is needed on both of these fronts, simultaneously. I also think that when it comes to the programs proposed by Sanders such as college access, universal health care, etc., there absolutely needs to be constant assessment of how well these programs are actually benefiting all people - if we do this kind of assessment, we can learn from the past where access to public resources and programs has been consistently unequal. But having such resources available to a broader part of our population will help the society move forward, and to some extent, in an anti-racist direction. This approach has precedent in that the latter part of MLK's career was dedicated to these same goals of anti-militarism and a poor people's campaign, including building alliances with other interest groups to move progress forward. Even with the murder of King and the white backlash in the Nixon era, some of the positive legislative actions that came out of the movement assisted black empowerment for quite some time. Then there was Reagan.
Admittedly, I'm simplifying a lot of history, but I wanted to explain where Sanders' platform and approach has some upside and some positive historical precedent. The problems of racism will endure due to their embeddedness and complexity, but it is possible to work toward some improvement through the presidential office.
I'm not going to go into Sanders' lengthy legislative record, but if we were to objectively weigh what issues he has supported over the years and how that relates to action that benefits the majority of black people, it would be important to look at that record reasonably. When I first spoke on this topic, I was answering someone that was generalizing about Tammy Baldwin vs. Bernie Sanders, and even though I'm a big fan of Tammy Baldwin (a senator in my own state right now) I think that Sanders has a stronger record in the areas that I've mentioned.
Two other things: You said that Sanders "permanently fled to Vermont." Why do you say that he "fled"? I live in Wisconsin - I moved here because of a job offer - the reality is, people move, and if they desire to, they should. I understand what white flight is, but it just puts a lot of innuendo into the mix to say that Sanders "fled" without any real support. Plus, he serves in Washington, DC, as a national political figure.
Second, there's some dismissal in your post of Sanders' activism as a youth. I don't think that a person deserves a presidential vote just because he once participated in protests, but if someone we knew personally participated in the movement, would we dismiss that experience as insignificant? Regardless of politics, sincere acts of conscience should be respected, especially acts of conscience during one of the most transforming social movements in U.S. history.
At the end of the day, I would just like to see Sanders get a fair look, since I think he offers more than what he is given credit for by the anti-Sanders contingent on DU. Progress is needed in this country so we had best look for it everywhere we can.
The answer got kind of long, but there it is. PEACE.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)Neither do I but this is how Sanders initially introduced himself and addressed it (and first impressions count) -
But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing? ... In the last election, in state after state, you had an abysmally low vote for the Democrats among white, working-class people. And I think the reason for that is that the Democrats have not made it clear that they are prepared to stand with the working-class people of this country, take on the big money interests. I think the key issue that we have to focus on, and I know people are uncomfortable about talking about it, is the role of the billionaire class in American society.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
This wasn't just handwriting on the wall, it was a big honkin' billboard letting many of us in the community know what his focus was going to be and it wasn't "us" in any inclusive agenda. I.e., we, the most loyal voting demographic for the modern Democratic party, were immediately and summarily marginalized, in public, by a man who is not even a member of the Democratic party (although he caucused with Democrats). And since this obvious stumble right out of the gate, there has been a lot of walking back and half-hearted attempts to repair the fissure, pulling out has-been activists (who themselves have alienated themselves from the black electorate) and little known hip-hop performers, but the damage was done. In the above excerpt, POC were separated out from "working class" as if we are all on "welfare" (I expect not counting the entertainment and sports industries who have a plethora of black millionaires) and whites are "the working class".
Many of us truly do agree with much if not all of what he says with respect to "rigged systems"... but as a community, we can't live our lives in a pipe dream. This nation was founded by oligarchs who dragged our asses over here in chains and whipped, butchered, and raped us into building the infrastructure and economy of this country with our forced free labor.
His ancestors CHOSE to come here. Ours did not. And the progeny of not only the founders, but the non-enslaved immigrants to the U.S., are sure as hell not about to give up their "American dream" any time soon because this is why THEIR families sacrificed and struggled to GET HERE. It would require armed rebellion, which ain't about to happen any time soon either.
THAT is the (at least my) bottom line. The oligarchs are going nowhere. If he did win the nomination, he will fall into line, as a 25 year politician, in order to get something through our tricameral system of government, and to do that requires much compromise that many of his supporters are not going to like.
jonestonesusa
(880 posts)I see your response as a more on point critique than most, based on the fact that it looks carefully at this initial framing of the core issues of the Sanders campaign, class over race, so to speak. I agree with you on the foundations of US governance and oligarchy, so from my perspective, it just becomes a question of the best available approach to pushing back against entrenched power for the benefit of the majority of people. IMO, if any change in trickle down type economic policy is going to happen, the case for greater access to resources needs to be made, and Sanders is obviously, to me at least, making that case. It's no slam dunk to change from the purposefully engineered inequality that we have now, especially when it comes to getting things passed in Congress, but what can you do other than try to get broader public support by campaigning rigorously for a fairer economy and not taking money from the interests that want to perpetuate inequality?
I also agree in some part with Sanders that the identity-based approach to election strategy is more established in US politics than liberal economic thought.So, even though I agree with you that in Clinton's campaign, the effort to connect with black politicians and the broader black voting base is more intentional and of longer standing, if the end result is status quo policy, what's the point? As a black liberal voter, that leaves me with a church-going conservative DEM that does nothing to build the party beyond its center-right economic thought and increasingly low turnout base, especially after the once in a lifetime candidacy of Obama.
Last thing, I believe that Sanders family was impacted by the Holocaust, so I am not certain that his migration to the US was by choice as much as you suggest. Thanks for the dialogue.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)I think it's because black voters (and the Democratic Party in general), are relatively conservative, and Sanders is not. I think that it speaks volumes that people assume minorities are liberal, or will vote for the most liberal candidate. Polling has shown the opposite. We're a really conservative country, and that includes minorities.
DU, in its bubble, often assume any demographic that votes solidly Democratic must be super liberal. That's not how it works.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)Uh no. That's absolute bullshit.
Far too many try to define who and what AAs are, what they supposedly think, and what they are supposedly doing and why, and I'm afraid that is about as insultingly paternalistic as it gets. You sure as hell don't get the privilege to define me.
What you define as a "most liberal candidate" may not be considered "liberal" to someone else, let alone somehow having some special talent to effectively represent certain desired interests.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)more than liberal from the most recent statistics that break it down by race in 2009. I'm not defining them, polls have shown how different demographics define themselves.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125579/asian-americans-lean-left-politically.aspx
And it's not surprising, Gallup has shown just how conservative people in the US have consistently been, with a slow movement toward liberal. Most Democrats consistently identify as moderate or conservative to this day, and that's only slowly changing.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx
Relative to DU, the Democratic Party is pretty conservative.
What "liberal" means will vary from person to person, but we can look at how people identity, and the US as a whole identifies overwhelmingly more as conservative. Whether someone considers Sanders liberal or not, he presents himself as one. Clinton, not as much.
Whites are much more conservative compared to blacks, overall. But we're talking about just people who are Democrats.
The reason people react so viscerally to the facts is because so many on here do truly believe minorities must be liberals. It's not true at all. It's some of that paternalism you bring up, some of that defining who and what people are.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)The same that essentially had Romney winning the 2012 election? 
Unfortunately it's white privilege that continues to insist on defining what are considered "facts" versus what is one's reality. The only "visceral" reaction I see are by those who get challenged for continuing to perpetuate their own world-views as "universal" and "fact".
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Tracking political ideology is very different from predicting election winners, it's easier to do, especially as it has been being done for many years in a row, and there's a reason why the Gallup tracking polls are consistently similar from year to year, which we would expect, with only slight shifts, again, in directions we expect. It's because it's consistent. That's not a matter of white privilege, but of how polling and statistics work.
And while the final Gallup polls showed Romeny 50 and Obama 49, the results were 47 and 51, not exactly a huge difference, and close to the margin of error for both candidates. Which is to say even if you think Gallup is getting it consistently wrong with their political ideology polling, it probably isn't by much.
Many people on DU can't understand why blacks would vote for Clinton since she seems moderate and DU assumes blacks must be quite liberal, but the polling shows they're pretty moderate, making her support not a big surprise at all. The visceral reaction is to the reality that the US as a whole is relatively conservative to DU, and a lot of people don't understand that or don't want to believe that, hence the continued disbelief and lots of excuses being thrown out.
Polls are the only relatively objective way we have of finding out how different demographics define themselves ideologically. And the polls show that Clinton's support among blacks isn't some big mystery when it comes to political ideology. These same polls make whites support on the Republican side of very conservative candidates not surprising either. The polls bear it out, the Republican Party overwhelmingly defines itself as conservative, Democrats have much more ideological variety, including lots of self-described conservatives.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)is correct. "Accurate" as in "In My (your) Humble opinion" and not as some sort of "fact".
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Many people on DU don't know what polls say in the matter. That is, these polls really do say that blacks don't define themselves as overwhelmingly liberal. And that Democrats mostly define themselves as moderate or conservative. Whether anyone believes the polls is another question. There are many good reasons to think these polls are accurate. The biggest one being how consistent the numbers are. But also things like polling methodology and sample size.
The 2012 presidential election predictions aren't a good reason to shine doubt on a tracking poll of political ideology across decades, they're very different types of polls.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)is but a "snapshot" or "subset" of the "reality of those polled". Not the "reality of the group being measured."
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Which is why they're so useful, it's many snapshots strung together. And the way polling works, only a subset big enough needs to be polled to get an accurate picture, there's a reason campaigns rely heavily on them.
BumRushDaShow
(128,527 posts)30+ years ago, and I'm afraid that despite how close the summations may be to what is "reality", the integral function is the most accurate way, and one will never be able to do such when whole swaths of people are not sampled.
Over-reliance on polls will take you down the wrong path every time.
YCHDT
(962 posts)... conservative... I don't run out the door with the least amount of clothes on I could find and I don't throw money at anything I see.
That doesn't mean I'm politically conservative though or subscribe to the conservative causes
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)that the polling provides. But the polling question is "How would you describe your political views?"
YCHDT
(962 posts)... want to minimize the impact of government regulation in places were its smart either for example.
That question assumes people know they general definition of conservative and liberal
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)that the definition of liberal and conservative vary enough anyways. It's asking for political views specifically, and that's about as good of a way it could be put. I can't really think of a better one.
Response to EffieBlack (Original post)
jfern This message was self-deleted by its author.
oasis
(49,335 posts)
