Black Votes Don't Matter?

[bigtree]

...just got home from work to find one of our party's most important and loyal constituencies under assault and basically dismissed as irrelevant, just because they happened to vote overwhelmingly for Hillary.

Yes, Hillary has the support of an amazing majority of black voters in the South. That's mainly a result of the number of new voters which Barack Obama brought into play with his two presidential elections. It is to Hillary Clinton's credit that she has been able to advantage her campaign of these important and motivated voters. These black voters are the closest our party has come to a successful 'movement' of new, energized voters into the party.

So much nattering about how 'conservative' the South is, but no critical thinking about the value of these inroads which our party has developed in these traditionally red states. That's not something our party should be brushing off, just to push some narrative about the fellow who didn't manage to entice any significant number of them into supporting his campaign.

What's the converse of that? Bernie only does well in states with a sizable white voting population? Is that really something our party should pursue? Isn't this a case where Sanders has failed to attract as diverse a coalition of voters as his rival? What's the benefit for our party in writing off this amazingly dependable constituency?

[LexVegas]

1. It started with prominent civil rights icons....why stop the attacks there? nt

[bigtree]

3. ...when I reflect on that effort to denigrate John Lewis and other accomplished black leaders

...I feel as if my own history is being rewritten, all for the sake of one person's political benefit. This is a pursuit by people who either don't know squat about our nation's history, or just don't give a damn.

[LexVegas]

4. Well, the Sanders campaign is reaping the results of those attacks now. nt

[Dragonfli]

25. I understand David Brock's game, I love transparency, even when it involves an obvious

negative strategy. He(Brock) is rewriting history as well as rewriting the goals of MLK which were unity, equality, and an end to poverty.

You give yourself away by intentionally or perhaps unintentionally helping Brock's efforts by leaving out that the criticism had to do with what was said. The unintentional implication that Bernie Sanders was never involved in the movement "I never saw Bernie Sanders", While at the same time unintentionally implying that the Clintons were involved" "But I met Hillary, I met Bill Clinton" Neither of which were even remotely involved.

in fact although young, Hillary had already decided to be a Goldwater admirer who was known for being anti civil liberties.
And still proud of it years later

The criticism was against what he said, not The man or his accomplishments. as you well know. Even John Lewis regreted those remarks and walked them back, and I believe him when he said he did not intend his words to be taken that way, as a multiracial man, he is a real hero of mine, I respect him, took him at his word when he corrected the record and do not pretend otherwise or use him as a tool to divide people, he fought hard for equality and has the scars to prove it and I resent you using him as a political football.

You are not representing the truth, but rather a well promoted script designed to divide and conquer us in order to try to get us that belong together in unity against a common enemy, against the .01% predator class that feeds off us all and who attempt to get us at each other's throats fighting each other instead of them. A tactic so common that cynically Jay Gould once declared: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

I am disappointed in you for doing the work of dividing rather than following a better vision of unity and peace as truly great men have, A man was assassinated for attempting to bring us all together in unity and whose last attempted project cut short was the fight against poverty (sound familiar) The true goal if you are sincere about your history rather than helping a well known smear merchant serve an opposite agenda to this:



One way would be to stop trying to divide us and have us fight one another, but rather join in a fight to unite us and help those in poverty, rather than help procure the results of the investments of extremely large billionaire predators, banks and industries that have invested in politicians to fight against us. you don't have to help fight for these goals by joining Bernie sanders, even if those are the very goals he seeks because you don't like the looks of him or whatever.

Hell Promote your own fight against this large money vampire common enemy of the people, if you hate Bernie Sanders so much, just don't fight for the big money interests by helping them achieve their goals and push their propaganda.

Don't help the well known woman's rights activists that helped Anita Hill so much Achieve his goals of disunity and his mission to enrich the already extremely rich by using tactics that have no interest in equality, but rather division to distract us from those predators that are our common enemy and who are increasing poverty at an exponential rate to increase their own extreme wealth at our expense via disunity and inequality. Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, and the private prison industry - the profiteers of misery and the new legal slavery (look up how private prisons use inmates as labor and what they are paid for it.

Consider equality, unity and an end to poverty as your goals and give up on politicians that serve the masters that have invested millions in them so that they will do their bidding.

As I said, you can do it your own way if you don't want to become a part of a non-billionaire supported revolution that just happens to serve those very same goals. Sometimes a loner can make a difference too.

[bigtree]

29. I don't have any problem at all with criticism of what he said

...but most folks here know well that's not what I'm referring to.

I don't know Brock, read Brock, of give two shits about Brock. That's your own projection and sad rejoinder to what I wrote.

[Dragonfli]

33. I do know David Brock, and this line of attack was started by him.

Please read the link provided and watch the video as well as taking the time to read the entire post, so you know where I am coming from. Skimming a well thought out post is not very considerate to the poster, I may sometimes make mistakes but I spend a great deal of work trying to put together thoughtful posts rather than just post one liners,

In truth, the only criticism I have read were regarding what he said, but I can't and don't read every post here, have some mischievous trolls been at work smearing a good man that I am unaware of?

If so, let me at em! I like spanking trolls, just give me the links and I'll get them to break or if their post count is less than 100, I will do my damnedest to get them permanently booted!

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. What the hell does any of that have to do with the OP? eom

[Dragonfli]

59. pay attention to the threads and what I responded to each time, reading is easy

I am not going to read it for you, you are not stupid. follow the threads and actually read what I write (not just the titles) and what I am responding to specifically (that is important as well you see.

Damn, it's self explanatory, not nuclear physics.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. Like I thought ... Not a damned thing; but, a weak assed attempt to change the damned subject. n/t

[Dragonfli]

74. I answered a post, and did not deflect from it at all, but answered honestly YET YOU BAIT ME why?

I didn't answer the OP itself however, because it was fairly meaningless and was about equating race with the south, THEN after that shit started attempting to sow division with a straw man "black votes don't matter", ppleeeze, more attempts to sow division, no one said that, or so few I can't find it anywhere, It was another attempt to bait white people, I don't hate white people like you seem to and manage to get along with both my father (black/Latino) and my moms (Korean/White). What I do hate are the attempts to bait folks and get people at each others throats just for the sake of startin' shit over race, I'm Multiracial and ain't fallin' for the divide and Conquer routine which is a sleazy political ploy by a paid sleaze merchant that ruined a nice black woman named Anita Hill just to get Clarence Thomas on the supreme court. as I explained to the author of the OP. I even wrote an OP about what he is using YOU to do

The south is the south and there are white and black Conservatives there because the the south tends to be very Conservative no matter the race. The Republicans there are batshit crazy Conservatives and the Democrats there are Conservative Democrats.

The only inroads made is that a very Conservative candidate is doing quite well in Conservative areas, it is to be expected.
Fortunately most of the country is not as Conservative as the red states and don't try to pay always ever less in taxes that fund programs that help people.

In liberal areas the Republicans are still Conservative yet ever so slightly less batshit crazy and the Democrats pay there way in taxes (plus a little extra because the Red states spend more federal money than they take in) and the less Conservative Democrats don't hate paying taxes to help people that need it because they aren't selfish Conservatives. but some Democrats are Conservatives, just the ones that don't care if you are gay or deny science and a few other things but they are sneaky ass liars always pretending.

My beef is not with any person in any rainbow - black, brown white (or purple if any existed) like you wish it was (none of the colors are monolithic by the way) as you and the OP would have us believe), but with conservatives that hate to pay taxes and are paid well enough to become multimillionaires to insure the rich pay the least of all in taxes. My beef is with all selfish Conservatives and all haters looking to divide and start fights and shit.

The Republicans are the conservatives I have major beef with, because they are nasty as hell, but Democratic Conservatives I have a beef with too because they are also selfish and they slide up behind you like a friend before they stick a knife in.

This time I answered the op (before you accused me wrongly of not answering and I want an apology because I did honestly answer the post I did respond to),

But instead of an apology, just tell me something and keep it real, why are you falling for the bullshit that makes you want to bait, and start fights with people just because David Fucking Brock Sleaze Merchant by trade wants you to to keep us all divided because he thinks such hatred will win him an election? (is it because Hillary hired him to do dirty work) it has to be more than that, please tell me why you are doing it for real.

[Vattel]

45. It is amazing how many at DU--some unwittingly--further the dishonest attempts to undermine Sanders.

[Dragonfli]

48. it is very unfortunate when the unwitting do so, but such is the power of skilled and experienced

propagandists. With a great deal of help from clever minds that find ways for PACS to directly coordinate with campaigns, which we all know is illegal right? actually no. those clever minds have invented a way to circumvent that law and to do it in a way that if it has not already affected Democratic Underground, likely will in the future, let me explain.

Another unfortunate reality is that according to the "loophole" Brock's SuperPac "Correct the Record" cites in order to circumvent (the until his "innovations" illegal) direct coordination with a campaign is the "loophole" that carves out specifically the supposedly now legal use of any and all internet resources to accomplish the goals of the campaign it is directly coordinating with. This includes creating websites and blogs but also allows for internet opinions to be used, not just in the opinion sections of varied news articles, but also in any and all blogs and forums including discussion boards via staff members of the PAC.

This in essence means that literally millions of dark money dollars are at the disposal of those that would hire posters, bloggers, news article commenters and pretty much anything else they wish to fund to undermine one's opponents as long as it is only the internet that is involved.

One with an imagination may entertain the thought that at least some of the attempts on DU, KOS and pretty much everywhere else online may be working directly with the Hillary 2016 campaign to as you sat "undermine sanders" while actually getting paid for doing it by David Brock's SuerPack using ill-gotten dark money.

Such an imagination could also conceive of PAC paid trolls posting nasty stuff about certain "well respected leaders" to unwittingly cause other posters to blame and then make attempts to undermine both Sanders and his supporters.

In my imaginings I have often thought that terms such as bernibros and unicorn farters may have been posted originally and tactically by posters that were recipients of "money well spent.

The internet loophole and direct coordination with the campaign using such new paid posting power is real, the rest, being something I can not prove at the moment, I attributed to concepts and imagined usage of such new and previously illegal tactics of PAC paid posters.

You appeared as tho you may be interested in such a thing, I know I am.

[bushisanidiot]

31. And it's black intellectuals and black leaders who are dismissing Cornel West.

. How can you call yourself a leader if you turn around and see that no one is following you?

[brush]

52. It was a mistake, IMO, to bring West on as a surrogate. He's very unpopular in the black community.

Of all the prominent black supporters, why partner with one who has repeatedly trashed President Obama, a very popular figure in the black community.

That choice showed how out of touch with the AA community the Sanders campaign was/is, and IMO, cost him many black votes.

It wasn't smart choice and apparently they/you still don't get that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. I can't see what you are responding to; but, I beg to differ ...

Dr. West has a strong following among white liberals.

[Herman4747]

2. Hillary's disapproval rating is 54%!!!

Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

"What's the benefit for our party in writing off the constituency that comprise that number?"
Do tell.

[onenote]

5. Among Democrats, her approval rating is higher than Sanders

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188396/sanders-image-among-dems-clinton-maintains-edge.aspx

[Herman4747]

14. It's March, buddy.

If the only thing that you can come up with is a poll from January that occurred before any of the states' primaries, then I do recommend that you not post it.

[onenote]

36. Hey "buddy" -- I'm not the one claiming part of the Democratic constituency is being ignored

based on a poll that includes repubs.

And since you asked so nicely, here's a poll with the relative favorability numbers as of February 24. I doubt its turned upside down over the past 7 days.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/189611/among-dems-clinton-regains-popularity-advantage-sanders.aspx

[Herman4747]

39. SINCE WHEN DOES MY POST REFER TO PART...

...OF THE DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUENCY?? Go on, find it. Good luck

And thanks for taking some of your precious time to find a poll actually relevant to your point, but not to mine.

[onenote]

42. Caps lock stuck? Anyway, you should go back and read the original post in this thread.

The one you were responding to.

It is about whether the Democratic party should write off one of our party's most important and loyal constituencies.

You're response apparently expresses concern that we'd be writing off a constituency that isn't even part of our party. Well, guess what, we write off repubs when we support same sex marriage, voting rights for minorities, protection of free speech etc etc.

And I have no problem with that.

[jeff47]

23. So all we need to do is only allow Democrats to vote in the general election.

[onenote]

37. Of course not. But the post I was responding to was claiming an important part of the Democratic

party constituency was being ignored based on a favorability poll that includes repubs.

That is all.

[jeff47]

38. The post you were responding to was talking about her overall numbers.

"But Democrats like her" isn't enough to win in November, since Democrats are 30% of the electorate.

[Herman4747]

41. Exactly the point that this guy...

...seemingly does NOT want to understand!!
To win in November, we are likely going to need a significant amount of support of voters from the segment of the electorate known as Independents, voters often so much in the "middle" that they don't feel comfortable identifying with a political party. While Onenote may not be discouraged by all of Hillary's lies, for those notably less often in agreement with Hillary such deceit could prove the deciding factor as they cast their votes.

[onenote]

43. While Clinton has a higher unfavorability rating than Sanders

She still has a higher favorability rating (and lower unfavorability rating) than Trump.
So if that's the measure the predictions of her losing to Trump seem a bit overstated.

[jeff47]

44. Depends on the poll.

In some polls, Clinton is higher. In other polls, Trump is higher.

We can count on Republican rage to drive Republican turnout in the GE, no matter who the Republican candidate is.

How's Clinton get younger voters to the polls, when she's losing them 70-30? They do not consider themselves Democrats. They do not respond well to her current tactic of scolding. They utterly hate the status-quo, and Clinton is the personification of status-quo policies. And they'll be alive for plenty of years, so they know they will have to clean up from a Republican presidency some time.

Clinton is a very dangerous candidate for us in the general election.

[onenote]

47. Not really. Check the Huff Post summary of polls

Looked at individually, the highest unfavorabilty rating for Clinton is 59 -- the same poll has Trump at 62. And the lowest favorability rating for Clinton is 37, while the same poll puts Trump at 28.

Comparing the seven polls side by side, every one of them has higher unfavorable/lower favorable numbers for Trump than Clinton, with the exception of the Qunnipiac poll which has Trump and Clinton the same in terms of favorability and Clinton one point higher in unfavorability. That poll, by the way, is one of the oldest in the group and thus doesn't reflect some of Trump's more recent outrages.

Links:


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating

[JackInGreen]

7. You silly

It only matters when it fits their narrative of identity politics and division.

[fleur-de-lisa]

17. Please don't do this.

Not in this post anyway. Please start your own post about Hillary and her disapproval rating.

[grossproffit]

6. AA votes = under the bus

[noretreatnosurrender]

8. Please Stop

Please stop trying to divide people. Stop the baiting. Stop insinuating that Sanders supporters are all racists. It's not true and you know it's not. African Americans have every right to vote however they want to vote. Their vote shouldn't be used by Hillary voters to taunt Sanders supporters. We would love to have Black voters vote for our candidate but we can't make them do it. It's their CHOICE. We don't have their support right now but the Hillary supporters are determined that we never will by painting us all as racist. It's wrong and it's cynical. Do something positive - try to win over the under 40 vote for Hillary that she doesn't have yet.

[bigtree]

9. talking about race isn't 'dividing' anyone

...and I'll be damned if I'll be bullied away from discussing it here.

This has to be one of the most ignorant arguments I've ever heard. I have 55 years of experience as a black man, and I can tell you that the first defense of people confronted by the issue of race is to disparage those who dare to speak up and out.

I'm not going to be dissuaded by this demagogic argument of yours and others that discussing race is 'dividing.' It's dirt dumb, on its face, and it's offensive beyond belief.

[Spacedog1973]

10. +1

Agreed

[Cali_Democrat]

16. ...

[fleur-de-lisa]

18. Agree 100%!

[YCHDT]

20. +1

[VulgarPoet]

21. +1

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

28. Well said

+1

[lunamagica]

50. +1

[NastyRiffraff]

51. Righteous rant, bigtree

And very, very true. Thanks for speaking out. No, not all Sanders supporters are racists, but you never said that. It's simply a straw man to imply that you did.

However, some of the racism here on DU takes my breath away, and it's not a one-off; it's becoming systemic. I never thought I'd see that on a Democratic board. I feel for the AAs here. They're getting trashed with impunity. If that's not racism, what is?

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. I've noticed, of late, whenever a Black person talks about race ...

or advocates for Black interests, it is heard by some white people as that Black person calling them racist.

Why is that?

[noretreatnosurrender]

70. Everyone knows what this about

This isn't talking about race to advance understanding. I've seen some threads like that here on DU but this isn't one of them.

[bettyellen]

72. With you 100% on this.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. The people are already "divided"

The issue is whether that "division" is being made into a scapegoat to attack others rather than to find the common ground among the "divided" and focus on that to move forward.

The fact that you even used the terms "Hillary supporters" and "Bernie supporters", means that you are not even practicing what you preach, as you have already created the "sides" of the very "division" that you rail against.

[noretreatnosurrender]

69. I didn't create the sides

So don't even go there.

[BumRushDaShow]

78. Where did you see in my post

that I blamed "you", including "editorial you" for doing any "creation of different 'sides'"? I pointed out that your usage of the labels "Hillary Supporters" and "Bernie Supporters" can be construed as accepting the "sides" (division) that already exist (which is what my post's intent was to point out). Rather than considering that you have some who you might label "Hillary Supporters" who are very much supportive of policies that Bernie may proffer (e.g., "single payer&quot despite Hillary's views to incrementally adjust the existing system)... you would argue that one must be one or the other and no shades of gray can't exist in terms of supporting the policies of either candidate.

[GoneFishin]

12. This is Camp Weathervane manufacturered outrage. Nothing you can say would appease them because

the division they are creating IS their endgame. They are here to bait people into saying any words they can try to re-arrange and twist into something inflammatory sounding.

It's a Hillary's Dirty Tricks Squad go-to oldie but goodie.

[bigtree]

13. I'm a human being before (and long after) I'm a political supporter

...I expect to be recognized as such by a community of professed progressives.

[GoneFishin]

24. Makes perfect sense to me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. So it NOT ...

"Camp Weathervane manufacturered outrage", as you have stated?

[GoneFishin]

77. Oh, I totally think it's manufactured outrage. Bernie has done nothing to deserve anyone's anger

other than derail Hillary's easy coronation.

I am going to vote or not vote for who I want. I support and recommend that everybody else do the same.

But if you attack a good man unfairly and he also happens to be the opponent of your favorite candidate, then it stands to reason that that is the reason for your anger, and you are acting as a surrogate for your favorite candidate. That is your right.

It is my right to cut through the smoke and mirrors and expose that fact.

[yardwork]

75. Responding to racism is not equivalent to racism.

Asking people to stop bullying is not the same as being a bully.

[mcar]

15. K&R

[Pisces]

19. Most of the people with the reprehensible attacks are right wing trolls, or bots. There are 10 to 15

negative Hillary threads on the front page at all times. THis is a coordinated effort by KKK Rove to demoralize
the democratic voters. To sow dissension on the blogs. It is ridiculous. They are in complete disarray and would love it
if we had internal problems. The Democrats will show up for Hillary. I was an Obama supporter last time, but Hillary
has earned my vote in the last 8 years.

[redstateblues]

26. K&R!

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. I'd love to agree with you; but, check the DU Post count ...

of those posting the attacks, and those rec'ing and "yep'ing" those attacks.

[Pisces]

68. On GDP right now, 25 attack threads against Hillary. I am doing a count.

[bettyellen]

73. It is amazing to see all the water carried for the GOP here. Cant wait till that shit is over.

[ismnotwasm]

22. K&R

[Waiting For Everyman]

27. When the South goes blue in the General Election

(for the first time in 40+ years), it may matter more.

As it stands now, the South is more weighted to get its way in the Primary, but then doesn't vote Dem in the General. It isn't hard to see why that aggravates Dem voters in other states. Maybe those voters would like more say in choosing who they are going to be expected to elect.

I think more states that usually vote blue should go first in the primaries.

[RockaFowler]

40. Who knew Florida wasn't the South??

We voted for President Obama 2x

How about Virginia?? Or North Carolina??

[Agnosticsherbet]

80. Democrats in the South are equal to others and should not be forced to the back of the line

in the primary because the he majority of whites in those states win the general election.

The Primary and the General election are not the same.

The Primary asks all Democrats who should be our standard bearer. We are all equal in that.

The General election is to elect a government and a President from a list provided by the various parties.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

35. Not to the Bernibros

[Vattel]

46. So now we are saying that black votes don't matter? Wow, we are such evil people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I look forward to the day black and brown people make Texas blue again.

It doesn't help to denigrate them.

[auntpurl]

71. ME TOO. I think it will happen in our lifetimes.

All those lovely electoral votes, straight into the D column. Happy day!

Yes, let's not drive them away from the Democratic party before we can even get there!

[basselope]

53. You are confusing the color of the state and the color of the people.

No one that I have read has ever said Black Votes don't matter. This is a talking point coming out of the Clinton campaign.

What people HAVE BEEN saying is that Clinton winning in the south is rather meaningless since she won't win those states in November.

What I find rather funny is how easily people want to just lump voters into groups. Bernie wins the "white vote" Clinton wins the "Black vote", when you are probably talking more about REGION than the color of people's skin.

She won the Latino vote in Texas, but lost it in Nevada, Colorado, and it appears in Oklahoma as well.

The Clinton campaign SO wants to make it a racial issue.. but it is a far more a regional one.

Sorry, but in reality the deep south is FILLED with low information voters in large part b/c the media keeps it that way. It is not a white/black thing, it is an education thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. You talk to that Black voter just like you would any other voter ...

You tell him/her why Bernie is the right choice for you.

But, if/when they tell you Bernie isn't addressing their primary concerns ... YOU FUCKING STOP ... just like you do with any other voter.

It's not difficult.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Okay ... You go with that because ...

you know more about that voters issue than that voter. Gotcha.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. +1 ...

Apparently, Black votes only matter when we support the proper candidate.

[rbrnmw]

61. kicking this important post

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. Of course they matter. Very much.

However, pointing out that a good portion of Hillary's black voter advantage lies in states in which she has no chance whatsoever in November isn't saying those votes don't matter in the greater scheme of things. They do. They just don't matter in November.

Just like every other group of voters in states where they're on the losing side, their votes contribute nothing to victory in the General Election. Until we ditch the Electoral College, that's a fact of American presidential politics.

Trump voters in my state (Oregon) won't end up effecting the outcome of the GE, either. But as a statement of their political views? They matter...just like AA votes in the deeply red Southern states...

[Starry Messenger]

76. k&r

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. FACT

Despite being 12.5% of the population African Americans provided Barack Obama 26% of his vote in 012.

And the last Democratic president to win an election with a plurality or majority of white votes was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Our party would be lost without them!