NYT: WA, AK, HI Don't Count - Too White

[kcjohn1]

As expected here is how they lead with Sanders big wins today (HI expected).

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/election-results.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Mr. Sanders found a welcome tableau in the largely white and liberal electorates of the Pacific Northwest, where just days after routing Mrs. Clinton in Idaho he repeated the feat in Washington. With a handful of precincts still reporting, he was leading Mrs. Clinton by more than 40 percentage points. He performed even better in Alaska, winning 82 percent of the vote.

Starts with white/liberal. I'll get to the white part later, but Alaska is bastion for liberal electorate?

His victories on Saturday were not unexpected; both Washington and Alaska have relatively low percentages of the black and Latino voters who have bolstered Mrs. Clinton’s campaign this year, and he has done well in states holding caucuses.

Well WA has 11% Latino population which is in line with national average. Seems like it didn't stop Sanders from winning big in CO either. We also know he did well with Latinos in Illinois and Iowa. Sure he lost them in FL/TX, but he also lost the white vote there.

In terms of dismissing his wins as its just another white state, well WA white population is 77% which is only 5% higher than the national average. Alaska is very diverse with only 66% white population. Hawaii has minority white population. I can't believe they decided to play the white card even today! Come on MSM find new ways to dismiss Bernie.

[ibegurpard]

1. Did they really say Hawaii isn't diverse?

Holy shit...

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. This is why the sarcasm was missed

[ibegurpard]

5. It's OK

[juxtaposed]

6. alaska is more diverse than hawaii?

funny shit they post

[Blue_In_AK]

10. Alaska is less diverse than Hawaii,

maybe a little more diverse than Washington. What's odd to me about these analyses is that apparently to the media, the only people who qualify as "minorities" or nonwhites are African Americans. Alaska has a significant Native population, a lot of Asians, many Pacific Islanders, Filipinos, but yet all these people are to be considered "white" or not minority voters? I think it's stupid.

[juxtaposed]

16. Alaska is more diverse than hawaii? b/c of the caribbean population.

[Blue_In_AK]

17. I didn't say that.

I said we were less diverse than Hawaii, more diverse than Washington. At least according to the demographics that I've looked at.

[juxtaposed]

28. I give up? I really at this point care...

[Blue_In_AK]

32. No, that's okay.

I think we must be misunderstanding each other. I don't really care, either, just talking.

[Blue_In_AK]

84. I think I might have had some posters on ignore

and missed some pieces of the conversation. I apologize for misunderstanding.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. Identity politics is a pretty significant mistake the Democratic party is playing.

They should be focusing on getting the right message and trusting that a diverse coalition bands about it. I suspect they would. Identity politics is cynical pandering. It is also a mask for policies that do not truly represent the economic and political best interests of the constituents but focuses on wedge issues of each individual "minority".

Unfortunately for Clinton, the interests of the minorities in HI, AK, WA are directly in conflict with her anti-environment pro-capitalist agenda.

[Zira]

21. +10000

[Wilms]

37. Precisely what Sanders isn't doing.

He already has the right message and an increasingly diverse coalition is forming. I know Republicans that are now wrestling with the idea that they may be Democratic Socialists!

[uponit7771]

90. Bill shit, Cornell West...

[Wilms]

98. I have no idea what you intended to communicate.

But I hope you have a nice day. And I hope nobody's GIF gets up in your face.

[Aerows]

115. That has to be the most tactful reply

to a derogatory comment I've seen today.

[mahina]

22. Pretty funny!

[bettyellen]

30. Not at all- the article refers to the demographics of WA and AK only- and it is not the focus at all

the OP completely mischaracterizes the article, which is just an overview of the progress both campaigns have made so far.

I don't know where all this fake outrage is coming from. Am I the only person who actually scanned the article? It would seem so.

[XemaSab]

102. Am I the only person who actually scanned the article?

Maybe.

I actually read the thing, and I thought the OP was spot on.

[bettyellen]

111. It doesn't talk about Hawaii's demographics at all, yet look above! That's the main takeaway, LOL.

WTF?

[yuiyoshida]

88. I have been told Hawaii has the largest

Asian population than any state. California is probably next...and way to go Hawaii...Mahalo!

[bravenak]

3. Interesting. All States Count.

[Wilms]

4. That was written by bravenak in an alternate universe.

[juxtaposed]

7. zombie alert, zombie alert

[JPnoodleman]

8. In some circles Bernie voters are worthless, as are the young.... ect. n/t

[Zira]

38. I don't think those circles have much credibility.

It's like being a Goldwater campaign supporter. It actually DOESN'T take much good judgement to not be part of that and choose the right side of history.

Most people did it without blinking an eye.

I'll take those Bernie voter's judgement as most likely the people who have been consistently on the right side of history. The people calling them worthless have probably had a consistent record of being on the wrong side of history. Wonder how many voted consistently against civil rights in one form or other - whether it was pro-war, anti-immigration, anti-gay, etc.

[strategery blunder]

9. That wasn't cool

Let's place the blame where it belongs--on corporate-controlled media shilling/lying for Clinton.

I'm not cool attacking posters who aren't in the thread to defend themselves.

And I was elected an alternate delegate for Bernie Sanders today.

Let's keep it civil, please.

[bravenak]

11. Funny enough

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1584346

[strategery blunder]

13. oopsie

I've been here since I got back from caucus and I didn't see you

[bravenak]

15. I caucus'd too!!!

It was fun. Bernie won big, but we had fun. Drama after but, i think it got solved.

[SMC22307]

14. Damage control.

We'll see how long it lasts.

[Cha]

59. On another jury of yours, brave.. my they keep me busy...

Funny enough
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1584389

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

antisemit posting on DU is an insult to all of use. racist people should be excluded from DU. Posts from member has pushed anti jewish bull shit and is still doing it!

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:17 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stop Lying Alerters.. bravenak is not pushing anti-Semitic "bullshit" on DU. Why do the BS alerters think they have to lie to get a hide? Because telling the truth won't silence anyone via "flagged for review"? Exactly.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Looks more like alert stalking than antisemitism. Admins/MIRT?
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There is absolutely nothing wrong with the post.

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alert-stalking?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Guess which one I was?

[bravenak]

61. Can you alert that to admins?

[Cha]

63. Yes!

[bravenak]

65. Thank you!

[Cha]

70. My abuse alert to Skinner..

"Hi Skinner.. reporting on the alert comment here.. it's a lie. And, all this alert stalking with lies, hoping for a stacked jury, needs to stop, please.

As you can see most of the jury wasn't buying it.. this time."

[bravenak]

71. Great alert

Hopefully he will look into it.

[Cha]

74. Yes, I'm hoping Skinner sees all the alerts we're sending on the abusive alerts and hides

in order to get Hillary supporters "Flagged for Review".

[bravenak]

76. I hope so too

It really is an abuse of the system to alert on a post that you do not even see anything wrong with.

[Cha]

77. Big freakin' Time Wasters, too.

[bravenak]

78. I feel bad for the jurors

[ScreamingMeemie]

64. There have been a ton tonight, and I'm getting really tired of it.

[SMC22307]

67. Isn't there the option to recuse oneself from jury duty? (n/t)

[ScreamingMeemie]

68. There is, but I am all for community standards.

That doesn't mean I can't state my opinion here.

[SMC22307]

69. Yes, community standards are important.

I'm paying more attention to Transparency pages and notice many pushing 10 hides, at least one in double-digits.

[ScreamingMeemie]

73. I think many, many people here have gotten out of hand.

I think there are no innocents here. I also see many hides (on both sides of this "war&quot that are not deserved. But then, I'm not engaged in this battle, so I have the benefit of clarity I guess. Have a wonderful rest of the weekend.

[SMC22307]

75. Thanks, you do the same.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. And note ...

the two jurors that voted to hide ... did so, with no explanation.

[Wilms]

12. Well of course it's the media.

But I have tired of the abusive postings and just vented with a bit of humor.

[SMC22307]

23. Not quite a sweep, but close.

On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:41 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

That was written by bravenak in an alternate universe.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1584349

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Callouts of other DU members is a violation of the TOS. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 01:51 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Snarky, but not hide worthy.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bravenak is in the thread and it isn't so bad
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Can we just be done with this topic at some point.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh boy. Take 5 and relax, it might help.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The comment is dumb, but not hide worthy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Wilms]

34. Well, I was a bit over the speed limit. n/t

[SMC22307]

62. A bit.

"You take your chances." Unless that has changed, along with time-outs, amnesty, etc.

[bettyellen]

35. The OP is the only one saying these states don't count. The OP is talking about Hawaii's diversity,

but the article did not at all.
Hilarious to see you all hoodwinked into hating the NYT for a boilerplate progress report. The OP should be ashamed for misleading you all.

[Wilms]

40. Well in the midst of the confusion, this is what caught my attention.

Mr. Sanders found a welcome tableau in the largely white and liberal electorates of the Pacific Northwest, where just days after routing Mrs. Clinton in Idaho he repeated the feat in Washington.

That said, what I posted could have been kept to myself.

[bettyellen]

43. So, not about Hawaii at all. Yet there are three threads now, all claiming idiots said that about

Hawaii. The bullshit propaganda is coming from us here, not the NYT. LOL.

[Wilms]

51. Well, this sub-thread did begin with a reference to alternate universe.

:reference:

[bettyellen]

56. The OP mischaracterized a boiler plate status update on the campaign as some inaccurate, nefarious

propaganda. And everyone assumed the OP was true. Embarrassing, to say the least.
It's like watching Pied Pipers all over GDP these days. Funny!

[Wilms]

66. I assumed it was a DUer's editorial. It's not LBN.

And I don't know what else to say that Gandhi hasn't.

[bettyellen]

85. NYT: means the New York Times says..... I know this is not LBN, but this OP totally manipulates us

[Bluenorthwest]

94. But claiming AK is uber white is incorrect, just as it was when Hillary fans made that claim about

OK, only with AK it is even more extreme. Both States have large Native populations, AK has the largest in the country, OK has the largest in the continental 50. So like it or not, it is crass and thoughtless to describe those places as 'homogeneous' to suit a narrative and that has been done dozens of times.
AK is less white than South Carolina, North Carolina or Alabama. OK is less white than either Illinois or the US as a whole, far less white than Texas.
And yet DU says Hillary wins in 'diverse' places like Illinois and Texas and no one says they are 'homogeneous and lacking in diversity' even though compared to OK or AK they do lack diversity. AK 26% white. Illinois 77%. Texas 80%. But we hear about AK and OK lacking that Texas diversity. Why is that? Because bullshit, that's why. Because people who tout diversity and then don't count all the minorities are full of bullshit.

[roguevalley]

100. fuck this color issue/litmus test to who is a better American. since when is

one AMERICAN DEM'S vote less or more than another AMERICAN DEM'S vote? Fuck all the put downs of the states. People love where they're from so knock it off. No state hold the lock on virtue. None.

[LiberalArkie]

132. Results

On Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:33 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

fuck this color issue/litmus test to who is a better American. since when is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1586319

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 07:51 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: There was no attack. Unnecessary use of off-color words and disorganised thinking, but not alert worthy.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I said leave it alone as the whole thread is out of control.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[roguevalley]

133. thanks. I've had a slow burn since new hampshire.

[bettyellen]

108. The article cites accurate stats on both states, and never mentions Hawaii's demographics. It is a

only briefly mentioned in the article, despite the OP setting their hair on fire. And then a dozen people go on about Hawaii- which was NOT mentioned. Your post focuses on the demographics (as did the OP), but in the article, it briefly mentions the stats and goes on to a very neutral piece about the state of the races.

So a lot of DUers got fooled by the OP. Which is their fault for not reading the article.

[Wilms]

97. I said I saw it as editorialized.

As in, an editorialization of what the NYT piece was about.

And that's done ALL the time on DU, and I don't always appreciate it, but I'm not always bothered by it, either.

[bettyellen]

109. Just saying immediately people jumped in and mischaracterized the article completely. The discussion

was designed to go off the rails, and it did- spectacularly. You can tell no one bothered to read it, and went straight to outrage.

[Wilms]

112. I've never seen something like that happen on DU.

It's not like anyone thought we were going to bomb the moon.

[bettyellen]

113. HA! I missed that thread- but good point.

Bums me out because people used to care about the veracity (or at least the source) of what they posted- at least regarding elections. We have fallen so far here, it's not much more than shit slinging at this point. What a waste.

[Number23]

57. Exactly. He hasn't even won Hawaii, a point I was trying to make in this thread though Lord knows I

don't know why anyone still bothers with this forum. And if he does win Hawaii, no one would make that claim about it being "too white" anyway because everyone knows that's not true.

But even if he does win it, it doesn't make nearly as sweeping and dramatic changes that the folks here so desperately want it to be. There is too much desperation around here now and what you said about "propaganda" is right.

[cui bono]

83. Well, he has won Hawaii and I'm quite certain *someone* will find a way to make it racist.

Without working so hard to create a racial divide this primary season Hillary would not be doing so well. So congrats to Hillary supporters for a somewhat 'successful', if not artful, smear campaign.

.

[SMC22307]

20. Search Seattle August 2015 and get back to us on civility.

"Useless white supremacist liberals," indeed. Wonder whose tears Marissa is sipping tonight.

[strategery blunder]

29. I live in Tacoma and chose to lurk around that time in the interests of civility.

As a white person, I set aside my initial emotional reactions long enough to at least try to listen to all perspectives, also in the name of civility (also, I won't presume to tell PoC how they may and may not express their needs and desires when I'm probably ignorant of what many of those needs and desires are).

Just because I was lurking then, and did not wish to get into the flamewar (also in the interests of civility), does not mean I am completely clueless as to what went down.

[SMC22307]

33. "Lurking" is always a good fall-back. (n/t)

[strategery blunder]

47. My post history from that time would have been very thin

Not a star member so I can't do an advanced search. I might have made a dumbassed post or two that I would probably regret if it was shown to me now, but I certainly had no interest in pouring gasoline on the flames for days and weeks.

I'm certainly not the type of person to go find people's RL contact info and go harass them; I prefer to leave that domain to Donald Trump

I don't chase people from forum to forum either

Seems pretty civil to me

[Number23]

19. He hasn't won Hawaii.

[JonLeibowitz]

24. bookmarking....

[Number23]

26. I don't know what I did do deserve all of this attention from you

But I sure wish I could Control+Z it the hell up.

[SMC22307]

27. You posted on an open discussion board.

What the fuck else do you think?

[SMC22307]

36. Open. Discussion. Board.

Shouldn't be difficult for you to grasp.

Shut her up? Dear God, no, I want a bright light shone on her posts. Especially ones regarding relations between blacks and Jews.

Sanders crushing Clinton in WA, AK, and (likely) HI is driving my enthusiasm. What a great day!

[Number23]

39. All you and your crew is done is shone a light on how little you all have going on in your lives

If you think for one second you've done anything else, you are as mistaken about that as you are apparently in thinking that I have even the tiniest interest in discussing anything with the likes of you.

And open board or not, my question was a specific one to a specific person and your chiming in was as dumb as it was unnecessary. We all know you have nothing better to do but it was nice of you to confirm it anyway. Anybody else black you need to chase after today or are you just about done?

[SMC22307]

42. You're black?

Are we supposed to know these things? Is a master file kept somewhere?

[Number23]

44. Oh, honey like you didn't know! Like I've said or done anything else to raise your relentless and

equally relentlessly boring ire.

PLEASE go and try to waste someone else's time.

[SMC22307]

45. LOL

Keep going... I'm almost to 2,000!

[Number23]

50. Yeah, glad you stopped pretending you didn't know. That was worse than your normal fare

which is pretty unbelievable as it is. All of that cackling over Sanders only losing by 250 delegates now instead of 305!

You are much more transparent than you could ever hope to imagine. 2000 posts and 1973 of them are you chasing after black posters, most of whom wouldn't give you the time of day if we were wearing 100 watches. But I'm sure it's all because of "policy" differences. Or just some fascinating coincidence. Definitely.

Edit: Pretty sure that the admins are watching your behavior in this thread very closely. Between your comments to me, my post being hidden in response to your nastiness and your stalking bravenak's posts upthread, hopefully your typically unprovoked, 100% needless and pointless nastiness is being seen not only by every poster here but by the folks that have the authority to decide who does and does not post here.

[SMC22307]

54. Nearly 99% of my posts are "chasing after black posters"?

Prove it. That's a nasty accusation, twenty-three, but typical of you. I know you're mad the truth came out about your little buddy, but don't take it out on me.

[noiretextatique]

99. Paranoid with a purpose

So very tired of these claims of stalking. I am black, but I don't have these problems. Maybe it is time for another attention-seeking post to Skinner.

[SMC22307]

130. Thanks for weighing in. The vast majority on this board don't have these problems.

Maybe I need to send my own attention-seeking e-mail to Skinner, or spend some time in ATA, which I rarely do. That was a nasty accusation, and it stands. Welcome to the new and improved DU!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

114. Congratulations. You hit 2000 in style.

I have been similarly berated by the same poster for replying where I wasn't wanted, accused of stalking, etc.

[SMC22307]

131. Yeah, there's a pronounced pattern...

with that poster, and it's quite tedious. I laugh when demands are made that certain posters never reply to her.

Thanks... it only took me just over three years. LOL Onward and upward!

[Cha]

72. I'm just going to jump in here..

23

[Omaha Steve]

80. Jury results

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing another poster of stalking AA posters is rude and over-the-top: "Anybody else black you need to chase after today"

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 27, 2016, 02:21 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This whole exchange should be hidden. The insults are way too personal. Calm down and/or use the ignore button.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think it was a good question. Leave It.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's fine, leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Your alert is more offensive than the post you alerted on.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Number23 already has a hide in this thread. Leave it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Zira]

55. Okay, you go on ignore for attacking posters who reply to you on a public board

for replying to you.... weird.

[Number23]

60. My question was not to that person. And did you not see who "attacked" whom?

Why are you conveniently ignoring that in order to needlessly announce that you are about putting ME on ignore for responding in kind to that individual? I have no idea who you are or why you'd think that I'd care that you're putting me on ignore.

Your comment is what's weird.

[Zira]

52. control z only does an undo, and it puts an end of file maker in a bath file.

if you are selecting several things on your desktop and you accidentally end up with a lot of copies of them a control+z will undo them.

It doesn't delete anything.

[Depaysement]

82. You are answering all his posts

And you wonder why you're getting "all this attention?"

[JonLeibowitz]

127. Oopsie! He won with 71%!

[Zira]

25. yet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Given the postings on twitter

and a few other things, I can (almost) call it. Though people are getting real antsy that they have not finished counting and they keep delaying the release hour by hour.

[Nyan]

89. He did.

Eom

[AgingAmerican]

46. Idiotic racialist nonsense

[Depaysement]

48. Too white means few blacks

Asian, Latino, Native populations don't count because it ruins the narrative.

[Buzz cook]

49. I was really expecting a sarcasm tag.

Life is stranger than fiction.

[jfern]

53. The non Hispanic white population in Alaska is below the national average

[roguevalley]

101. so what?

[XemaSab]

105. jfern is saying that Alaska is more "diverse" than most states

So claiming that Bernie can't win in "diverse" states is a giant crock.

[elljay]

58. MSNBC

I turned it on for about a minute this afternoon to get results. What I saw was Joy Reid and another commentator explaining, once again, how Bernie's core support is white people so that explains why he was winning in Alaska and Washington. Obviously, besides the thinly-veiled attempt to accuse Bernie's campaign of being racist, this shows East Coast ignorance of the diversity of the West Coast, where we have very large communities of people of Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Chinese, Native American, Japanese, Pacific Islander and Filipino ancestry, among other non-African American groups. I'd already stopped watching MSNBC shows; now I will also get my quick primary results elsewhere.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. How long before they blame the weed?

[MFM008]

81. After attending today's caucus in WA

I can say almost every person of color was in an HRC group, most Latinos in HRC group.
Young people, mostly white, some middle agers in Sanders group, 45 and older in HRC.
A lot of white men in Sanders groups also young couples.
Older singles and black couples , retired military and retirees in HRC.
I'm 57,female, white in HRC but so was my sons 33 year old girlfriend and my brothers latino girlfriend.
Both groups cordial until a Sanders supporter demanded an end to super delegates.
Hillary supporters turned away in our district for coming late- 4 of them. Sanders won by 2 votes.
Packed like sardines at the local high school because they combined a number of districts.
One thing everyone in the building agreed heartily on................................defeating the republicans.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. I stand with Number 23

Sad but not surprising her post was hidden for using the same language on her interlocutor that was used on her. I would say more but I don't want my post hidden.



PEACE
DSB

[ericson00]

91. they're caucus states; not real elections

so kids go to hang out, and anti-Clinton agitprop works very well there.

[Barack_America]

92. Did you read how that story ends?

Voter: I blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS.



Read it now before its edited out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. Maybe he was chaneling

Did you read how that story ends?

Voter: I blame Clinton for the rise of ISIS.

Read it now before its edited out.



-Barack _America

[


Maybe he was channeling Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani: Hillary Clinton 'could be considered a founding member of ISIS'

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/24/politics/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clinton-isis/

[Vattel]

93. The IMN (idiotic media narrative) has been established. Facts be damned!

[Tom Rinaldo]

96. Yes, Sanders keeps winning those progressive states like Alaska, Utah, and Idaho.

As you point out in the OP, Sanders has done fine overall with Latinos even though he doesn't always win that demographic in this, the primary phase of the electorate. He is doing very well with Native Americans and has been improving his vote share with African Americans outside of the South.

But the real point is that he is wining over atypical white voters for Democrats in recent decades. The media is so used to repeating the familiar mantra about the Democratic coalition; the young, minorities, and upper income white liberals. Bernie broadens our base by winning over working class whites also without pandering to the Right or watering down the Democrats inclusive message. THAT is how Democrats retake the House.

[JimDandy]

104. Spot on about the real point. n/t

[BernieforPres2016]

103. What was the NYT saying in 2008

When Hillary was talking about how she was winning the white vote?

[B2G]

107. Go home New York Times. You're drunk. nt

[bettyellen]

110. Or, you could read the article and see it doesn't say what many here claim it did.

[hellofromreddit]

116. It does try to make the case that these states are white

Mr. Sanders found a welcome tableau in the largely white and liberal electorates of the Pacific Northwest

The author later refines it a bit into "not much black and latino population."

His victories on Saturday were not unexpected. All three states have relatively low percentages of the black and the Latino voters who have bolstered Mrs. Clinton’s campaign

But that does not eliminate the distortion introduced earlier in the article. Hawaii is clearly not "largely white" as white people are only about 1/4 the population. And looking at this map on page 11 it's clear that much of yesterday's states looks kinda like the deep south in terms of white population density.

Furthermore, Sanders had better victory margins in counties with fewer whites. It looks as if white voters might have been the only thing keeping Clinton viable in those states.

The article is dishonest and tries to buttress the notion that Sanders only appeals to white voters when that has obviously not been true for some time.

[bettyellen]

117. Hawaii is not part of the Pacific Northwest. How did everyone miss that part? Amazing.

[hellofromreddit]

118. That is certaily true, however

the article is either intentionally misleading or just sloppy, as the writing seems to imply that the author considers Hawaii to be part of this "largely white" region she's describing.

[bettyellen]

119. That is why she was careful to say Pacific NW. And later say Hawaii has few blacks and Latino

voters. She made a big distinction in describing the electorate of those states. The OP blurs the truth, is much more misleading or "sloppy" than the actual article they posted. Interesting.

[hellofromreddit]

120. It's misleading writing, here's why.

Here's the relevant paragraph:

Mr. Sanders found a welcome tableau in the largely white and liberal electorates of the Pacific Northwest, where just days after resoundingly beating Mrs. Clinton in Idaho he repeated the feat in the Washington caucuses, winning 73 percent of the vote. He did even better in Alaska, winning 82 percent of the vote, and in Hawaii, he had 71 percent with a few precincts still be counted, according to The Associated Press.

The paragraph structure they use is fairly straightforward. Introductory sentence states the main point, and the rest of the paragraph expands on it. The very purpose of breaking a paragraph is to give the cue that the author is moving to a new point. No break, no cue, implied link.

The author kicks off by talking about the "largely white" PNW. PNW is not well-defined and may or may not include Alaska depending on who you ask. So the next sentence discussing Alaska in the first clause can understandably be taken as also being about the PNW. That's another cue to a reader that what follows in the final clause--Hawaii--is equally linked to the same "largely white" claim from the author.

Breaking the sentence, or breaking the paragraph, or both would remove the confusion. Confusion is something an editor is supposed to be well-aware of and guard against. The NYT has recently and grossly displayed an editing bias in public, so I'm inclined to think the confusing structure is intentional.

[bettyellen]

121. There is no way they were referring to Hawaii with Pacific NORTH west. People here misread it.

And the OP misleading them was part of the reason. They discuss Hawaii's demographics later- in a part you omitted.

[hellofromreddit]

122. Feel free to provide the relevant portion, I could not find it.

[bettyellen]

123. When they get into Hawaii demographics, it mentions that there are few black or Latino voters.....

which would be a nod to the fact that their non-white vote is a very different one from the continental USA. We both have made a much bigger deal over demographics than the article did. Like the OP intended all along.

[hellofromreddit]

125. OP had a legitimate complaint

The article is dishonest. It is probably intentional.

[bettyellen]

126. It had a dishonest and inflammatory title Hawaii "too white"? Nope.

Never happened- but look at how many posters bought it- hook line and sinker.

[MFM008]

128. yesterday

almost everyone in Sanders group was white, in fact most people at the entire caucus were white and they had at least 20 districts or more in that high school... IT WAS PACKED, CNN was there even.
The only people of color I saw were in the HRC group. 4 HRC voters turned away because they got there to late, 2 non white older males and a black couple.
She lost our district by 2 votes. We had to eat it because the cut off was 11AM. Can you imagine the screaming fits if they had been Sanders voters?

[restorefreedom]

124. thanks for the laugh, nyt! nt

[KauaiK]

129. Are you freaking kidding me???

Hawaii is NOT predominately white or anything else. If anything, whites are in the minority.