MEDIA: "Alaska, Hawaii, Washington states are overwhelmingly "white" and "rural."" - SNOPES: *FALSE*

[Triana]

(seems they weren't "white and rural" until Bernie Sanders won them overwhelmingly in the primary)

ORIGIN:In March 2016, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders swept the Democratic caucuses of Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington state in Presidential primaries. Not long after that, pundits wrote several articles claiming that Sanders did well because all some or all of the three states are not particularly ethnically diverse (Sanders has not been doing well with black voters compared to Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and his supporters have been portrayed as overwhelmingly white).

According to CNN:

These caucus states — largely white and rural — are the type of places Sanders traditionally does well. In order to win the nomination, he must replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries, as he did in Michigan last month.

. . .

The Atlantic made a similar claim:

As voters gathered in Washington, caucuses also began in Alaska, which will award 16 delegates based on today’s results. There’s been little polling in Alaska, but one in January showed that among both Democrats and no party voters, Bernie Sanders was ahead. The state’s largely white electorate might also stand to benefit Sanders, who has struggled to gain traction with minority voters.

Alaska and Hawaii in particular are among the top most ethnically and linguistically diverse states in the U.S., which media coverage seemed to overlook despite several previous stories on the subject (sometimes in the very same publications) about the "surprising diversity" of both states.

THE REST:

http://www.snopes.com/alaska-hawaii-washington-voters/

[floriduck]

1. I'll dedicate this to Cha.

Can't wait to get back to visit Chaminade U tomorrow. Class reunion weekend should be fun.

[LexVegas]

4. ....

REASON FOR ALERT

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

YOUR COMMENTS

Thinly veiled call out of another DU'er.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:55 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Yes, it is a callout, and by the law of the land worthy of a hide regardless of how we might feel about the person being called out.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not a call out
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And? How many times do I have to repeat this: there's nothing about 'calling out' in DU rules or guidelines.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: harassment of a DUer. Stop it please.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you.

[floriduck]

8. Thanks for sharing this. I only

mentioned this DUer because he/she just posted the opposite of this a short time ago. And I believe he/she is from Hawaii. No malicious intent meant, just an FYI TO HIM/her.

[Hydra]

9. I'm glad you survived the alert- lots of dismissal of the truth lately. n/t

[roguevalley]

45. Alaska is more diverse than 44 other states.

[TheBlackAdder]

46. Often, it seems the best tool to uncover racism... is a mirror!

.



If you're looking for the guilty, you only need to look into a mirror.

.

[MrMickeysMom]

22. There you go...

[JackInGreen]

2. Oh come on

you've seen the boards over the last couple days.
It's a bullshit claim, they KNOW it's a bullshit claim, and they won't be stopped from tromping as much bullshit as they can from here until they win or blame everyone else for losing. It'd be maddening if I didn't have this crystal ball over here I can gloat over.....

[unapatriciated]

3. Yeah we all are just young privileged white guys.

I might want to be young again and could have used the privileged while raising four children, but have no desire to be male.

[mainer]

5. And to call Hawaii "largely rural"?!!!

A state with a 1.5 million people crammed onto a few islands? Have none of these reporters gotten stuck in the twice-daily traffic jams on Oahu? A state where 1/4 acre is considered a HUGE house lot?

[mainer]

6. Hawaii is 13th most densely populated state

Since CNN calls it "mostly rural," that makes Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina even more "Mostly rural."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density

[floriduck]

14. It's 90% on O'ahu. The outer islands are

Much less populated, relative to the area.

[mainer]

19. So that makes it white and rural.

That would make NY state white and rural too. Since 90% of NY is in cities, leaving vast swathes of country.

[floriduck]

27. New York isn't divided by water. Outside

O'ahu, it is rural. But not white. Whites are a minority in Hawaii. There are more Asians and Pacific Islanders, along with Portugese. I guess the definition is in the eye of the beholder. You say tomato, I say tomawto.

[mainer]

29. It's about density. Population/square mile. You can't argue with a number.

Based on numbers, Hawaii is more densely populated than Georgia, Michigan, and Louisiana.

I have family living in upstate NY where it's mostly farmland. If I were only to look at upstate NY, I'd call the entire state white and rural. But of course we don't do that, because we use the standard of AVERAGE population density, which includes Manhattan.

You can't change standards and say, "Oahu's really dense, but because there are some farms out on the Big Island, the state is rural."

[floriduck]

31. Tomawto.

[mainer]

32. may be pronounced differently but it's still spelled TOMATO

sorta like the definition of density stays the same.

[floriduck]

33. You are correct. Thanks.

[virgogal]

37. Portugese are white.

[longship]

7. Hillary group, busted!

The most divisive group on DU, and the group which, by far, has the most banned DUers. Even Hillary supporters in the general election are banned if they post about the "bird", which got me banned. My post was not an attempt to rub anything in, it was an attempt to reach out.

Nevertheless, apparently any mention of any bird is justification for banning from the Hillary Clinton group, even if it is jocular and jovial.

I am increasingly becoming convinced that the candidate forums no longer serve any purpose here. They only divide us.

Remarkably, their sole message is to exclude rather than include. That is how they justify the banning of their allies. All one has to say is that Bernie's bird was cute and BAM! You are banned. One might ask why a little finch would so piss off a candidate.

Maybe that explains why, on the same day that Hillary Clinton stated that she would not debate Bernie Sanders because of his "tone" that one of her operatives (David Brock) stated that somehow Bernie was both a misogynist and a wife abuser.

Now that is what I would call evil, dark tone in a campaign. One would also call that abject hypocrisy.

Yet that is the Clinton narrative.

It is a sleazy, might one say, Rovian tactic.

And then there's the debate schedule which Hillary previously said, "anytime, any place" (there are YouTubes all over DU).

But now that Bernie has the advantage, somehow debates are unimportant to her, and BTW, Bernie is EVIL!

Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate, just like in 2008. No wonder Barack Obama won. I only hope that Bernie is able to save us all from Hillary this time, too.

And I will vote for her in November if she gets the nod, but it will be the most difficult vote of my life. Her salvation will be the alternative GOP candidate, which is the worst justification for selecting a POTUS.

Let that settle into the Hillary supporters. There are many of us here -- and national polls bear this out -- who think that Hillary very well may be unelectable in November.

[Hydra]

10. The fact that they are melting down over a bird and still trying to force a racial wedge

Is almost unbelievable. As you say, what kind of campaign are they running?

[longship]

15. I think the DU candidate groups do much more harm than they do good.

If I were an admin, I would abolish them.

They are a horrible affliction on what should be respectful political discussion.

That is a good reason why the jury system seems to not work. We are carved up into so many separate demographics, political and otherwise, that the only thing that is accomplished is intraparty warfare. The system here encourages it!

The only solution I see is to kill the candidate groups, who seem more intent on ideological purity than support for a candidate. And one never knows what that ideological purity means until one is banned. It is like the rules are ad hoc.

Well, what the fuck good is that? And how does it advance a Democratic agenda unless one wants to abandon any semblance of a Democratic Party. And there are posts here about the GOP fracturing. Meanwhile DU could teach the GOP about fracturing. We know how to do it. All one has to do is carve a party up into so-called safe havens based on putative candidates, and declare war on the other groups.

The Bernie group, the Hillary group, the Warren group, all the same. They ban, not because of lack of support, but because of ideological purity, which is the last thing one should do when one wants to win. Hasn't anybody here learned from the last several decades of GOP rule?

I love Elizabeth Warren, but she made it very, very clear that she wanted to be a Senator, not a president. But saying so got me banned from the Elizabeth Warren group. I said that they were delusional for believing that she would run. Of course, the fact that she didn't run did not result in any reinstatement to that group. They were more interested in Warren for president than, Gee! Elizabeth Warren is an awesome Senator. She doesn't want to be president so maybe the best way to supporter her is to support her as a US Senator. Sorry, if you express that opinion YOU ARE BANNED.

The Bernie group. What can I say, since I am a supporter of Bernie Sanders. But I am banned from that group because I had the audacity to support the DU TOS. That's right. Supporting the admins and this Web site gets one banned from the Bernie Sanders group. In this case it was supporting the PPRing of a DUer for encouraging DUers to not vote for a Democrat if it is not Bernie. Now this is something that I knew was against the TOS, as Skinner clearly stated. But agreeing with the TOS in the Bernie Sanders group gets one banned. I guess it is not so much the Bernie Sanders group as it is the Manny Goldstein group.

Then, there's the Hillary Clinton group, the one I was able to post in longer than the others. However, for some strange reason one little finch landing on Bernie's podium in Oregan really pissed them off. Because when I made a post, which in no way attempting to rub it in, only making some fun about it... BAM! Banned. And unlike my banning in the other two groups, my PM response to hosts was responded with silence.

It is that fact that might explain why the Hillary Clinton group has so damned many banned DUers. They just don't care.

Of course, one could say the same about the Bernie group who seem to be more worried about supporting violations of the DU TOS than supporting Bernie Sanders.

And likewise, the Elizabeth Warren group who seemed to be more in denial about her repeatedly expressed statement of her desire to stay in the US Senate than a delusion that she was lying and really, really wanted to be president. Well, a lot of Elizabeth Warren fans think she is going to be a wonderful US Senator and support her decision. But don't dare say that in the Warren group. Amazing that a DU candidate group does not support the candidate's wishes.

The same for the Bernie Sanders group. I think that Bernie would be horrified if his supporters would not support the Democratic nominee should he not gain that. His entire political life has been caucusing with Democrats. And he is acutely aware of what happens when the GOP is in power. We are all acutely aware of it. However, the Bernie Sanders group has somehow taken the deliberate position that if Bernie doesn't gain the nomination it is okay to not vote for the Democratic nominee. Well, that is not a group that this lifelong Democrat wants to belong to. Nor should any candidate group on DU be allowed to exist that promotes that argument. Advocating such a thing here is reprehensible. Those who do maybe belong on IndependentUnderground, not DemocraticUnderground. This is a partisan site. Get over it!

My only conclusion, since I am a lifelong Democrat, is that the candidate groups serve no useful purpose other than to divide us. It is my opinion that Karl Rove himself could not come up with a more insidious method to do so.

That is why I argue the abolishment of the candidate forums. We need to unite. Now! The only thing that protected candidate havens protect us from is DUers who agree but maybe have something important to say.

Unfortunately, pure ideology gets in the way of the discussion. In the Warren group it was "do you know she is a great Senator who has repeatedly expressed her desire to remain so?" In the Bernie group it was, "maybe it is not advisable to violate the DU TOS as expressly stated by Skinner." In the Hillary group it was what I thought was a fun post about the bird in Oregon that in no way maligned their candidate. Sorry! You said bird! No appeal! Not even a response.

I see no fucking use for candidate groups other than to divide us.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. I agree. They serve only as echo chambers

and reinforce people's normal tendencies toward confirmation bias. They are ideological black holes. They are downright harmful because they encourage their members to see the opposition as mean and evil - in fact, for the most part they (especially the Hillary group lately) are little more than outlets for outraged whining. No hint of criticism, however mild, is allowed to enter, nor are questions allowed to be asked. People are banned for the slightest infractions of the "rules" which state that one must unfailingly adore and praise the candidate, say only negative things about the opponent and the opponent's supporters, and complain bitterly about any criticism of the candidate on DU, the media, or elsewhere in the universe. I understand that we might think it's nice to have a forum for discussion without having to argue and defend all the time, but isn't that what politics is about? Aren't we trying to sort out the issues and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of our candidates? If all people ever do is hide in their safe little groups and rejoice in the unchallenged wonderfulness of their candidate, how does that help the process at all?

Get rid of the damn groups and carry on with serious discussions.

[longship]

30. I was banned from the Hillary group last week.

For making a light post about Bernie's bird. Of course, now any mention of a bird puts the fucking Hillary group into toxic shock. BAM! I was blocked in spite of the fact that I have unhesitatingly stated that I have already voted in the primary and that I would support whichever candidate achieved the nod. Yes, I voted for Bernie, but they knew that all along because I never made a secret about it.

I was not a big time poster, but I did on occasion, always honestly and positively.

However, the jerk hosts in the Hillary group, when they block you the message states that one can appeal via PM. Except they universally ignore any such PM. So they are fucking liars. They ought to change their message to:

You are blocked from posting in the Hillary Clinton group. Don't bother PM'ing us because we just don't fucking care what you think. That's why we have the longest block list of any group on DU. And we intend to keep it that way.

They are evil incarnate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Their ostensible purpose is to get a candidate electeded

I don't know how banning many hundreds of democrats from the group supports that goal.

[longship]

20. Especially those who would support her if she gets the nod.

It boggles the mind. And the banning message said that I could PM the host to appeal. I did. No fucking response, which explains a lot about why they have so fucking many blocked DUers. They just don't fucking care.

Well, no wonder why so many DUers are pissed off about Hillary. I don't blame them, the shabby way that the Hillary group treats their fellow DUers.

The never ending "Bernie needs to end his campaign" pleas, even at the beginning. The utter hubris and entitlement evident in posts. I hung in there, being polite as long as I could. It did no fucking good. They were apparently so pissed off about my joke about a bird, which did not in anyway malign Hillary whatsoever, that they foamed at the mouth and blocked me. They were pissed off about a little bird! So pissed off that the hosts do not respond to my PM's. Well, I sent another PM today, and it is my last.

I am done with the horrible Hillary Clinton group, the most banning group on DU.

And they wonder why so many DUers do not like Hillary Clinton. My thinking is that those DUers are kind of okay with Hillary (like me), they just cannot stand the DU Hillary Clinton group.

But I know how to get them really upset.

Hey! Hillary group:
BIRDIE SANDERS!


It's not Hillary Clinton that has to go, it's the DU Hillary Clinton group. And I might add, all the candidate groups.

[George II]

11. I saw what CNN said, and in the context they were talking about....

.....the black and Hispanic populations. They worded it poorly, but their point was correct.

First, all three are predominantly rural.

Second, the black and Hispanic populations are relatively small:

Alaska 3.9% black, 6.8% Hispanic
Hawaii 2.5% black, 10.1% Hispanic
Washington 4.1% black, 11.2% Hispanic

[mainer]

12. CNN said this:

These caucus states — largely white and rural — are the type of places Sanders traditionally does well. In order to win the nomination, he must replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries, as he did in Michigan last month.

There's no way one can possibly characterize Hawaii as largely white and rural.
Hawaii is the 13th most densely populated state in the country.

[George II]

16. Hawaii has less than 1.5M people. You're implying that it's "urban"?

That's simply not true.

And you pulled out two sentences from the report. As I pointed out, their wording was poor, but their point was correct.

[mainer]

18. It's the 13th most densely populated state in the country

Are you saying it's RURAL? That's what CNN said.

I lived for over a decade on Oahu. Twice a day, I got stuck in traffic that sometimes made a 6- mile drive home take an hour. A million and a half people living in an island state is DENSE.

And what's that about Hawaii being WHITE?

Are you going to defend CNN and agree that Hawaii is white and rural?

[mainer]

35. And military takes up more percentage land in HI than in any other state

leaving the population crammed into what's already a small land mass.

5.6% of Hawaii is owned/used by the US military and is off-limits to general population.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-land-military-bases-take-up-in-each-state-2014-11

If Hawaii is SO rural, why must it import so much of its food?

[EyeOnLife]

21. Just FYI.

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Anti-Defamation-League-names-Celtic-Cross-as-racist-symbol.html

[angrychair]

38. Washington is a racially diverse state

We rank 12th in the nation for Hispanic population. As of the 2010 census, Washington is in a three way tie for third for percentage of Asians, after CA and NY.
Washington is the 13 most populated state in the union and 14 in GDP. We also play host to the most profitable and successful tech companies in the world.

So, in short, it blows this white and rural bullshit out of the water.

[George II]

40. Go back to what I first said, please.

[angrychair]

41. I was responding to your first post

The actually text from CNN does not support you belief of its meaning:

These caucus states — largely white and rural

"he must replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states"

You are looking for subtext that is not there. The very premise of your argument is racist as it implies that only or primarily only, black or Hispanic voters count as minorities.

Hawaii has never had a white majority in its entire history as a state.
Both WA and AK have large Asian, Native American, Pacific Islanders and Hispanic populations in relation to most states.

[beam me up scottie]

13. NICE!!! About time someone drops a truth bomb on their lies!

They've been spinning their asses off since Bernie took all three states including the least white state in the nation!

[Zira]

23. Good. As a suburb of Seattle person, I didn't like the real gist - that we are all just white and

racist and that's the only vote Bernie can get. We are not and his consistent civil rights support is high on the list of why I'm voting for him.

I'll bet not one Democrat in WA State showed up at Barack Obama's events when he was campaigning and said, "I don't think he relates to me because he's black." Those are the kind of people I wouldn't want to be around if I found out they were doing that. This has been one heck of an education is all I'm saying.

[mainer]

24. Forget about race. Which states lean toward Bernie?

It turns out it's the states that are most likely to have progressive values like LGBT rights, pot legalization, universal health care, believe in global warming, and be most secular, with lowest rate of religious fundamentalism.

That's the America I want to see.

[Zira]

28. +10000

[Tarc]

25. No one said they were.

He wins either white, rural states or ones with an open caucus.

Note how the logical "or" works, there.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Hillary swept the States with no laws protecting LGBT from discrimination, and the States with anti

gay legislation supported by some Democrats. Bernie is doing well in the LGBT friendly States with legalized cannabis, Hillary does well in the States that lock up tons of minority youth for having some cannabis.

It's a characterization game, and it's nasty. But if you want to play it so will I and I will win, so be warned. Remember, I'm backed up by the facts that Hillary was an opponent of marriage equality and is still an opponent of legalized cannabis, so it's not coincidence that the anti gay, lock 'em up for smoking States vote for her.

[ljm2002]

39. No one said they were? Say what?

Did you even READ the OP?

According to CNN:

These caucus states — largely white and rural — are the type of places Sanders traditionally does well. In order to win the nomination, he must replicate this success in other, more ethnically diverse states that hold primaries, as he did in Michigan last month.

. . .

The Atlantic made a similar claim:

As voters gathered in Washington, caucuses also began in Alaska, which will award 16 delegates based on today’s results. There’s been little polling in Alaska, but one in January showed that among both Democrats and no party voters, Bernie Sanders was ahead. The state’s largely white electorate might also stand to benefit Sanders, who has struggled to gain traction with minority voters.

Notice how the reading comprehension works there?

[Tarc]

43. And it's mostly the whites in those states that vote for him, not others

Once we get to the NY, Penn, etc... primaries, this is will be largely academic anyways, so, enjoy your remaining time in the race.

[ljm2002]

44. You don't know that...

...and others have posted that there are some mostly Native American counties that went all in for Bernie.

Your use of the term "the whites" though...

[Uncle Joe]

34. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Triana.

[suffragette]

42. Here's actual data on the changing demographics in Washington state

http://www.washington.edu/omad/files/2011/11/2013-10-30-Changing-Demographics-by-Ethnicity-Race-Socioeconomic-Status-2-Read-Only.pdf

Also, we're rural like NY is rural, with a larger population center in Seattle, King County that helps keep the state blue. So if we're rural, then so is NY, and I doubt CNN will be saying that anytime soon.

Also in terms of diversity that isn't being discussed as much, we have a history of strong support for LGBT rights.