Bottom line problem: No black or brown person will be on any primary ballot

[StarfishSaver]

because the media and polls - not voters - determined, before a single primary took place, whom voters should and shouldn't have a choice to vote for. And race plays a role in this, whether people want to admit it or not.

That is a serious issue that we can't ignore.

Early in my career, I worked for a large, all-white law firm. I was literally the only person of color in the entire office. Other than me, every single person in the office - lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, etc. - was white.

I knew why there weren't any black lawyers - The firm had a long history of never hiring minority attorneys and I was their "experiment" (no pressure, or anything). But I hoped that they would hire some secretaries of color. So I asked the secretarial coordinator why we had no black secretaries. She looked surprised and said, "I don't know. I guess because no one ever applied." With some more digging, she and I discovered that the agency they used to screen applicants never sent any black applicants to them because, given the firm's history, they assumed they wouldn't hire any black secretaries. And the firm never noticed and never asked about it - because white secretaries seemed normal to them.

The agency wasn't being racist. They often placed black secretaries throughout the city. They just didn't send black secretaries to my firm because they thought it was a waste of time. They thought they were protecting black applicants from bring discriminated against.

This is how institutional racism works. Individuals don't have to harbor racist feelings or intentionally discriminate against anyone. But history and practice create systems that perpetuate discrimination and exclusion without anyone having two take a particular discriminatory action.

That's what's at play here. Most people aren't intentionally discriminating against candidates of color. But the systems, often unintentionally, perpetuate exclusion while on the surface appearing to be innocuous.

Giving certain candidates more airtime because the reporters have come to know them over the years or passes because "they've been around" or "yes, he misspoke, but that's just how he is" advantages people who had the benefit and privilege of getting into the system and building a reputation and relationships when the circle was largely closed to women and people of color.

Constantly asking "can a black candidate win over working class voters (i.e., white)" plants doubts that find their way into polling numbers that eventually determine who can get onto a ballot even before the candidate has a chance to convince voters they should support them.

And while this type of discrimination is not the sole reason minority candidates didn't get to the primaries - there are complex combinations of reasons that various candidates stumble - it is an additional obstacle thrown in their way that white candidates just don't face. And ignoring or dismissing it because other factors are at play, too, only makes it worse.

This is an issue that needs to be addressed and telling people who are concerned about it to be quiet or "stop whining ... your candidate just didn't catch on" compounds and exacerbates the problem.

[Jose Garcia]

1. I guess Americans aren't ready for a minority President

[StarfishSaver]

2. I guess some people aren't interested in an intelligent discussion about an important topic

[cwydro]

9. Um, pretty sure that was sarcasm.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. While I understand what the poster was saying...

a little sarcastic comment because we've had a minority president, it continues to miss the much bigger point.

He might has well said your law firm didn't have a diversity problem because you were there. Just because we elected Obama, it does not mean the systemic obstacles minority candidates face aren't still there. All well and good that he jumped those hurdles, but the fact is, he shouldn't have had to and no one else should have to either.

Thank you for your OP. I completely agree with you.

[negromiconomics]

79. I agree with you but I think the initial reluctance by black electeds to back Obama...

...was informed by just this conundrum... Bush left a mess... for the first black president running on a "Hope & Change, jettison the old fights from the 1930s and 1960s and move on" candidacy to fix this mess for young voters, white liberals and progressives, white independents and Republicans thinking electing a black person would end race as a political issue, AND minorities WHILE pleasing ALL of these groups AND solving significant longstanding American problems was a pipe dream!

As much as the President accomplished (which is literally being obscured day by day by Trump's attempts to erase him with his accomplices in media and the electorates acquiescence), his Presidency, as we feared, is like climbing mt Everest or the "moon shot" ... a goal that came within reach, was achieved, and now is viewed as something America has done but cannot practically do AGAIN because it is too expensive or complicated! Hence no Kamala who has no executive experience or "national daddy" factor, no Deval who has executive experience and financial acumen but no ideological charisma, and no Cory who has executive experience in a troubled "chocolate city", no daddy factor due to his youthful ebullient persona, and the TOO SOON factor in an America traumatized by a black man in the White house so SOON after the first one!

America can still say it is the only nation to put a man on the moon and the most significant developed first world nation to make an untouchable member of a reviled minority President. But your institutional racism point is spot on when a black man whose background and political demeanor gave large swaths of the American electorate a comforting sense of his neutrality on the issue of advocacy for black Americans and the moment he "went there" and empathized with Trayvon Martin, wore a brown suit, or supposedly distributed free iPhones to blacks near and far THAT'S when the Obama to Trump voters lost confidence in him! But seriously even as Obama took office Patrick was nearing the end of his term as Governor, corruptoids like Kilpatrick were being drummed out in Detroit, black Republicans like Mia Love and JC Watts were experiencing their unceremonious rise and fall(with the exception of Tim Scott who became the ONLY black in the Senate while the getting was still good thanks to Nikki Haley's deft positioning), and let us not forget black Democratic machines in New York having a governorship drop into their laps which became a hot potato when their political lotto winner couldn't hold the job!

[The Mouth]

103. And that only a few individuals in a generation

will have the kind of charisma and organizational ability that Obama has

[left-of-center2012]

6. "I guess Americans aren't ready for a minority President"

[TwilightZone]

7. Pretty sure that was the point.

I'm guessing it was sarcasm, though I could be wrong.

[Pacifist Patriot]

36. I suspect you're right, but the reply is still problematic to me even as sarcasm.

Yes, the country did elect a minority president - twice. But that doesn't mean the systemic obstacles minority candidates face aren't still there. Obama successfully jumped those hurdles, but he shouldn't have had to and no one else should have to either. Because one person succeeds against a stacked deck doesn't mean it's okay to keep playing with that deck. I hope the person who made the comment understands that.

[pangaia]

40. Three things--

1- I think it was sarcasm
2- It is STILL true
3- Look at that pic.. two black people.. the rest..................

[StarfishSaver]

54. I think it was sarcastic ... And completely beside the point

[saidsimplesimon]

133. Was he wearing a bracelet on his right hand?

I watched the inauguration and his charming smile is infectious.

[llashram]

91. really?

[mahina]

3. This is such an outstanding post.

Thank you. Extremely important.

[mahina]

4. Another kick.

[BeyondGeography]

5. The twin effect of Iowa and NH means a well-known white candidate

can coast for a year on name recognition with minimal resources expended to compete for minority voters. We’ve seen this with both Clinton and Biden the last two cycles. Obama was able to weather the process in 2008 but he was an exception to the rule and even he had to show his stuff in Iowa before he loosened the favored candidate’s hammerlock on the black vote. All candidates are forced to spend at least 10x more time and money cultivating support in two unrepresentative states than they do in states whose voter makeup more closely resembles the base. Guess who this dynamic favors? It’s insane and it needs to change.

[pangaia]

44. Agreed..

first 2 primaries in Iowa and NH,


nuts...

[brush]

48. Yes, Iowa and NH being first doesn't work anymore.

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2020, 01:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Nevada with a sizable Latinx population and South Carolina with a large black population should go first and second as no Dem candidate can win the GE without, especially, the black vote.

This change to a diverse voting base instead of two 95% white states will dramatically alter polling and thus fundraising and candidates like Castro, Booker, Yang and Harris will perhaps, with better funding, sustain their campaigns longer and not be gone from debate stages before the first caucus/primary.

That's fair.

Iowa and NH can switch to Super Tuesday.

[Sogo]

82. Even those of us in Iowa have misgivings about the system.

My post from another forum:

All of our political processes need to be streamlined. Caucuses do seem to be a rather quaint system, probably left over from the horse-and-buggy days, where neighbors gathered for reasoned and polite discussion, followed by a vote. How about regional primaries all held on the same day, so that candidates don't have to spend months in two small states and spend inordinate amounts of money on travel? With regional primaries, they would travel a region, followed by the next region, etc. The national election should be moved to a weekend day or become a national holiday, so that everyone can participate more fully. And, of course, the EC needs to be either re-calibrated or eliminated!

[brush]

86. Very good ideas...regional primaries, weekend GE.

And of course ditch undemocratic caucuses.

[dsc]

109. that is just plain bs

The reason Clinton won is because of minority vote not Iowa, which she essentially tied, and NH which she was blown out in. In point of fact, had SC been first, Bernie would have gotten nowhere. Clinton won two caucuses Iowa (which again was a tie, and Nevada which is very hispanic) she lost every other caucus while winning nearly every primary (Michigan, NH and VT were her three losses). The heavily white electorate of the early states is the only reason she didn't run the table like Gore did. Biden is similar to her. He is basically tied in Iowa and NH (four way Iowa, three way NH) leading in NV and killing it in SC. If he wins Iowa and NH frankly it is over. If he wins one of them, it is most likely over. If he loses both, then the race drags on. In any case, his win will be because of the minority vote in the South and West not Iowa and NH. If SC and NV were 1 and 2, Biden would be a shoo in at this point.

[BeyondGeography]

114. Oh, hostile

Where’s that coming from?

Meantime, there’s zero in your response that explains how we got to an all-white debate tonight three weeks before the first vote is counted. At least have a theory.

[dsc]

116. they didn't attract support in either SC or their respective home states

Harris was above board in that she wanted support in SC and tried hard to get it. She didn't. She also wasn't polling well in CA where she is a sitting senator. She decided to drop out before finishing fourth in CA which she was in danger of doing. Booker also didn't attract support. I think his problem was his record of being way to conciliatory toward the GOP. For me his education policies in Newark were a non starter. He was close to last on my list all but entirely because of that. I have been against IA and NH going first forever but the fact is they aren't entirely why or even mostly why Harris and Booker dropped out.

[StarfishSaver]

117. You keep talking about "support" which is really just polls

If you think polls should determine who should get on the ballot, why not just let polls decide the primary?

[samnsara]

8. ummmmmmmmmm

[TheRealNorth]

10. Maybe race doesn't matter to the average Democratic voter

Booker, Harris, et.al never really drew strong support from white or minority voters. From the polling, the plurality of minority voters seem to be supporting Biden. I don't see that as anyone's fault, but just that voters did not feel strongly about those candidates. Until yesterday, I was probably going to vote for Booker because I liked his appeals to economic and social justice in moral terms without talking punitively about rich people. However, I have to say I had not fully made up my mind.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

49. So it just so happens that only white people are still in the race?

One could argue that Biden being white might be a reason for some of his support.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

98. Plus the fact that Biden is infinitely qualified and was

literally in a real quality WH for 8 years. Plus he is the perfect antithesis of trump. Wise, kind, experienced and dignified.

[brooklynite]

124. Except that that's not the case.

Tell us, what's your excuse for not supporting Patrick or Gabbard?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

94. +1. Agree. I always thought pure equality meant you

Are attracted by policies, demeanor, effective speaking and persuasion skills FIRST.

Then gender and race.

OP is suggesting the reverse.

That said, it may be subliminal but you can not ignore the fact that it is of critical importance to unseat the devil there now and people may have that in the back of there minds. (Last poll I saw had half the people thinking it was more important than the person).

[Sloumeau]

11. In Senator Booker's Case, I think the Republicans were afraid of him.

After Barack Obama, the one thing that the Republicans did not want to face was a young, good looking, well educated Black man. So, I believe the right orchestrated a campaign against him. On places like Fox News, they said things like "Cory Booker is lazy". This athlete, this guy who worked his butt off to get well educated, this guy who ran into a burning house to save someone, was supposedly "lazy". Well calling a Black person "lazy" is one of the oldest tricks in the book for American White racists. It is especially ironic because Black people were bought as slaves and worked to death on plantations while plantation owners sat on their butts. However, White racists have never cared much about the truth.

Regarding Kamala Harris, I think she had some trouble with her campaign. She had her sister in a place of importance on her campaign, which may have sounded like a good idea at first, but if someone on your staff is your sister, and you think they messed up, you might have a really hard time letting them go from your campaign.

I am a Biden supporter, and I keep pushing for Kamala to be Biden's VP pick if he wins the nomination. I think that would perfectly position Kamala for another Presidential run in the future because about 30% of Vice Presidents actually go on to become Presidents. I think not only could Biden/Kamala kick Trump's butt, but it could easily become Kamala 2028 in a few years, and then she would start out at the frontrunner who everyone knew and the establishment-backed.

It is true that it looks like we will end up not having a person of color on the top of the ticket this year, but 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2018 showed that Democrats are ready to elect women, people in the LGBTQ* community, and people of color--including Black, Latino, Middle Eastern, and Native Americans. By 2050, White people in America will be in the minority, and the power of non-White people will only grow. The road to change can be incredibly slow, but it is changing.

Barack Obama would have never gotten elected unless a heck of a lot of white people voted for him. I know dozens of White people who voted for him, and they did not do so reluctantly. They did so happily, and proudly. My brother and I, both of us White, cheered when Obama won in 2008, as did millions of White people across this country. It is not always going to be a Black person at the top of the ticket, but starting in 2008, it is not always going to be a White person either.

[brush]

20. Well said.

[Sogo]

69. Agreed. Well said. nt.

[PatrickforO]

12. I'm glad you posted this. Our government needs to look like the people it serves.

We definitely need the discussion about institutional racism and also about institutional sexism, because I get tired of the idea that America 'isn't ready' for a black president or a Hispanic one, or an Asian one, or a woman. Obama was better than good as a president - competent, moral, intelligent, a master of policy, a good communicator. If he'd been white, he wouldn't have been nearly as vilified as he was.

And that's sad, because when you compare him to Trump, unless you've had a steady diet of Limbaugh for a couple decades, you're going to realize he was an order of magnitude better than Trump. A better president. A better husband. A better father. A better man.

[aeromanKC]

13. There will be a black or brown person on the ticket

Book it! (And then that person will be front runner in 2028)

[Autumn]

14. The voters had plenty of choices, and they made the decisions of who they supported.

I don't see it as an issue.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Voters haven't made any decisions yet. That's my point

[Autumn]

26. The likely voters have made their choice of who they support going forward in the primaries.

There's no other way to get there if a candidate can't get the support to keep them going in the primaries.

[DrToast]

15. Being black or brown isn't an automatic pass to the next round

You still have to run a good campaign.

[Loki Liesmith]

16. It's a concern but I don't see a straightforward fix.

Nobody made Booker and Harris drop out.

[StarfishSaver]

23. There is no straightforward fix

This is very complicated and that's why it needs serious analysis and discussions.

[NewJeffCT]

34. agreed - needs to be an in depth analysis

I had expected Harris to do better - why did she fade so badly after that first debate surge?

Booker seemed to be a rising star in early 2017 - why did he never catch fire? Did that deceptive pharma meme from the (Kushner) NY Obersever really kill him that badly?

Castro seemed headed for a bright future after giving what I thought was a good speech at the 2012 DNC. However, he seems to have been forgotten during his HUD stint and never gained any momentum.

Would it have made a difference if Harris or Booker were the only prominent African Americans to enter the race (Sorry, Patrick entered too late and has not been governor for a while now while Harris and Booker are high profile senators)

And, Democrats need to put a more diverse PRIMARY state first (NY, California, NJ, Florida, etc) instead of a mostly white caucus state in Iowa and a small mostly white state in New Hampshire 2nd.

[DrToast]

17. How disrespectful to Deval Patrick

I guess you’ve counted him out before any voting has taken place.

[Demsrule86]

56. I hope he doesn't win...he has serious issues ...and I mean the brother in law thing... would not

vote for a candidate of any color in a primary who had been involved in something like this. And I don't think Deval will make it to a General where I would of course vote for him. The things is...people dropped out based on polls...they were not getting the support from AA voters in some cases. Harris and Booker are examples of AA candidates who did not have AA support which doomed their candidacy.

I am a woman and I am supporting a male candidate... not because he is a man because I like his policies and I think he can win the general. Perhaps, we have gone beyond voting based on the race of a candidate...I hope so. The idea that Democrats are some how racist because we have only 'white' candidates remaining is ridiculous in my view and offensive. The polls are what the polls are...everyone had an opportunity to make their case.

I will say this...we should change the first two states in the primary to more diverse states...I wonder if it might have been different if Iowa and New Hampshire had not gone first. We will never know, but next time we need to rethink who goes first or add states to the the mix that resemble our party a bit more perhaps.

[DrToast]

65. I'm not a fan either, but he's still in the race

And as of now he’s gonna be on the ballots.

[Demsrule86]

68. You are correct but already written off it seems...well I am not sorry for that.

[Skya Rhen]

18. When did Deval Patrick drop out of the race, StarfishSaver? I await your response.

[LongtimeAZDem]

145. Crickets

[randr]

19. I believe the fear of losing to Trump is causing many voters concern

They fear rocking the boat and rely on old political precepts.

[mountain grammy]

22. I agree. This pre primary nonsense doesn't work

Letting the media run the show is a bad idea with debates that aren’t really debates and participation based on $$$ and polls.

[left-of-center2012]

24. I don't vote based on race or gender n/t

[StarfishSaver]

25. Please read my OP again

[left-of-center2012]

27. No thanks

Just saying:
I don't vote on race/gender.

[StarfishSaver]

55. That's nice

It's also completely beside the point of my OP, which I suspect you didn't even read once.

[left-of-center2012]

113. okie dokie smokie

I just don't vote based on race or gender.

[exboyfil]

28. Booker, Harris, and Abrams are all very young

and strong VP candidates. Their time will come. I would be shocked if one of the three is not on the ticket in 2020.

As an Iowan I would love to rotate the first primary/caucus with some other states. I think the calendar should be shaken up each election cycle.

[karynnj]

29. Was it the chicken or the egg?

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2020, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

A year ago, there were a large number of candidates, some minority, some women and some white males. You argue that it was the media and polls that led to the current situation where I think only Deval Patrick and Tulsi Gabbad are non white and still (technically) running. (Patrick entered the race far too late and Gabbad is not in the Democratic mainstream (to say it politely). )

I don't know if the media led or followed. In all races, there is more coverage of people who are frontrunners or are surging. Initially, the frontrunners will be those with name recognition. I think if you go back to Kamala Harris' incredible announcement rally, she actually was given some pretty good, positive coverage and that was when she surged on DU. (I think SNL was terrible to her, but they were terrible to everyone)

I also think most of the coverage of Julian Castro and Corey Booker was positive. Both leave with a positive image. I lived in NJ until 2012 and know that Cory Booker was labeled a superstar as soon as he won the mayor's race in Newark. He was seen as a very intelligent, hands on mayor - even pitching in during a major snow storm to dig residents out. He left that job to become Senator, completely untarnished by the typical crime that most Newark mayors were convicted of. To put it mildly, being a successful mayor of Newark, which he was, is much much more complicated than being a successful mayor of South Bend (in Indiana where I grew up) or Burlington (where I live now). Add to that, he has always been eloquent, well spoken, and thoughtful.

I have no idea why he did not catch fire, but the fact is - he didn't - not even in Iowa. One of the few values of the Iowa caucus is that over time, people in Iowa want to meet the candidates often in small meet and greets to start with. Iowa can select a candidate not preferred by the media, but who impresses them. The best example is Jimmy Carter, who "came out of nowhere" (or the Georgia governorship to come in second to unaligned in the 1976 caucus. At that point, he got media.

A better analogue to Booker could have been John Kerry, who, like Booker had a life story that had been covered by the media although the media's main coverage in 2003 was speculation as to when he would drop out. The New Republic actually had 5 endorsements written pre primary, one was even for Lieberman, but none was for Kerry. Kerry gained support in Iowa, meeting with thousands of Iowans face to face, and won a convincing victory in Iowa that gave him the momentum to win NH, where he was well known. In December 2002, because he was not getting donations, Kerry lent his campaign money from mortgaging his house, because he knew that they were gaining support in Iowa. If Booker saw that he was gaining support and likely to pull off a good showing in Iowa, he would not have dropped out yesterday.

If the problem was just media and party, the very charismatic Cory Booker could have been the one to caught fire in Iowa. I know Iowa is very white, but remember that it is there that Obama caught fire. As to the media and party support, the question is IF Booker (or Harris) had caught fire, would they have - as in 2008 - covered them more and been seen as supportive.

However, he was not alone in having been a media favorite who just didn't gain support. You could add Governor Inslee, who really was the one who had the best credentials on climate change. Same with Governor Hickenlooper. Red state creds - add Governor Bullock. All white, all with strong cases to be considered - none got any support at all.

[cp]

31. Thank you. First three sentences say it all.

[bucolic_frolic]

32. To my knowledge

the French, Italian, Greek, Mexican, Native American, Aborigine, and more than a few others are under-represented this year too. And if choosing a candidate of color, where shall be the specific ancestry?

A candidate is one person. Add a VP you have two people. You can't get perfect diversity every year in two people.

[LongtimeAZDem]

33. African Americans, in large numbers, support Biden based on the content of his character,

not the color of his skin.

[Thekaspervote]

38. Indeed!! So obviously the AA voters are not looking at race or color

[cwydro]

47. This.

[LovingA2andMI]

43. .....

..... to when one has to pull out MLK quotes and expect everyone to follow right on along....

[LongtimeAZDem]

45. I don't expect anyone to do anything; I just think that that racism, against anyone, is sad

[StarfishSaver]

57. You've completely missed the point of the OP

While, at the same time, helping to illustrate it.

[LongtimeAZDem]

60. No, I didn't; I'm just tired of continued attempts to make this something it isn't

[StarfishSaver]

67. Of course you don't think you missed the point. That's because you missed the point.

[LongtimeAZDem]

70. I ask again, Should Suzanne Atanus have been guaranteed a spot in the primary?

Last edited Wed Jan 15, 2020, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

What about the other three hundred and five who filed as Democratic candidates?

[Bradshaw3]

71. With so many supposedly "missing your point" perhaps you explained it badly

Or maybe it's just a throwaway line for people who disagree with your point.

[LongtimeAZDem]

74. Nah; couldn't be that

[StarfishSaver]

75. I explained it very clearly.

Any difficulty or refusal to understand the point is on those who predictably jump in with the same tired kneejerk "stop making this about race!" defenses that these discussions always tend to attract.

Fortunately, plenty of people do get it. You just don't seem to be among them.

[Bradshaw3]

80. I get your post all too well

And your condescenion toward those who disagree just shows how little substance your "point" actually has.

Here's an article for you that shows the current state of our candidates has nothering to do with identity because peole don't just vote based on the factor of race as you hope they would:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/2020-election-identity-politics-pete-biden.html

As I posted this isn't about race because POC made those decisions and they didn't support Harris, Booker and Castro through the factors of donations, polling and volunteering, same as with any race. You don't seem to get that.

[NYMinute]

35. There is a fallacy there

Biden, a white man, is ahead because of an overwhelming support from African-Americans and Latinos.

It is the POC who trust a white man to beat Trump more than anyone else and race played no part in their decision or Sens Harris, Booker and Secretary Castro would be ahead.

[Pacifist Patriot]

42. Except he's ahead in polls, not in votes.

I am not disagreeing with you that he does enjoy hefty support from minority groups. But the OP is talking about votes, not polls. Not one single primary vote has been cast, but selection decisions have been made for the electorate by means other than a ballot box. Would voting match the polls? Possibly, maybe even probably. But we'll never know.

[LongtimeAZDem]

52. The only "selection decisions" that have been made have been by the candidates themselves

[StarfishSaver]

58. Thank you!

Nice to see that someone actually read my OP.

[NYMinute]

83. The decision to drop out was made by the candidates themselves

and polls drive donors, donors drive survivability. It is again the responsibility of POC who drove the polls.

I am actually proud of POC. Despite ages of discrimination, they made a choice in a color-blind manner.

[Happy Hoosier]

37. So... what to do?

At the end of the day, candidates need support. They didn't get it. Not even black voters supported black candidates in large numbers.
What to do about that?

Keep in mind Kamala Harris was my first choice.

[Thekaspervote]

39. This!

[StarfishSaver]

81. I don't know how to fix it. But we need to discuss it honestly and figure out solutions.

We need to look at the entire primary process, stop pretending it's a pristine operation that operates as it did in 1988, unaffected by outside influences in the 21st century, and factor in the role that the media, polling, and demographics, among other things, play.

But pretending the problem isn't a problem and telling everyone who tries to talk about it to go pound sand because "Democrats aren't racists" are non-starters.

[Happy Hoosier]

88. I'm not pretending there isn't a "problem," but....

I also think it DOES ultimately come down to voter support.

If black voters had supported Kamala and/or Corey in large percentages, they would still be in the race. They didn't. That's just a fact. Now we can talk about WHY that is the case, but ultimately candidates need support, however they get it. Is there are "problem?" Maybe. But maybe not. It would be interesting to find out why voters, including black voters, did not sufficiently support the black candidates in this race.

[StarfishSaver]

92. I don't think you're ignoring the problem

I'm referring to others who are dismissing it.

But the issue of "support" is my point. Support is being determined by polls, which are driven by media attention, which is driven by polls and also determine who can raise money. All of this can impact "support" as it shows up in polls. And when this "support" is used to determine who gets on the ballot before anyone has cast a vote, there's something wrong.

And I have a problem with the notion of "black support." Beside the fact that polls notoriously miscount black voters, black voters opinions in polls are often driven, not by whom they actually support but who they think can win - which factors in our understanding of racism and sexism. But using that "support" to determine who ends up on the ballot completely discounts the entire point of a campaign - to CONVINCE voters to change their minds and vote for a particular candidate.

Weeding out candidates before the voting takes place supplants the views of the media for the voters. It is wrong.

And this isn't about just giving black voters a chance to support black candidates. White voters should have just as much opportunity to select from a diverse slate of candidates. The process, as it operates now, deprives ALL voters, not just black ones, of that opportunity.

[Happy Hoosier]

95. I think 22 candidates in debates dilutes the conversation

a LOT. And having 22 candidates on the ballot without ranked choice voting is a bad idea. But I personally could support more candidates on the ballot if there WERE ranked choice voting. Heck, I want that on the ballot NOW. I have lots of issues with the primary process.... not the least of which is the privileged position of the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. My city NEVER gets a visit from the candidates, because we happen too late in the process to matter. Other people are picking the nominee for me.

And as a white guy that preferred the black woman candidate, I hear ya.

[mcar]

131. Let's also remember that the polls

are gauging people's interest/choice at that specific time. They aren't reflecting the many Democrats (40% in Iowa, IIRC) who haven't decided yet. Any of those voters might very well have voted for Harris, Castro, or Booker.

[LovingA2andMI]

41. Thank You So Much!!

As there is so much truth in each of the words typed above, it's on point and downright amazing.

[brooklynite]

46. These complaints are getting tiring...

We started with TWENTY-EIGHT candidates for President. Of the sixteen who have dropped out, TWELVE were White. Booker, Harris et al were campaigning for more than eight months, and participated in multiple debates. At what point are voter allowed to decide that a candidate of color isn't their preference without it being a racial decision?

[LongtimeAZDem]

53. Actually, we started with three hundred and six, which underscores your point

[StarfishSaver]

59. I'm sure these observations ARE tiring to some people

[marble falls]

64. +1.

[StarfishSaver]

66. ...

[brooklynite]

73. How many African American voters are racists, since so many are supporting Biden?

And was it "racist" to keep Wayne Messam out of the debates because he couldn't get any polling/financial support? (you know who he is, right?)

[marble falls]

84. I agree 100%. I am tired of the explanation that there are no PoC and fewer women ...

"because the people" have spoken. The half fact that there were were PoC in the beginning and none now is the process of natural attrition is just that, a half fact. What it really exhibits is the absence of big pac money flowing to minority candidates, not the lack of voters.

But lets face it, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Julien Castro are long term political powers that are not going to go away. There's at least one future President there and the powers that be might as well accept it. They may delay it but they'll never stop it.

I hope Castro takes on Cornyn this November. At least there's three good VPs.

[StarfishSaver]

142. Oh, come on

The fact that there has only been one African-Ametican nominee in the party's history has nothing to do with race. It just so happens that Barack Obama is the only black person in history who was ever qualified for the position.

[marble falls]

144. I know, right? I get tired of pundits and "common knowlege".

[oasis]

50. A Dem president's 2021 cabinet will look like America. Count on it. nt

[Thekaspervote]

51. +1000

[marble falls]

61. It is a problem. A very big problem. I am beginning to look at Rachel Dolezal ...

in a different light. I feel shame, too.

[ismnotwasm]

62. You will get the usual pushback

By people who think electing Obama means we have cured political racism, or at the least made it “better”, pointing out that we are electing people of color, and ignoring how almost every political arena is mostly white, mostly male.

When it suits, people will vehemently point to corruption in the election process, but flat out deny sexism or racism is in fact, one of the most powerful forces in American politics, else Trump would have never even been considered by any political party.

Someone stated here recently (yesterday or the day before) that a number of potentially Democratic voters, when a particular candidate didn’t win the last primary, a large number of those voters went to Trump. This from a supporter of that particular candidate.

Whether this is true or not I am still stunned that the implications of this seem to be ignored.

Racism is everywhere and in everything.

So many people neither understand this or care to learn, but thank you for your thread.

I appreciate your voice.

[StarfishSaver]

72. Thank you

You make a great point: many of the same people who bemoan the flaws and corruption in the system are very quick to jump to it's defense the minute anyone tries to draw attention to the racism and sexism inherent therein. For some reason, the system they view as so flawed is fair as fair can be with respect to how it treats women and minorities

[Politicub]

63. The media and polls

I hadn’t thought about that. We basically granted the media the power to anoint the front runners. Polls are often influenced by media visibility, so the media might have been the biggest factor for those results, too.

People were upset when Harris and Booker called out Biden for some of his past votes. I understand why they did that now: they had to do something to make the news. The media were flocking to cover some candidates and ignored others.

We (the party) need to figure out a way to ensure proportional demographic representation for the people who make up registered Democrats for our nominees. Relying on the media failed.

[Bradshaw3]

76. The three who dropped out didn't get support from POC

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/2020-election-identity-politics-pete-biden.html

It wasn't the media or pollsters or some other nefarious group who forced Harris, Booker and Castro to drop out. They dropped out because POC didn't support them through donations, responses in polling, showing up to events, or other factors that drive any campaign by candidates of any color. Those are facts, while this post contains nothing but opinion.

People don't show support to a candidate based on one identity, as the article linked to above articulates. If there was discrimination. it's the POC who did the discriminating, no matter whether some like to hear it or not.

[StarfishSaver]

85. "The three who dropped out didn't get support from POC" How do you know?

No one voted. This was all based on polls and media coverage.

And, frankly, I'm really tired of hearing "most black people didn't support them" as a defense against any allegation of racism and sexism in the electoral system. That's not the point.

This has nothing to do with whether most black people support a particular black candidate. This is about ALL voters of every race having an opportunity to select from a diverse field without having their choices narrowed down for them by the media and polls before they ever have a chance to cast a vote.

[LovingA2andMI]

77. Now, Part 2...

We agree with 95% of this post however, there are some reality at play here in the Democratic Presidential Primary Contest that must be addressed:

1. Cory Booker had baggage - called his support previously for the Charter School Movement. It truly was a non-starter with voters like us as Charter Schools thanks to the Devos' has run and almost ruined the Public K-12 system in Michigan. Due to this previous stance of his, he could never earn our support unless he was the final nominee. Otherwise, he can try again later but first he must address and atone to his previous strong support for the Charter Schools for Huge Profits with Less Education overall, movement.

2. Kamala Harris was originally our first choice. However, our thoughts as her campaign continued was about how scattered it was. From, she loved Marijuana to she previously charged Marijuana related crimes. To she was for Medicare for All to really, it was a Public Option program. To pointing out Joe Biden previous questionable stance on School Busing to backing up out of it when she received heat from those who support Biden. In other words, her ability to stand on what was thought to be her principal stances on an issue kept scattering all over the place. In our eyes, Kamala Harris was in the Moderate Progressive lane which was our initial attraction to her candidacy. She should have stayed there as no candidate can be "all things" to "all people". Lastly, if she took an initial stance -- stick to it period. Hopefully, she will work on this for the future and her future is still bright if she does.

3. Julian Castro is a rising star, period. The problem with his campaign was funding. If he would have had the necessary funding levels to compete properly, he would STILL be IN this RACE. Between him and Elizabeth Warren, we found our candidate Sweet Spot after initially favoring Kamala Harris. We chose Elizabeth Warren because we believe and still do believe, she is the right candidate for these times as a Financial Mess is coming from Drump soon - if we are not there already and the Drump Administration is hiding it. We want Castro to be Warren's VP if she can reach this level. However, Warren poll numbers have gotten concerning and if she can't manage a strong Iowa showing and equal showing in the first 3-4 Primary States, we're done.

So where does this leave us -- not excited for what the Democrats Chances of beating Drump are.

4. Biden is boring but we will vote for him if he is the nominee -- however, we do not believe he can win. His previous record before becoming President Obama's VP was awful at Presidential Contests he put himself in. Also, as African-American voters who talk to other African-American voters, the S.C. Polls are an outlier. Biden's real support in the African-American American community is soft for those 50 and younger -- and that is a fact.

5. Bernie keeps trying to burning down the house and we are tired of hearing his name -- everywhere. As former Bernie supporters in 2016, his ongoing style is a turn off and some of his Cult like supporters are reminding us just a bit too damn much like another version of the MAGA Cult -- and we are NOT IMPRESSED. If he is the nominee, we will vote for him but he will not beat Trump due to him and/or his supporters turning off too many Democratic Voters - including African-American voters in the same group as we cited for Biden, in particular.

6. Pete Buttiedge is not winning the nomination and that is a good thing as so many African-American voters would stay home, it would make 2016 drop off of African-American Democratic support pale in comparison. His Mayoral record in South Bend among dealing with issues of importance to African-Americans is downright awful. The only way we would consider voting for him is if by some strange occurance, he won the nomination -- but that is not likely going to happen.

7. Andrew Yang is so similar to a TV Game Show Host in his mannerisms, its tiring. Hopefully, he will suspend his campaign like yesterday or SOON. Real Soon.

8. Amy K. worries us. She seems a little too eager to appeal to the "Lost Trump Working Class (White) Voter" who she thinks she can "Get Back" by catering to them in her policies. This is a turn off as she is not addressing effectively issues that impact African-Americans. Yes, we would vote for her if she was the gain the nomination however, the reality appears to be her Candidacy will be over after the votes are counted in Iowa.

So that's the ticket. If Elizabeth Warren, who we believe strongly is the BEST CANDIDATE at this time, does not pull it out after the first 5 states, we are tuning out of the Presidential Primary, will focus on State and Local Elections and show up to vote for whoever is the Democratic Nominee in November but that vote would not be done enthusiastically. It will just be to hope, Trump is no more. That's it, That's All.

[lapfog_1]

78. The size of the field didn't help matters

When we started their were a significant number of people of color plus some white candidates that have attracted the support of minorities (Shocking, identity politics is not the determining factor for many voters, including those of color).

Given that this split support... and the focus on Iowa and New Hampshire... makes it difficult for a minority candidate to stand out and gain support.

Oh, and add to that the single fact that Obama was an exceptional candidate compared the the entire field this year (of any color)...

[VarryOn]

153. Totally agree on both your points...

Voters were not well-served by so many candidates running. I dont know what can be done about it, though. You would think that once 8 or so had announced, anyone else would have decided that was plenty.

Obama was the perfect candidate. We may never see anyone close in our lifetime.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. The media polling/debate access issue is a major problem, with or without race/gender connotations.

I think our primary system is broken. Has been for a long time. For starters, Iowa shouldn't have First Caucus and New Hampshire First Primary every single time. That's ridiculous.

[StarfishSaver]

90. Exactly

It goes well beyond race and gender. But minority and female candidates are particularly disadvantaged by it because of biases built in to the system that - like the secretarial agency - determines who makes the final cut.

But, you're right - the race and gender aren't the only problems.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

89. Not sure what you are suggesting here? Engineer

the process to include getting one of each minority to run? And let all of them debate every time? Regardless of fund raising abilities or popularity among potential voters? How many would you have? Sounds pretty discriminatory right there.

Polls and $$ are the only measurements you really have. As imperfect as that may be.

Booker got the most speaking time in the first debate. But he never caught on. Isn't it possible it had zero to do with race as you imply ? Same with Beto. Read that they both excel at story telling...which doesn't fit well with debate rules.

Was actually surprised that Harris dropped out. Surely she could raise as much money as Klobochar.

I saw Harris and Booker on TV plenty of times. Never heard anyone ask them if a black could win? Where you getting that?

[Jirel]

93. AMAZING, the denial, deflection, and defense, in the comments.

I don't think everyone here could have completely missed the point of the OP. The media plays a huge role in what candidates surge to the top. Institutional racism is as prevalent in the media as elsewhere. That plays a huge role in what candidates of color may rise in the field. Barack Obama? Just because one exceptional black candidate made it through the landmines doesn't mean there are no landmines. His presidency was dogged by racism every minute of every day. Deval Patrick remaining in the race? That's barely a footnote. He was never in position to play a major role in this race - let's face it, at the very bottom of the field, polling at 0.3%, it's a foregone conclusion that he'll be out. Arguing that there's still an African-American candidate active in the field is nearly tokenism.

The Democratic Party and its candidates need to take racism seriously. Realistically, it's too late to change the dynamic for this presidential race. That doesn't mean that we can't spend the next 4 years and a multitude of national, state, and local races to combat how racism affects our politics and our party.

[StarfishSaver]

97. Thank you SO much for this!

[LovingA2andMI]

105. Here, here...

Racism is real in the Democratic Party, especially so in this Democratic Primary and spells HUGE (for a lack of a better word) TROUBLE for actually beating Drump in 2020 -- as a result. Barack Obama was amazing, literally. However, we are African-American Democratc voters KNOW THIS TRUTH.

The "Election" was Drump was a slap in the face designed to put African-Americans back in whatever was the perceived "place" in the hierarchy. Yes, Russian Influence played a part but, equally, there was no way in the next four years or possibly many decades ahead in some voters minds of non-minority status - another African-American Man, Woman or frankly anyone of Minority descent will follow Drump for years (if not decades).

This is why Kamala Harris who could have had a good shot, campaign was pigeonholed by the Media and frankly inside the party itself, that made her quest appear to the potential voter to be scattered as she kept trying and failing to take out landmines.

Julian Castro despite all the so-called Democratic "Good Will" on Immigration built up by Drump Actually putting Kids in Cages, could not gain the cash to back up that so-called "Good Will". The Latinx vote in 2020 for Democrats will reflect this as it will be down, down, down.

Bernie is still burning down the house that stood in his quest to be the oldest President in Modern History by taking down anyone in his way. Anybody. Any Democrat that is. Not matter what the cost. That might win him the Democratic Primary but it will not beat Drump. A broken Democratic Party which is what some of Bernie's Supporters House Burning Deja Vu 2016 in 2020 is doing but adding more fuel to the fire in the meantime, will not beat Drump.

Tom Perez DNC has done nothing to assist what should have been done before today. Well before today. In particular, MOVE THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY STATES from Iowa and New Hampshire into states that have a population that is not 80%+ White. He left the same tired song and bird in place and this is the end result.

Warren is the last hope but, if things are doing the way it appears to be, she too -- as the BEST CANDIDATE left will be pigonholed by some Cult Like Bernie supporters (as that process started 4 days ago) -- and the 2020 election will be 2016 deja vu.

If this happens, which would be sad indeed -- maybe, just maybe then, Racism in the Democratic Party will be effectively dealt with. Or maybe not. Who knows.....

[DrToast]

119. We get the point just fine

I think most of us just reject the premise that one should automatically do well if they have a certain skin tone.

[StarfishSaver]

120. You're rejecting a premise that no one has tried to establish

In other words, you've completely missed the point.

[DrToast]

121. No, that's exactly what you're missing

You’re assuming that if certain PoC (but not all, as you ignore Patrick) don’t do well then it’s because they got cheated somehow. Apparently it’s a bridge too far to suggest they just weren’t strong candidates.

[StarfishSaver]

125. That's not what I'm assuming

But one of the burdens people of color must bear that many whites don't have to worry about is that we recognize red flags long before our white counterparts.

For example, a white person can walk into a room filled with only other white people and not think about it - and just assume that everyone who's in there is there because they're supposed to be there.

I walk into a room full of white people and I wonder why there are only white people in the room. Why aren't there any people of color? My experience tells me that when processes are fair and random, rooms like this tend to be very diverse and that it takes some extraordinary effort to end up with a completely homogenous group.

I don't have the luxury of just assuming that it just happened that way - because it rarely does.

I also know that when the shoe is on the other foot - when there is an overrepresention of people of color in such settings, white people's hackles go up. Hell, forget overrepresention. Their hackles go up even if any of us get in. We're looked at with suspicion, our right to be there is questioned, even though we probably had to overperform just to make it into the room. ("She must be an affirmative action hire" ... "Lots of people voted for Obama just because he's black".)

So yes - because I live in America and understand the depth and breadth of racism that still permeates our country and its politics, when I look at a field of major presidential candidates and not one black or brown face in it, I am suspicious.

The question is why aren't you?

[The Mouth]

135. A few times I've been the only white person in the room

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2020, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Worked a number of A/V and electronics gigs in Oakland.

Very eye-opening.

Highly recommended to any white folks who've never been in that position.

[Jirel]

126. You just are proving that you DON'T get it.

Let's make no mistake - both Booker and Harris are excellent candidates, as they have proven in serving their home states and winning elections in those states. They have done incredible work on committees. You can't even put Buttigieg, Yang, or Bloomberg in the same category of experience, proven electability, and effectiveness as Booker and Harris. They're strong candidates - let's not pretend otherwise.

There is no question they got shafted by the media. Would they still be in the race if not for that? Maybe not. But they would be out of the race on their own merit, not because they were in a competitive race with other strong candidates AND they were being nailed by media inattention or, worse, having their message drowned out by manufactured issues like the trumpeted allegations that they were failing to attract POC votes. As if it is their sole responsibility to garner POC votes by virtue of the color of their skins.

Until the Democratic Party is wiling to acknowledge that there is a racism problem, and address it, it's going to keep struggling and even losing. The DNC seems to think it is owed the loyalty of voters of color, when it does nothing to level the playing field for its candidates of color, and the attention given to voters of color lasts just about as long as an election season.

[DrToast]

134. What about Hickenlooper, Inslee, or Bullock?

Some people don’t catch on. It happens. It doesn’t mean they got screwed by “the media.” Remember that of all the candidates, only one won’t end up as a losing candidate.

[totodeinhere]

96. Myself, I regret that there is no person of color among our top tier of candidates.

But I do hold out hope that a POC might end up on our ticket in the second spot. But as far as a remedy goes, I'm not sure what to suggest. I think it just might be a function of how the race this time has evolved. We had some great qualified people of color but they just didn't catch on for whatever reason. Did institutional racism play a part in this? Perhaps, because institutional racism pervades our society from top to bottom.

[Midnightwalk]

99. Excellent post

Especially liked this

But the systems, often unintentionally, perpetuate exclusion while on the surface appearing to be innocuous.

Insights into boring innocuous systems is a beautiful thing even when the insight is about an ugly problem.

I don’t like the year long run up to primary elections. It’s tempting to think that the time is needed to raise cash for the general election but has anyone built up a war chest?

One alternative is to have 20 candidates still in the race for the first primaries. That would definitely broaden the field, keep more excitement, and also alleviate some of the negative stuff flying back and forth as the front runners scramble for the nomination.

But would 20 candidates on the ballot be better than a coin toss?

It’s not just that no one has voted. Google says that 6, 9, and 14 million people watched the debates. Double those numbers to cover people who preferred to read and it’s still a fraction of voters.

Numbers like 6 million viewers make me think it is the political junkies who are paying attention. They’ll stay interested no matter the format.

My most important quality in a candidate was being a great speaker and sales person. Policy differences don’t matter if we don’t win the presidency and the senate and even then we only get what can pass congress.

I’d rather see smaller groups of candidates discussing Democratic policy broadly with semi hostile groups of swing state voters. Harder to get a national audience but the 6 million viewers would likely watch youtube. We might also get more sound bites on the news. I don’t care who wins in a democratic venue. I want to know who wins more broadly.

Do we really still need primary elections ? Couldn’t the DNC set up secure voting for registered Democrats and couldn’t we have ranked voting multiple times throughout? At least use that for the culling rather than polling. We could still do the old style primary votes after.

Sorry for rambling and much of it wasn’t on your point, but those are some of the edges I see in the system.

[The Mouth]

100. Bottom Line: they are overwhelmingly supporting Biden

I give our POC credit for being pragmatic. At this juncture the candidate that could best represent their interests is a man strongly associated with President Obama, or so one could conclude from the data that are available at this point.

If Biden wasn't in the race, I would bet that Senator Harris would not only still be in it, but in the top tier, but all the data I've seen said even with women of color Biden was very far ahead.

One factor is that to really prepare a run for President takes decades, not years. House and Senate experience, thousands of favors done (that can be called in when needed) massive connections and a network of thousands of influential people in every state, as well as lots and lots of money. President Obama over came most of that with immense charisma and organizational ability, but talent like that comes along once a generation if that. So we are seeing, really, the effects of the institutional racism of 10, 20, or 30 years ago- about which pretty much nothing can be done - as much as the current situation.

The blunt fact is that for a black or a woman to win they are going to have to have charisma like Obama, organizational talent like Obama, and a solid decade to lay the foundation.

Right now, it seems our Democratic POC are more concerned with getting Trump out than getting a woman or a POC in, but that's just an observation that could easily be wrong. I do think if Biden gets the nomination and picks Stacy Abrams for veep it will be a game changer

[DeSmet]

101. Its not a perfect format the primary.

But I firmly believe if Michelle Obama would have entered the race, she would not only be leading her opponents, she would destroy Trump in the general. This African American woman has the right stuff.

[StarfishSaver]

106. A black female candidate shouldn't have to be a former First Lady in order to have a chance

[Hortensis]

102. BOTTOM LINE: Black and brown majorities choose for electability

at this critical time COMBINED WITH a leading candidate they can trust and feel good about.

We know that because they've said so.

[Skya Rhen]

104. As an AA, I can say that we have the most to lose if Trump is reelected - this isn't a game for us.

We will not be guilted into voting for a candidate, simply because we share similar physical characteristics.

Our future is at stake - our civil rights are on the 2020 ballot.

[still_one]

107. If you don't use polls, what criteria would you use? Why should it be assumed that

candidates polling 1-2% this close to the first primary, and after several debates, that voters aren't moving toward them because of the media and the polls?

There are a lot of reasons why people are inclined to vote for someone, and a lot also depends on a campaigns organization and MESSAGE.

[StarfishSaver]

110. How about actual primary elections?

I.e., figure out a system whereby candidates aren't driven out of the race by media and an over-emphasis on polls in non-diverse states before voters actually get to have a say?

[Skya Rhen]

112. Deval Patrick, a black candidate, will be in the actual primary elections. He hasn't quit.

[still_one]

118. I definitely agree with you regarding the calender for the primary should be moved to states that

are more diverse and representative

[brooklynite]

122. There are 100+ Democratic candidates registered with the FEC...

Do they all deserve to participate in Party debates?

[mcar]

132. Please point to where Starfish Saver said that

or anything vaguely resembling that.

[tritsofme]

136. Without thresholds around polling and fundraising, how do we distinguish Lee Mercer Jr

from Bernie Sanders, for the purposes of debate eligibility, etc?

[mcar]

137. Don't know

The whole point of the OP, as I read it, was to open up a discussion about these issues.

[LongtimeAZDem]

138. I have been asking basically that same question since yesterday

[mcar]

139. ...

[WhiskeyGrinder]

108. K&R.

[Retrograde]

111. I believe Deval Patrick is on the California Democratic primary ballot

as is Corey Booker, as he dropped out after the printing deadline; Julian Castro may be as well.

I agree with your opening statements, though: too much attention is paid to polls and to the media's current collective opinion on who should be the nominee. And the latter seems increasingly unable to cover two people at once.

[geardaddy]

115. K & R

Thank you for posting this.

[brooklynite]

123. Did someone force Harris, Booker and Castro out of the race?

No. They dropped out because they couldn't raise the money to continue forward. Now, they could have just stayed "in the race" officially, to let people vote in the early contests, but what would that have accomplished?

[H2O Man]

127. Recommended.

When I was a kid, we got "Weekly Readers." They often had a "can you find the face in this tree?" bit. I think it's like that -- some people can't see the face in the tree that is so obvious to others.

[Doodley]

128. The reason is a lack of minorities in politics (due to racism) to give us top-tier candidates.

[loyalsister]

129. In 2008

One of my friends who is Black said she didn't think we were ready to elect a Black president. In my white naivete, I disagreed at the time. But it wasn't long before the response to having a Black president revealed to me that she was indeed correct.

An assumption of superiority and normalcy of whiteness still dominate US culture. Tim Wise summarized it well when he pointed out that white people get the benefit of the doubt and most non-white people, more often than not, get the deficit of the doubt.

I don't know the solution. One big step would be for us to admit it is a problem. Thanks for posting. We have a lot of work to do.

[mcar]

130. This is an excellent analysis

Thank you for sharing your own experience, SS.

[LongtimeAZDem]

140. Right-wingers derided Barack Obama as the "affirmative action president". We rightly disregarded

such a label, because President Obama EARNED his support; it wasn't afforded to him simply because of his race, and he didn't receive any special dispensation.

I simply cannot believe that some people are now arguing for the system to be rigged according to racial makeup.

[StarfishSaver]

141. And I can't believe that some people are claiming that a discussion

about how to make the system fairer is an argument "for the system to be rigged according to racial makeup."

Just as I can't believe how some of the people who recognize that our political system is imperfect will break their necks to circle the wagons around and defend that system as fair and impartial as soon as anyone suggests that the one of the areas of imperfection involves race.

Well, actually and sadly, I can believe it. It happens as sure as night follows day every time.

[LongtimeAZDem]

143. I, and others, have asked how you would change the system, given the large

number of people filing for candidacy; so far, you have not answered. Hundreds of people filed to run for president as democrats; how do we choose which to pay attention to?

Others have suggested proportional representation, which is simply rigging it along racial lines.

You seem to think that just because some of us accept the system as it is implies that we like everything about it; I don't, and I don't think anyone else does. But we remember the old adage, "Democracy is the worst political system ever devised, except for all the others".

So, what's it going to be? Do you have any actual suggestions, or are you just complaining, and disparaging anyone who disagrees with you?

[StarfishSaver]

146. From the "How to Be An Ally as Long as it's Convenient and Not in any Way Uncomfortable" Handbook

Chapter 5: When an ally raises a concern about racial unfairness:

1. Adamantly deny that race is a factor (be sure to remind them that you know racism is a problem, but it's not involved in this situation);

2. Accuse the ally of making a racial issue out of a perfectly innocent situation;

3. Accuse the ally of calling you or other allies a racist;

4. Demand the ally offer an infallible solution for the problem they identify;

5. If the ally fails to offer a solution that doesn't meet with your personal approval, accuse them of just trying to cause trouble, go back to #1 and repeat

[LongtimeAZDem]

149. So, you have no answer, just a veiled insinuation of racism.

[StarfishSaver]

150. #3

[LongtimeAZDem]

151. And if I refuse to name other communists, it proves I'm a communist; it's called a witch hunt

and I have had all I can stomach of your tactics.

[ecstatic]

147. It is unfortunate. Now the media is trying to act concerned

about the lack of diversity that they themselves helped to create.

That being said, this is kind of a tricky issue because Senators Booker and Harris were not highly supported by black voters. Hell, even here on DU there are black people (myself included) supporting non-black candidates. Why? Because we're human beings with different priorities, not robots. So there's that.

Here's the thing, I was rooting for both of them, big time, but I wasn't going to get fully onboard until they showed me that they could win over black voters and at least 38% of white voters. I really thought Kamala could do it, but her biggest mistake, in my opinion, was saying one thing to an audience, then saying something else to reporters later on. I was extremely frustrated with her over that. No big deal, everyone makes mistakes, but the harsh truth is we have to be 10 times better than the competition.

Cory, on the other hand, was all over the place as far as messaging. In interviews, it was hope and change. On the debate stage, it was about hope, but then he'd sneak in random attacks on Biden. Democrats don't want to hear that right now. We're angry and pissed at trump, not Biden or Obama.

I hate to say this, but another thing that worked against them was that they didn't have beautiful families to show off or partners who could effectively campaign on their behalf.

Just my opinion.

[StarfishSaver]

148. I hear you - but the amount of black support they had is beside the point

This isn't about having black candidates in the race just so black voters can vote for black people. This is about having a diverse field so that ALL voters, regardless of race, have a diverse range of candidates to choose from.

And much of the "support" that people keep talking about is simply where they stood in public opinion polls at a given time and what various media talking heads and reporters thought of them. Many of those public opinion polls zeroed in on non-diverse states that were front-loaded into the primary season. These things all play a role in driving a candidate out of the race before they had a chance to fully campaign to voters and before the voters had a chance to actually cast a vote.

And you're right - there are lots of factors that affect a candidate's viability. But we can't pretend that race and institutional barriers aren't among the factors impacting minority candidates.

[ecstatic]

155. I agree that the process the DNC used this go round wasn't the best

I blame Bernie for that. In my opinion, the DNC implemented a ludicrous process because they were bending over backwards to appear fair so that Bernie's camp couldn't cry foul again. Yet, if Bernie doesn't win, he will still cry foul and say the process was rigged.

[RandySF]

152. I tried.

I was with Kamala to the end.

[Hekate]

154. That is beautifully laid out, Starfish. Wish I could Rec it more than once. I have been increasingly

...troubled by the system that throws all the early and crucial campaign efforts not just to small states, but to states that are (shall we say) less than diverse. (I am a Californian -- 'nuff said.) I am extremely, extremely disappointed at who has been forced to drop out this early.

But how do we, as Democrats, force the change to different Primary states? Is there a petition to the DNC a million of us can sign? What mechanism do you imagine we could use?

Thank you.