2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCharles Blow: "Iowa’s Black Caucusgoers"
Clintons ambitions seemed to be judged more realistic.
Then, there was the problem of comfort.
The Clintons seem to intuitively understand the value of retail politics, particularly when doing outreach to marginalized groups. I cant tell you how many stories Ive heard from black people about the time that one of the Clintons most often Bill Clinton spoke at or showed up at an event important to the black community. This means something. It adds to an aura of familiarity that doesnt extend to Sanders
...
Maybe that is why no one I spoke to mentioned how much damage the Clintons have done the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes, as Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, put it Thursday on her Facebook page.
For Sanderss part, he seemed to be judged too unfamiliar and too absent, particularly down the homestretch. This feels to me like a terrible tactical error. No matter how much his positions and policies may benefit black voters, they are no more interested than any other group of voters in a long-distance love affair. You have to show up. You have to put in the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/iowas-black-caucusgoers.html
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)...
Maybe that is why no one I spoke to mentioned how much damage the Clintons have done the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes, as Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, put it Thursday on her Facebook page.
For Sanderss part, he seemed to be judged too unfamiliar and too absent, particularly down the homestretch. This feels to me like a terrible tactical error. No matter how much his positions and policies may benefit black voters, they are no more interested than any other group of voters in a long-distance love affair. You have to show up. You have to put in the time.
I honestly don't know.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)He's riper than the fallen Apple as my grandma used to say.
ecstatic
(32,712 posts)Democrats and the CBC overwhelmingly supported the bill. During that time, many elected democrats, including the CBC, thought they were helping to address a police shortage which increased crime and police response times in many communities. Obviously, the police are out of control now... but it's disingenuous to pin everything on Clinton. The bill seemed like a good idea at the time and, of course, it lead to many unintended consequences.
Now, some supporters of that bill, instead of acknowledging that they're evolving on the issue of being blindly pro-police, are trying to rewrite the history of how that bill passed a Democrat-controlled Congress and was signed into law by a Democratic president.
1994 was a big milestone on the path that might have started in 1968. And the CBC leadership wasn't a passive supporter of the crime bill. The Baltimore Sun quotes Mfume as saying the CBC wasn't doing Clinton a favor by voting for it, but had "put our stamp on this bill," because in addition to a surge in police officers and prisons, which would disproportionately affect poor, young black people, there was an assault weapons ban and a limit on automatic life sentences for repeat offenders.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/04/30/former-cbc-chair-who-voted-for-1994-crim
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)But Bernie does, so we should just listen to him . . .
Fearless
(18,421 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)dsc
(52,162 posts)just disgusting but sadly all too typical of many Bernie supporters.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)Maybe I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it's more that the AA community likes Clinton, rather than there being much actual animosity toward Sanders. No?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)"race baiting." I guess Charles Blow is under the bus now too.
Orrex
(63,215 posts)Mail Message
On Wed Feb 3, 2016, 10:46 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Good article. Pointing this out invariably draws out angry Bernie supporters with accusations of
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1128150
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Generalizing Bernie supporters w.r.t. race-baiting.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 3, 2016, 10:51 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Ludicrous alert. Ban the alerter. Looks suspiciously like stalking.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It is perhaps something of a generalization, but it strikes me as an understandable response to the recent scorched earth trend of castigating those who question Sanders' policy or likely effectiveness.
If the alerting DUer objects to the claim, than the alerter should address the claim in-thread.
Leave it.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.