The obsession with Demographics seems contrary to any message of Unity and Equality

[Armstead]

Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

This may seem nebulous, but I'm feeling more and more like the obsession here and elsewhere with the "demographic appeal" of Bernie and Clinton verges on its own version of racism, sexism ageism and other divisive messages that have been at the heart of our national problems for too long (forever actually).

I look at it through the filter of being a Bernie supporter. But we're ALL guilty of it. I'm not going to let myself or other Bernie supporters off the hook. We're all at fault. This transcends whichever candidate one supports.

Even if I supported Clinton, the tone of much of this politics of division would seem anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) and contrary to the goal of unifying and overcoming the Balkanization of politics to assert the rights of the the majority to stand up to the Powers that Be.

I am not saying we shouldn't debate argue about the candidates or the issues, including social issues. But there are also issues where there is generally a common agreement, but which touch on deep sociological, physiological aspects of society that require a more comprehensive and deeper approach than any particular candidate or platform.

Rather than "We're all in this together" it's become the latest version of "Divide and Conquer" and the usual Circular Firing Squad that keeps the left half of the spectrum impotent. We're also trivializing important issues by putting them in the context of campaigns and the personalities of candidates.

I know, I know. Targeting and demographics and appealing to different constituencies and "markets" of voters is a core of politics, and will never go away. I also "get it" that different groups have specific issues, problems and goals and they are not always in harmony. That's an inherent challenge in any effort to build a Big Tent.

But IMO we're going overboard with that in ways that seem counterproductive both to individual constituencies and the common good. We're also playing into the hands of the GOP -- and in some ways reflecting them -- instead of trying to unite.

And so in a political party where both candidates (and O'Malley) have been committed to the same core principles of social justice, we are angrily arguing among ourselves about things we agree on, rather than constructively debating and working out the issues we should be uniting around.

Some of the issues we get caught up in are not going to be solved in one campaign. They are complex and larger and deeper than "politics" and require larger and deeper changes. But we get caught up in crap about whitesplaining, mansplaning, etc. instead strategizing politically about how the majority -- including all demographic segments -- can come together to fight to advance our common goals and interests.

It's going overboard on all levels. In the sense of conventional politics, we're becoming so obsessed with what age group, race, sex, height, weight Candidate A appeals to versus what demographic segment Candidate B appeals to. Again, that's natural and part of the machinery. But the degree obscures the actual goals and message of the candidates based on rigid stereotypes.

It also assumes that were just a collection of "population segments" rather than individuals who have varying opinions. It also sets up these stereotypes like "if you're a woman you have to support Clinton" or "if you're young you have to support Sanders" ...etc.

Which also leads to idiotic rigidity of perceptions, because none of us falls solely into one group. We're all a combination of demographic characteristics regarding our gender, ethnic make up, age, income, etc.

I, for example, am 63 years old and long out of college, so I don't fit the stereotype of a youthful Bernie supporter. But I'm Bernie all the way. Where does a middle aged AA female fit into this template, if she supports Bernie? How about a young male who fits all of the Berniebro stereotypes, but supports Clinton? How about a transgendered middle aged Hispanic?

It also has more disturbing undertones.

Bernie was tarred as a racist -- or at least racially insensitive -- at the start because he briefly got impatient and cranky when interrupted by a BLM protest aimed at all candidates. And when his supporters tried to defend him, we were branded as racist white progressives.

Maybe we got too strident too, and some were not racially "sensitive" enough in out responses. But the whole thing set a bad tone. As a result, a politician who is fundamentally committed to social justice at the core of his being was characterized as having a "problem with black people.".

Same thing with sexism. Hillary is a woman, and her candidacy is historic in that sense. Great. However, that also has become divisive, and injected sexism in a campaign where all three candidates (and supporters) are committed to women's rights. But once again politics about it reinforced basic sexism from all sides -- in ways that were counterproductive to the basic goal of overcoming gender limitations and restrictions.

And, in supporting or challenging the merits of our candidates, we distort the principles, values and policies they stand for.

Bernie's liberal/progressive goals are denigrated as ponies and rainbows. Whether or not one thinks Sanders is the best candidate or his specific proposals arer "practical," don't attack the basic goals that are supposed to be at the core of liberal/progressive values.

And yes, Sanders supporters have not given Clinton credit enough on the ways that she is truly progressive. Because of our focus on what we don't like about the political culture and mindset and economic class she comes from, we deny her real achievements and values in other ways.

Again, I'm not marginalizing any of the specific concerns and issues of any group. But I find it disturbing on the level of "horserace politics" and the deeper issues below that that we're once again playing into the hands of the GOP and the bi-partisan Elite Oligarchy. We're doing our own left-handed version of what Nixon and Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes and all of the architects of division have been doing on the right since the 70's.

I don't have any brilliant solution. But I hope we can somehow find a way to keep our Eyes on the Prize in a larger sense, and debate issues on real; terms, instead of this new form of stereotyping and dividing.

[Nonhlanhla]

2. And just WHO

are these "some people" you are talking about, whose identity is built around being martyrs, and who do not wish to be judged purely on their own merits?

Pray tell.

[Live and Learn]

4. Are you asking for user names? Not hard to find, just use the search engine.

Don't be too surprised if the woman/man in the mirror looks familiar.

[uponit7771]

14. You know they're not asking for user names

[Live and Learn]

19. I know nothing of the sort. Why, does your show up? nt

[Nonhlanhla]

9. Oh, so...

according to you, if someone is not a Bernie supporter it means they like to be a martyr and they don't want to be judged on their merit.

And you posted this in a thread that's about how all talk of the fact that Hillary's coalition consists more of minorities and women, is problematic.

Got it.

[Nonhlanhla]

11. Quite the contrary

It seems more to me that Bernie fans are upset about the fact that Hillary gets overwhelming support from women and minorities. We're constantly being told that minorities just have not caught up yet and just don't know Bernie yet, and that women who vote for Hillary because of gender are sexist.

You have no idea how condescending that sounds.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. I'm gay. If you'd like I can provid links to Hillary boosters saying she 'owns the gays' and to tons

of OP's in which straight Hillary supporters clutch onto LGBT issues and preach sermons at LGBT persons about them. I could show you many Straight White religious people on DU who had lectures aimed at LGBT about the Human Rights Campaign, which the Straights do not really understand but they feel entitled to explain LGBT organizations to LGBT, they do this constantly on DU. Constantly.
Just yesterday some Hillary supporting straight white male with an admitted anti gay past opined that Barney Frank must not be criticized and I pointed out to that poster that Barney and the LGBT community have rocky relations at times because Barney has not always been a strong advocate for the transgender community. I cited great detail and tried to explain the nuanced range of opinions in the community about Frank. The straight white Hillary supporter told me I needed to read the wiki about Barney. I know Barney. Also, Barney knows me. Straight Hillary supporter had no facts, no knowledge of Barney, lectured me anyway.

Do you do that stuff too? Should I blame you for that those individuals did because you also support Hillary? What do you think about that?

[Nonhlanhla]

62. False equivalency

To be sure, there are some Hillary supporters who are quite tiresome, but there is a reason why Bernie supporters have gotten a bad reputation on the internet: there is just SO MUCH of it. Case in point: see the post right above yours, where women and minorities who are Hillary supporters are described as martyrs who do not want real change and who do not want to live on merit.

[PATRICK]

78. Overwhelming?

Getting caught up in this kind of dialogue is falling into the trap itself. Sanders reaches out for the economic justice that truly unites everyone except the most diseased rich and indeed threatens the divisive methods of keeping us divided in crazy ways so we all become de facto suckers, our needs, our anger, our ideals all twisted in knots. The real scary thing is we need more and better than just Sanders. The powers don't want us to go there.

[uponit7771]

15. Sanders lost IA PoC by 25% after spending 3 months campaigning there, he might be reaching out

... but his message isn't connecting to more Americans

[uponit7771]

18. What would that reflection be? tia

[cyberswede]

40. Ugh. This Iowan for Sanders thinks your post is full of shit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. Did you know Bernie Sanders spent time volunteering at a socialist kibbutz?

(GASP!) Socialist! (GASP!) Jew! We knew it!

It's not so much martyrdom as it is Divide and Conquer, which for some is the meat and potaytahs in their diet.

Dividing each and every detail of this primary race into a demographic is how some divide and conquer and it started the day Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy with a post titled "Not good enough Bernie!". That post included a picture of an unconscious black man being posed in a police station in such a way as to depict him as an animal hunters had just bagged.

Yesterday's exercise in division was to depict Bernie Sanders as not only a socialist (gasp!) but as a Jew who traveled to Israel and spent time on a kibbutz... a SOCIALIST kibbutz (INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH GASP!).

[Live and Learn]

3. Divide and conquer, ancient war technique but still in use, even here. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

73. Wasn't that Richard Nixon's tactic? United we stand, divided Nixon gets in office! nt

[Empowerer]

6. For some reason, this only seems to be an issue when minorities, women, etc. insist that their vote

matters and demand that their votes be earned.

It's not divisive to expect that a candidate campaign to audiences beyond the white middle class. But whenever they do, we are suddenly supposed to go all colorblind and any attempt to reach out to previously marginalized groups is labeled "divisive"- ("why are you always bringing up race/gender? We're all just people, you know.&quot

Funny thing, this complaint is almost always lodged by people who aren't in those marginalized groups and who are usually among the groups that candidates and campaigns have always reached out to. And when they talk about not being "divisive," they often really mean, "You're making too much noise and distracting the candidates from focusing on the issues we care about. But you're welcome to come over here and vote with us and, if you do, your issues will get taken care of - eventually - just don't talk about them too much or you'll turn people (i.e., white people) off.

[Armstead]

7. There you go again

Sorry, but if you miss (or prefer not to understand) my point I am not going to try and "whitesplain" or anysplain what I am trying to say.

[jehop61]

8. I think

you're absolutely correct. This race is too important to our country. It almost seems like the other side has infiltrated our races and is trying to split us.

[uponit7771]

20. Your point is pretty clear, minimize demographics and lets come together for the greater good!!!

Easy to say if you're not one of the marginalized

[uponit7771]

17. +1, its easy for the non marginalized to say "that's not important" to the marginalized

[workinclasszero]

83. For some reason, this only seems to be an issue when minorities, women, etc. insist that their vote

matters and demand that their votes be earned.

Bingo

[uponit7771]

13. Sanders lost IA PoC by 25% after spending 3 months campaigning there so there's no more of

... the "they don't know me" excuse that can be used as a justification for Sanders low numbers with PoC and women and non white poor.

The very people that Sanders message is supposed to reach are being turned off by something... turned off cause Sanders is trailing HRC by double digits sans white males and the young and most likely its the white young and not PoC young.

So yes, demographics should matter to someone who wants to hone their message to all of America and reach a broad swath of the electorate ...

Like Obama did

[DCBob]

21. If Bernie can't connect with African Americans and they dont show up to vote in November..

we are toast.

Yes, I am "obsessed" with this issue.

[Armstead]

23. If Bernie or Hillary can't connect with voters...etc.

[DCBob]

24. African American voters have been the key voting block for Democrats winning elections..

in this country for decades. We absolutely need them to turn out in large numbers or we lose.

If Hillary is the nominee they will show.. Bernie? .. not so sure.

[Armstead]

25. How about you give him a chance?

Look these are the primaries. I want Bernie to win. I guess you want Clinton to win. And if either of them run good targeted advertising and other positive outreach to win over AAs and any otehr constituency, I'm all for it.

One of the things I am objecting to in my OP is (and I admit its nebulous) the crap and deceptions and generalizations that try to make Bernie seem "bad" or "have problems" or are insensitive to AAs or otehr ethnic/gender constituencies.

Bernie has a recognition problem. AA's do not know much about him, because he has in a national sense come from out of nowhere. That's been an issue with almost every constituency except residents of northern New England and lefties who followed him for years. (I admittedly fall into both categories). And his personal appeal is not immediately apparent. He's the type who "grows on" people.

But I am absolutely certain that if AAS's have a chance to get aquainted with his genuine passion for social (and racial) justice and his history, and get to the gyuy underneath the grumpy rumpled exterior, a lot of them would warm to him. Not all -- but that is my point in the OP. We are part of "groups" but we are also individuals.

He at least deserves a chance to make his case. Time is not on his side considering the calendar , but it would be a lot better IMO if his opponents (as well as the "objective" media) didn't make that harder with distortions and artificial barriers to his message.

[DCBob]

31. Yes, good points but we simply don't have the time or luxury to wait for Bernie to "grow on" people.

We are in a desperate battle with the RW in this country. They are on the verge of taking over this country lock, stock and barrel. Bernie presents a huge risk due to his apparent lack of appeal to AA voters and the likelihood that the GOP attack machine will simply tear him apart if he should become the Dem nominee. Hillary is our best bet to fight them off and give a us a big win in November.

[Armstead]

37. You're putting the cart before the horse

You are talking about the general election. That's step B.

If she truly has some magical connection with AAs that will make the difference then that magical connection will inspire them to come out and enable her to win the primary.

[DCBob]

43. It's not "magical".

I think African American voters simply feel comfortable with Hillary. They know she understands and appreciates the issues facing black Americans. Bernie is still somewhat unknown and many are not sure he really gets it.

[Armstead]

48. Don't dwell on my flippant expressive style

I know it is not magic powers.

But my point is that it is wrong (and I'll use that word with total sincerity) to try and put artificial barriers and distortions between Bernie and these constituencies in the effort to push for Clinton.

Maybe he can connect. maybe he can't. But leave it up to Bernie to try, and give AAs a chance to see him without distortions and phony memes and "concerns" being put in the way.

[DCBob]

53. Who's creating "distortions or phone memes"??

We are simply discussing the issues and one big issue is the fact that Bernie is not connecting with AA voters. That has been true since day one of his campaign. We have been waiting for that to change but it hasn't. You all were telling us it was just a matter of name recognition.. well its been many many months and the poll numbers have hardly budged in terms of AA voters.

[Armstead]

67. I go back to my original point...

I know the political strategists will use target marketing and all of that stuff.

I'm not even saying there is anything wrong with that.

And Bernie has had an uphill battle to gain recognition and acceptance among all voters. He's making progress, its a matter of how fast and how far he can do that. Which is the issue all candidates have to deal with.

But I hate to see Democrats throwing artificial boulders in his path based solely on identity politcs, rather than debate over issues and larger messages.

It seems to me that rather than the larger framework that is being contested in what Bernie and Clinton represent, the focus on segmented special interest divisive politics and segmentation has gotten out of hand this time. Not just regarding AAs but all groups.

Rather than trying to encourage inclusiveness and the common interests of the majority (economic majority and a numerical majority of citizens) we are segmenting the Democratic Party into little demographic clusters.

[Empowerer]

38. Especially since campaigning to that demographic doesn't seem to be a big priority for the campaign.

[DCBob]

32. Bernie is not a racist.. anyone who says that is a fool.

African American voters are responding as they feel... and they simply don't "feel the Bern".

[DCBob]

42. It is rational.

Most AA voters are happy with Hillary and just don't see how an old white guy from a small white northern rural state can possibly understand the issues facing black Americans.

[DCBob]

47. That's bullshit.

Its just an issue of connecting. Bernie has not been around long to develop the relationships Hillary has developed so all they know is what they see with Bernie.

[DCBob]

56. You've been a member for a few hours and you make this statement..

"And what many of us have been saying all along..".

Hard to take you seriously.

[Armstead]

50. That characterization is what I am talking about

an old white guy from Vermont....wanna throw in jew while you're at it?

[DCBob]

57. He has an image problem.

[Armstead]

58. Intensified by those with a vested interst in magnifying that

[DCBob]

59. I doubt it has been intensified by anything anyone has said or done.

Bernie owns it.

[Armstead]

61. I disagree. There was opportunism in the wake of BLM

Bernie had to INTRODUCE himself. That was a challenge.

But while he was putting out his hand saying "Hi I'm Bernie Sanders, nice to meet you" there were others simultaneously yelling "He has a problem with Black people. He doesn't care about you. Clinton is the one who is on your side."

[Empowerer]

39. If African Americans don't vote for Bernie it's because we have been "fooled" by Hillary supporters?

So, you think we're too stupid to not to be swayed by a candidate's supporters' lies?

Bernie supporters have spent a lot of time and effort to get us to vote for him, but it hasn't worked. If we're so easily swayed by what supporters tell us, why aren't you getting anywhere with us?

Has it ever occurred to you that we've heard Bernie's message and heard Hillary's message and we prefer hers? Why do you think we can't think for ourselves but are being tricked into supporting a particular candidate?

[Empowerer]

66. YOU don't see why that is possible? How many African Americans have you discussed this with?

It obviously IS possible because it is happening. But you seem to think that the only reason it COULD be happening is that we're stupid or gullible. Therein lies the problem with your argument - and one of the reasons that Bernie hasn't been able to connect with our community. This attitude that is so prevalent among his supporters goes a long way toward alienating African Americans, who are just as intelligent, informed, savvy as you and other Sanders supporters - and in many, if not most cases, more so given our experience and need to have a "third eye" in order to survive and thrive in a society in which we are often invisible and always seen as the other.

So such comments as those you have been making here not only reveal an unfortunate degree of ignorance but an appalling degree of arrogance - that combination does not serve you well as you try to convince African Americans to support your candidate.

[DCBob]

91. Ha.. that dude didn't last long!

[speaktruthtopower]

27. It's intentional..

society needs to be kept in perpetual tension and then protected from it by the enlightened.

[JackInGreen]

28. Wonderful essay, Arm

I agree on a lot of points while finding myself as guilty as I'm sure a lot of others are. Let's hope we can find our way out of this mud.

[gollygee]

30. So let's not split up. Let's all join with people of color and other marginalized groups.

Why is the solution, when the dominant group disagrees with an oppressed group, always that the oppressed group should ignore their feelings and join in with the dominant group? How about if we join with them instead?

[gollygee]

34. Bullshit. N/t

[gollygee]

81. As good as yours n/t

[EffieBlack]

63. Perhaps you are unaware that we have been "joining" you for decades - with little reciprocation

It is growing very tiresome to hear white people suggest that black voters vote based on race when it is really white voters who consistently cast votes favoring candidates that look like them. 

Black voters vote for white candidates CONSISTENTLY - even when those white candidates are running against black candidates. Yet, when black candidates run, white voters rarely support them in large numbers.

For example, in 2004 in South Carolina, 99% of white voters voted for one of the white candidates (Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Kucinich), with 1% voting for Al Sharpton. Twenty percent of black South Carolina voters voted for Sharpton that year; the other 80% of those voters voted for a white candidate. Thus, 99% of white voters voted for a candidate of the same race while only 20% of black voters voted for someone of their race; 80% of black voters voted across racial lines while only 1% of white voters did. 

This pattern is a long and very consistent one throughout the country in most presidential primary races. White voters have been much more likely to vote in a bloc than than black voters have - black voters tend to spread their votes between black candidates and white candidates. White voters tend to spread most of their votes only among white candidates.

It is sometimes difficult to recognize patterns within the demographic of the majority population since that population is often viewed as just "the people." But white voters have always been much more likely to vote for candidates who look like them than black voters are to vote for black candidates. This has been masked by the fact that there have always been many more white candidates than black candidates and usually no black candidates at all.

This is a consistent pattern - not just in terms of the race of particular candidates, but also regarding the interests of black voters. White votes continually try to convince black voters to join with them in order to advance white voters interests and telling them that, if they do, black voters' interests might also be served. But rarely do we see white voters in any significant numbers joining with black voters to advance the interests of black people - at least not the interests that are identified BY black people and not those that white voters have DECIDED benefit black voters.

Therefore, your suggestion that "you already have" aligned with black voters is just wrong. Not to mention somewhat arrogant and condescending.

[Empowerer]

72. Be careful - you're true colors are starting to bleed through . . .

[workinclasszero]

85. "Whites (white Democrats at least) vote for the best person for the job"

Excuse me?

What are you really trying to say here???

[Empowerer]

41. EXACTLY!

Why do the black kids all sit together in the cafeteria? Why don't they go sit with the rest of the (i.e., white) kids?

Why don't the white kids go sit with the black kids at THEIR tables?

(Blank stare) Why would they do THAT?

[Armstead]

55. Why don't they all go to a larger third table?

[Empowerer]

70. Because the larger table will be just another white kids table with some black kids sitting at it

And that will be a very different table than the black kids' table, which, for some reason, the white kids just don't want to sit at.

Interestingly, this never becomes an issue until the the black kids start making too much noise or inviting the white kids to sit at their table. THAT's when the "why do we have separate tables? Come over here and sit with us - or let's start a new table that will have the exact same demographics we would have if you just came over and sat with us."

[Armstead]

88. Your logic is getting so convuluted I cannot understand it

[Armstead]

44. It isnlt that simple.

Neither of tghe candidates is saying POC don't matter. Eactly the opposite. Both of them are trying to reach out and paying attention and tailoiring their messages to include those concerns.

But that is the point of my OP. This stuff gets real complicated because we're not talking about homogenous groups.

Some POC are more conservative than others. Some believe issue A is most important, others believe issue B is more important.

There are many in the AA community who believe economic justice is as important as fighting racism and is the most important thing any candidate can fight for. Others believe that overcoming racism is more important. Many believe both are equally important.

There are also contradictions. For some religious personally conservative AA's for example abortion is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong. So should the candidates "join them" and oppose those things?

Which of those segments is a candidate supposed to pay the most attention to? Which are the "the dominant group" suopposed to pay the most attention to?

IMO we ought to be looking for the common prioirities as a starting point to gain political power, and work out the otehr aspects as we go along.

[DCBob]

60. +1

[MineralMan]

51. Building unity doesn't appear to be a high-value goal

for many Democrats, I'm afraid. In fact, from the perspective of this discussion forum, it sometimes feels like a taboo topic.

That's too bad, I think. Demographic groups, however, are very interesting to observers of elections. Its not really the idea that candidates can work to change how demographic groups will react that is of interest. Mostly, they can't. Instead, it's more of a predictive thing, based on past actions in elections by those groups that is of interest.

I never assume that change is likely within any particular group during the course of a campaign. Attitudes in such groups do change over time, but not within the limited time of a primary campaign, really. The problem really is that a large majority of people in every demographic group are not paying that close attention to these campaigns. They tend to react historically, rather than determining how they will vote based on information offered by candidates.

I certainly agree that we need to build unity within the Democratic Party. If we do not, we're likely to lose not only the presidential election, but even down ticket, where we desperately need to improve our results.

The only light I see on the horizon, really, is the tendency for political parties to ignore current news and campaign rhetoric and go to the polls to cast their votes in the general election. That light, however, appears to be dimming, from my perspective. I'm deeply concerned about Democratic turnout in November. I think there is good reason for that concern, at least based on discussions I'm reading here. More's the pity.

[Ed Suspicious]

52. It is contrary. It is at the core of the Clinton campaign more than any campaign today.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

54. Thank you for some truth.

You are one of the best posters on this site, imo.

[treestar]

64. You have to be kidding

all we hear is from bernie's side how the millennial are the only ones who matter, we can't win without them, only they have "passion" and they are the future and etc.

[Armstead]

68. You're not hearing that from me

I can only speak for myself

[Skinner]

69. A few thoughts.

No matter what the issue, if it is something that polarizes this community there is a tendency on all sides to ascribe to all of their "opponents" the behavior or attitudes of the worst actors on the other side. So even if 90% of people are being relatively nice and are being careful to frame their arguments in a non-offensive way, all of the attention will focus on the 10% of people who frame their arguments in the most divisive way. And then people will subconsciously assume that the worst behaviors of the 10% are shared by the entire group.

A good example was the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. (I use 2008 as an example because people won't feel a knee-jerk need to represent their side compared to 2016.) Back in 2008, both major candidates were demographic trailblazers -- Hillary Clinton a woman, and Barack Obama an African American. In that context, it was common for supporters of Barack Obama to notice the small minority of Hillary Clinton supporters whose comments seemed kinda racist, and it was common for supporters of Hillary Clinton to notice the small minority of Barack Obama supporters whose comments seemed kinda sexist. Furthermore, it was common for supporters of Barack Obama to accuse the other side of calling them sexist, and it was common for supporters of Hillary Clinton to accuse the other side of calling them racist.

These feelings were genuine and heartfelt. Obama supporters genuinely felt that people on the other side were being insensitive on race, while also feeling unfairly attacked as sexist. Clinton supporters genuinely felt that people on the other side were being insensitive on gender, while also feeling unfairly attacked as racist. And there was ample evidence to support the way people on both sides were feeling.

The core problem, I think, is that we all have a tendency to dismiss the worst actors on our own side as isolated bad apples, while viewing the worst actors on the other side as being representative of a large proportion of people on the other side. This is reinforced by the constant drumbeat of "look what the bad (insert candidate name) supporter did" threads, or the "look how dumb supporters of (insert candidate name) are" threads, or the "I was victimized by a supporter of (insert candiate name)". Even if you try to dismiss these divisive threads as being the work of a few isolated bad apples on the other side, they get recommended by dozens or even hundreds of people, which provides pretty convincing evidence that these attitudes are widely shared.

Now, again, if you try very hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, you realize that people are caught up in the primary and these types of hurtful posts are just another way for committed partisans to either express their feelings or press their advantage. While people might not totally agree with these hurtful posts if you challenge them, the post gives a voice to general feeling of being unfairly attacked and anyway doesn't the other side do it too? Yes, they do it too. The evidence is everywhere.

My point being: This is divisive stuff. It is personal. It goes right to the heart of who we are. And because we are in a presidential primary, we all have an incentive to broadcast the worst crap from the other side as loudly as we can.

Now fast-forward to 2016. And your post.

I have made no secret that I support Hillary Clinton. You have made no secret of the fact that you support Bernie Sanders.

I totally get that you think talk of demographics is uncool. It feels like you are being called racist. And let's be honest: There are some Hillary supporters who have either directly or by implication called Sanders supporters racists. Nobody likes being called a racist, so you do have a legitimate beef.

But let's also point out that some of the stuff that has been said by supporters of Bernie Sanders has genuinely been racially insensitive. I could point out some posts, but I think we all know the worst ones. We have people of color on this website, and they don't like reading stuff that is racially insensitive, so they have a legitimate beef too.

That is the context we are operating in right now.

A couple days ago I posted in a thread by a Bernie supporter arguing that New Hampshire is not a liberal state, the obvious motivation being that Bernie supporters do not want his likely victory in the upcoming New Hampshire primary to be dismissed as pre-ordained by demographics. You guys know how the game is played and you want to be able to point to his New Hampshire victory as proof that he has broad appeal.

I responded in the obvious manner, by pointing you that yes I agree New Hampshire as a whole is not a liberal state, but the Democratic primary there is a demographic outlier that is disproportionately white liberals. Same with Iowa and Vermont. The obvious point I was making is precisely the one this Bernie supporter was trying to counter.

I was accused of calling Bernie supporters racist, and also of saying all white people are alike, and also (nonsensically) of trying to exclude non-white voters. Now, I'm not saying this because I feel hurt by the accusation -- in this case I am confident that I did none of those things, and I am confident that any reasonable person reading the exchange would know that I did none of those things. I'm saying this because it is a good example of how quickly these things escalate. (And remember, I'm the admin here so in all likelihood people were pulling their punches.) Many people would not be able to brush-off these types of incendiary accusations, and would feel compelled to respond much more aggressively than I did. This is hot stuff.

Now, I understand where these accusations came from. Bernie supporters feel like you have been smeared repeatedly as racist, so you want to hit back. It doesn't matter that *I* never called Bernie supporters racist, and it doesn't matter that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what I posted. The context we are operating causes people to infer meaning to my post that I did not intend.

Which brings me to your OP.

I totally get why you, as a Bernie supporter, would not want to read about demographics. At best it is a reminder that Bernie sanders is not doing well with nonwhite voters, and at worst it feels like people are calling you racist. But keep in mind that there is nothing inherently divisive about simply stating facts.

Person number one: "Bernie sanders did great in Iowa and New Hampshire! He's going to win the nomination!"

Person number two: "The Democratic electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire are demographic outliers that favor Bernie Sanders."

You are a smart person and I'm sure you agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with the response by person number two above.

It would be great if we lived in a colorblind world where separating people into groups based on skin color was as nonsensical as separating us based on eye color or hair color. Red-haired people went 2-1 for Clinton over Sanders! But of course we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the color of one's skin has a huge effect on people's life experiences.

Some people of color here on DU have made the point repeatedly that appealing to some sort of colorblind ideal does not speak to them and is not particularly representative of the reality that they live in. Beyond that I won't try to speak for them. But I do think that this OP is making the same argument that we should be colorblind and we are all people and we shouldn't be talking about differences because its divisive.

Some Sanders supporters like to think of their campaign as being "the people" and also like to claim that they are "the base" of the party or the "real Democrats." On its face this is pretty harmless rhetoric, and it dovetails nicely with Bernie's message of the people versus the Billionaire class. It also has the virtue of feeling true to the people who are saying it.

But take off your partisan hat for a moment and think about what (unintended) message it sends when "the people" and "the base" and "real Democrats" are defined as the "group of people who support Bernie Sanders." Here's the nice answer: It means people who support different candidates are none of those things. Here's the less nice answer: It means that demographic groups of people that tend to support different candidates are none of those things.

Now I know what you're thinking. Skinner, that is such a ridiculous politically correct stretch to twist that harmless rhetoric in order to play the race card. And on one level I totally agree. When Sanders supporters do this, there is no intent whatsoever to define "the people," "the base," and "real Democrats" as being synonymous with a particular demographic group. But the reality is that right now Sanders' appeal is overwhelmingly while liberals, and if you are at one of his rallies and you look around and tell yourself that everyone around you is representative of "the people" or even "the base" then you are telling yourself something that is not entirely true. And if you look at the outcome of the caucus in Iowa or the upcoming primary in New Hampshire and you tell yourself that this shows everyone loves Bernie Sanders you are telling yourself something that is not entirely true. The oversight may seem trivial to you, but that is a reflection of your own internal biases. And in case you think I'm only accusing other people, let me be clear: I have these biases too.

This is all a long way of saying that I don't think it is realistic to expect people to NOT discuss demographic differences in the context of a contested Democratic presidential primary that is clearly divided along demographic lines. Furthermore the idea that discussion of demographic differences can or should be curtailed in the interests of greater partisan comity, suggests an underlying belief that nothing of value can be learned from the discussion. I'm sure that is not a message you want to send.

Instead of trying to make this line of discussion off-limits, I think a better idea might be to try to have the discussion in a more productive way. There seems to be a tendency among some Sanders supporters to start with the pre-existing assumption that their candidate is obviously the better candidate for people of color. When you start with that as a given, then it follows that the substance of your discussion is going to be things like "what do we need to do to make them understand?" or worse "what is wrong with people of color?" Instead, maybe a good place to start is to do what people of color have been asking you to do for months: listen.

[Empowerer]

75. YOU are my hero

Your ability to explain what so many of us are thinking and have been trying to explain - and doing it in a calm, rational yet sympathetic manner - is second-to-none.

[Armstead]

84. A few replies

1)My post was an expression of my own thoughts -- Or, more simply, venting.. .........It was not prompted by a DU flame war, but the overall tone of things, including feeling overdosed on the larger background noise or what specific demographic Bernie or Hillary's persona appeals to.

2) I agree with you that it is totally appropriate to discuss demographics as part of political strategy. It's part of the "game." But it can get out of perspective, which I believe is happening. It's one of those things that has long been in my craw as a basic problem in the way we do politics. We get sidetracked by personalities and "affinity groups" instead of substance and what candidates represent in a larger sense. I think all this nonsense floating around becomes self-fulfilling prophecies that put pressure on people to conform to some pre-fab preferences they are supposed to have based on their combination of age, skin color, gender, etc.

3) As a very biased Bernie supporter, I also am frustrated because this is the opposite of his message and what he is trying to do. He is trying to address that age-old "What's the matter with Kansas?" problem by building wide ranging coalitions on the systemic issues of wealth and power. Trying to bring people who differ on specific things to come together on issues of common interest and values. Its like when he went to Liberty University and told them "We are never to agree on abortion. But can we at least agree that it is immoral for so few to have so much while so many have so little? Can we work together do something about that?".....And it drives me crazy that at times it seems he almost has to work harder to convince Democrats of that as a first step.

4) There is a mea culpa in there, and I wasn't letting myself or other Sanders supporters off the hook. Although we bat back and forth among candidate supporters, I personally don't have a stereotype of Clinton supporters, here or in the larger world or among my friends and acquaintances in the 3D world. I disagree with them, but as individuals I assume their choice and motivates are genuine.

4) Regarding "Listen." You are absolutely correct. But listening is a two way street. The only way to get to the heart of deep seated problems is give and take, in which both (all) sides are willing to express on an equal footing, and be willing to set their sensitivities aside. ......But apart from specific policies. I'm also not certain, the overheated environment of campaigns is the place to dig down into those deeper issues on the deep and non-partisan level they really need to be addressed at.

[MADem]

94. What a good essay! Well done, you! nt

[earthside]

71. It is called 'Identity Politics' ...

... and in its extremity when it becomes teamed-up with 'political correctness' has the very real potential of destroying the Democratic Party and liberalism.

Identity Politics

It has the tendency to promote tribalism instead of tolerance ... and that is dangerous.

[Ed Suspicious]

76. Right on.

[MisterP]

77. it's usual Rahmist politicking: you tell the South Side the North has it out for them

and then tell the North Side "do you KNOW what they're saying about you on the South Side?"

too bad for them we can compare notes and look up records nowadays

[Rebkeh]

79. Not only is making distinctions not dividing

It's necessary. The way I see it, there are core values at odds here. You cannot be opposite things at once, not in the same place (the core).

One side wants to work with the "enemy" in order to control it, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially since it is so obvious that it doesn't work. There is more evidence than you should need to see this.

The other side wants to actually change things.

There's no changing the game while enabling the game. That perception may work on the distracted, disengaged and uninformed but some of us are paying attention. We see the con.

On edit: I agree with you, don't misunderstand, and the negativity does not help the process. II just don't want appeals for unity to blur differences because during primary season, differences are the whole point. That's why we have them.

[mikehiggins]

80. As an Irish American I can assure you there is nothing new about this form of sterotyping and

dividing. Whether it is blacks, or hispanics or asians or catholics or jews everyone one of our ancestors has encountered this sort of discrimination and oppression based on "demographics." It is usually based on the PTB convincing the recent immigrants that the newer newcomers were threats to them.

THe concentration on the young and female dominating this debate is due, in my view (copyright B Sanders) to the observation that the PTB never thought young people OR women were worth their time to worry about in the past, despite all the social changes that've taken place over the decades since the 60's.

Why not? Because the bottom line is that those changes never threatened their bottom lines. Period.

(drops mic)

[Armstead]

86. I have a stupid question....What is PTB?

I should know but have never figured it out

[winter is coming]

89. Powers That Be. TPTB is "the powers that be." n/t

[Odin2005]

87. Identitarianism has run amok and is ruining politics.

[Rebkeh]

90. It is NOT contrary

Intentions are only successful when the intended outcome is successful, good intentions by themselves don't work in socio-political spaces. They are fine in spiritual spaces, but they don't make that transition without something concrete to hold it together.

Read more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027589250

[Romulox]

92. As you can see from the responses, divide and conquer is the only avenue Clinton sees to victory.

Which is why DU is full of older white voters telling you that minorities will never support an economically populist message.

[BainsBane]

93. There is other deliberately divisive rhetoric

Calling people who don't share adoration for one candidate corporatists and third way, camp weathervane, aligned with Goldman Sachs, "the vagina club," etc. The purpose of such rhetoric is to proclaim that those of us who disagree with Sanders supporters are inherently inferior. There is no way to pretend that language has any purpose or intent other than to insult and divide.

Yet you insist any discussion of the diversity of American society, of Americans who are not like you, must be censored because it makes you feel bad. The voter groups that have worked for decades to have their voices heard must be erased from political discourse because you prefer a world in which you and those exactly like you are all that matter, the rest of America mere divisive distractions. Those distractions are in fact the people who make up the Democratic Party, a party that does not promote homogeneity or pretend it to be a virtue.

African Americans are the single most reliable Democratic voting block. They matter. This election cycle they are seeking to use that voting power to compel politicians to address their concerns, some of which have to do with not being murdered. Other demographics similarly seek to made their voices heard and us their voting power to benefit their people. That political pressure and their political participation is central to the demographic process. Seeking to silence ant discussion of it does not promote unity, far from it. It erases them, their rights, and their political concerns. It erases me.

To pretend unity is he goal here is wholly unbelievable. People concerned with unity do not devote themselves for years on end to trashing and destroying the electoral prospects of the leading Democratic candidate. They do not insult Democrats on a daily basis with the terms used at the beginning of this post. I fully reflect the notion that unity is in any way a concern. Rather the point of lectures like these is to silence any and all speech that does not promote the interests of a self-entitled minority, certain that they and they alone constitute the people..

Additionally, the fact so may have sworn they will not under any circumstances vote for the nominee if it isn't their guy makes evident that there is no concern about unity. Instead, the focus is on silencing speech and erasing the majority of Americans from politicalal discourse.

For months now people have been very clear that they do not see us as it this together. They have made clear that failure to revere one politician makes us inferior, allied with the banks, corporatists, and any number of other hateful insults. That have showed me clearly that there is no us. There is Bernie and his uncritical supporters, and the rest of the population beneath contempt. It is way too late to pretend to care about unity or being in it together. That bridge was crossed and burned months ago. The division was purposefully created, and it is now permanent.

[Gothmog]

95. Bernie Sanders And Hillary Clinton Are Actually Fighting About Barack Obama

Demographics are important in that this explains one of the big divides between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters. There is a vast difference in how Sanders supporters and Sanders view President Obama and how other Democrats view President Obama. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics

But lurking behind this argument about the future is a dispute that's really about the past. It’s a debate over what Obama accomplished in office -- in particular, how significant those accomplishments really are. And it's been simmering on the left for most of the last seven years.

On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.

They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.

On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.

It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters. Again, it may be difficult for Sanders to appeal to African American voters when one of the premises of his campaign is that Sanders does not think that President Obama is a progressive or a good POTUS.

Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy. There are valid reasons why many non-African American democrats (myself included) and many African American Democrats are not supporting Sanders.

I understand why Sanders supporters dislike talking about demographics but the fact remain that Sanders supporters tend to no like President Obama and that dislike affects the amount of support that Sanders is getting from certain demographic groups.