2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDear Bernie Sanders: Black votes matter
After all theyve endured through slavery, Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights, their voices are still treated dismissively by tone-deaf politicians who would ask for their votes.
If youre thinking Bernie Sanders, youre partly right.
This month, having lost massively to Hillary Clinton across the Southeast, Sanders commented that the bevy of early Southern primaries distorts reality. In other comments soon thereafter, perhaps covering for what was obviously a lapse in political acumen, he clarified that those early states are the most conservative in the country.
Not really. And not really.
While some segments of the South are undeniably conservative, Dixie is also home to a large and reliably Democratic cohort African Americans. Many of the most liberal people serving in todays Congress were elected by Southerners, and especially black Southerners. The reality is that Sanders failed to earn their votes in part by treating the South as a lost cause.
More at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sanderss-misstep-in-the-south/2016/04/22/c5ba20da-08c1-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)She showed who and what she was and how low she could go.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)I trust President Obama's judgement.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Check out the joint interview between the two on 60 Minutes.
They talk about their friendship and how President Obama admires Secretary Clinton.nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Private servers, BFF Siddy sending hacked FP info back and forth, lots back rubbing goingmon in that State Department, totally ignoring the FOIA. She's just precious.
He should go on Maury and take a lie detector test on how he really feels.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)If he really didn't like Secretary Clinton, he could easily stopped his best campaign people from 2008 and 2012 joining Hillary's campaign.
I don't recall a single top campaign person from Obama's team joining Bernie Sanders.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)because his top campaign people became free agents to work on any other campaign after that one was put to bed.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)And put the last nail in when he started filling cabinet positions with status quo streeters. Many felt betrayed even though many others said they suspected he was simply pandering to the left for votes. HRC and Obama play on the same court but he has a bit more integrity than HRH. Well, alot more. He's not nearly as messy as she is.
Obama, is for the most part, is part of the establishment but with less sleaze.
Still doesn't change the fact that he wouldn't be pissed off that Hill did some really slick, underhanded stuff WHILE she was his SOS.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)sheshe2
(83,793 posts)Way to go nc4bo....
Armstead
(47,803 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)You honestly think 2 term undistinguished Senator Clinton was the most qualified foreign policy person available to Obama?
There are other govt. positions she would have been more qualified for, but she was padding her resume for her present run, and Obama went along.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Anyone.
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)She was a trainwreck for us and for the victim nations and peoples her policies impacted.
She owns Libya, just for starters.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Are you calling the President a liar when he talks about his friendship and how he admires Secretary Clinton?
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)I didn't see the 60 Minutes interview, so can't speak to anything said there, but I see that it's dated 2013.
His recent statements aren't flattering.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)He released a statement through his spokesperson like last week. Have you been following the primary election at all?
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)It's the Dem Backscratching Club in action.
revmclaren
(2,524 posts)Who was that again who wanted that?
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Nobody wanted anybody "Primaried".
amborin
(16,631 posts)campaign debts; it's all documented many times over
B Calm
(28,762 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Obama didnt.
sheshe2
(83,793 posts)So many here dropped him immediately after the election. I find it amusing many use him now to TRY to make a point. They evolved, they are the grown ups in the room that want the greater good of this country. They have a mutual respect for each other and this country. So sorry you can't see that.
They are the ones that are trying to build our party up and make this world a better place.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)Thanks for this article. Its pretty spot on. You can't win the Democratic primary with such poor numbers among Black voters.
TM99
(8,352 posts)will be what happens when minority voters realize that she lied and pandered. She will harm us just as much now as Bill did in the 1990's.
It doesn't matter your skin tone, we are all easily manipulated, slow to learn lessons, and forgetful of the past.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)What has been seen is Bernie's failure with Black voters.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Bernie's reputation for the eyes of the "the black community."
You think the #berniesoblack was an organic thing? Astroturf. Somewhat successful astroturf.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)And a Democrat surely can't win a general election without black votes.
Meteor Man
(385 posts)Are you implying black voters will not support Bernie in thr GE?
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)I get that Hillary won the black vote. Bernie just didn't connect with black voters. I get that. But to suggest that he doesn't care about black people or didn't try to win their votes or just wasn't on their side on the issues is just plain wrong. Did this guy even follow the campaign? This kind of piling on is totally untrue and unnecessary.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)If I recall just a few years ago several southern
states wanted even to get out of the Union.
Do you call that progressive or even liberal?
Mind you, that same sentiment came up in
Kansas as well, but that is more of an exception
of the rule.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Most of the Democratic support in the south is from Blacks.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but wit this, myself, I am starting to feel that the D side does not want my vote either. I am not the right kind of POC... feel better now? Good news, I am already an independent.
And this is one of the many reasons. Congrats.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)They can keep electing "firsts" and checking boxes and sell us all down the river while providing illusory "progress".
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)you are effectively pinning poor whites and poor blacks against each other... you should be quite proud of yourself...
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Btw, Dolores Huerta endorsed Hillary Clinton.
TM99
(8,352 posts)because comments about the South were not about AA's. It was about the fact that the South is conservative as a whole, will never go blue, and some of her AA support are no better than the GOP we all supposedly loath.
Tell me again how many AA Democrats in NC who are Clinton endorsers voted for the LGBT bathroom bill? I will wait until you look up that sorry little fun fact.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)I support what he did and what he stands for.
I sure as shit did not support him lying and implying that Sanders was not a part of the civil rights movement.
But really this has zero to do with my comment, and you know it.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)John Lewis was referring to Bernie's civil right activism in the South. Bernie was mostly active in Chicago and his University. Bernie would be the first person to tell you that he wasn't involved in the Freedom rides, protests, and marches in the South.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You are mind reading in an attempt to excuse his behavior.
He was conscious and purposeful in his speech. On the surface, he implied Sanders was not active and the Clintons were.
He had to save face by apologizing and clearing it up.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)There were 1000's and 1000's of people...sorry, he probably never met him. John Lewis was one of the leaders in the movement, and headed up different parts of it. Bernie was one, of 1000's, who was fighting the good fight, but not in the higher parts of it. Why is it that this is so hard to understand? It's OK that John Lewis didn't know him, it doesn't take away from what Bernie did. I think you all hear what you want to and not was actually said. SMH
TM99
(8,352 posts)It wasn't about the truth. It was the artful smear before SC declaring that Sanders was not a civil rights activist because he didn't see or know of him with an equal implication that the Clintons were involved.
No we heard exactly what was said, that was the problem. And the only ones who have dismissed Sanders involvement has been the Clinton crowd, and as a fucking bi-racial man whose parents also were involved in the civil rights movement in the South (and yes, they did know John Lewis!), I despise such craven tactics.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)of the question and answer session.
Try again.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Clinton but do not support LGBT citizens in NC?
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/eleven-dems-voted-for-house-bill-2-we-called-to-ask-why/Content?oid=5012684
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)Clinton supporters, at least some, are very much not.
Which brings us full circle. Yes, there are those that do and those that don't. And there is a greater likelihood of support in what we call 'blue' states. In 'red' states, not so much.
It was not about AA's in the south. It was about Democrats winning there, especially in the GE.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...and everything to do with only a couple-three states in the South being swing states.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... Southern conservative states Sanders won in?
P.S. This question usually gets ignored....
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts):patriot
dchill
(38,505 posts)about Bernie Sanders anymore!
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)dchill
(38,505 posts)Thanks so much. Nevertheless, I'm sure that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, knows what Bernie meant. All the rest are consumed with their Hillary addiction. Hell, I'll bet even you know that those states won't soon be blue. Yep. You do.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The irony here is that clinton won Kentucky the last primary, and is expected to win it this time. But the moment someone suggests bernie might do wel lthere, under the bus it goes as "WHITE AND RACIST!"
Along with every. Single. State that Bernie has won. Or even states associated with or favorable to him. This has been going on since before even a single vote was cast, when Sheshe2 tried to blame Bernie for slavery in Virginia and police abuses in Chicago. It's been a constant refrain that because Vermont is mostly white, that hte entire state is completely racist and worthless.
So spare me the hand-wringing with this opportunistic, exploitative BS.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)I'm so damned tired of this bullshit.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)to have a thread here that mentions people of color and not have a bunch of histrionic posts that miss the main point. I hope. Maybe some day.
I'll just say k & r to the original story. Have a good weekend everyone.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Meteor Man
(385 posts)Your post confuses the issue of whether the front loading of the primary had a bandwagon effect with the entirely different issue of Black Lives Matter.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)The south is horribly conservative, my only family from there refused to marry my wife and I because she was black...and he was a f@cking preacher. I did not talk with him again until a single time a few weeks before he died. My own family did not vote for Obama because they would not vote for a black man. 8 or 9 of the worst states for the lgbt community are all in the south, several in NC voted for the anti-lgbt bill...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/25/1506355/-NC-HB2-Anti-LGBT-Bill-The-Roll-Call-Vote-And-Time-To-Shame-Some-Bad-Democrats
They are fighting taking down their flag, the they still had laws on the books banning interracial marriage, for F's sake. Our own party under Bill in Arkansas failed unions...that is what he means. Democrats (white ones I knew) will not vote for anyone progressive or another race like Jewish or Black...they are afraid they will get shot or lose (again anecdotal). In the bible belt, I know my Jewish friends did not always have the easiest time. The southern democrats are far more conservative than some other areas, so he had a fight against that, the media blackout, some weird things going on with Hillary supporters supposedly sabotaging his campaign, and the fact a unheard man was suddenly against the Clinton machine that had name brand recognition in the south. A place not know for being open to Jewish activists (Mississippi burning). He had little time and funds to make any significant impact. He did have campaigning stops in places like Texas, and had surrogates do out-reach in Arkansas.
One thing I learned yesterday should also not be ignored. BLM targeted Bernie because they knew his followers were more likely to be swayed by their cause since they were more in to social justice...and they immediately did take up the cause in his speeches after, and despite all of the racism claims against him adn his followers, he has yet to give up on the message. The media can call him and paint him how they want (like when they tried to claim he was not arrested, or did not march, or that everyone protested back then), but Bernie has and always will care about all of us no matter race, creed, orientation, gender...you get the picture.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Romney's approximate margin of victory in each of the states he won in 2012:
1) Utah: 48 points
2) Wyoming: 41 points
3) Oklahoma: 34 points
4) Idaho: 32 points
5) West Virginia: 27 points
6) Arkansas: 24 points
7) Nebraska: 23 points
8) Kentucky: 22 points (22.7)
9) Alabama: 22 points (22.3)
10) Kansas: 22 points (22.2)
11) Tennessee: 20 points (20.5)
12) North Dakota: 20 points (19.8)
13) South Dakota: 18 points
14) Louisiana: 17 points
15) Texas: 16 points
16) Alaska: 14 points (14.0)
17) Montana: 14 points (13.5)
18) Mississippi: 12 points
19) South Carolina: 11 points (10.6)
20) Indiana: 11 points (10.5)
21) Arizona: 10 points (10.1)
22) Missouri: 10 points (9.6)
23) Georgia: 8 points
24) North Carolina: 2 points
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Disproportionately selecting states from any one part of the country to go first in the primary process does have a distorting effect on it.
Which part of the country that is beside the point (it's actually Iowa and New Hampshire, in the Northeast, that get the biggest unfair advantage).
And always making it the same part of the country aggravates that.
If you insist on a time-distributed primary, it would be fairer to cycle the order states vote in between primaries, and ensure that the early ones are distributed evenly around the country. Or, more extremely, have people vote by first letter of surname or last digit of SS number or something, all across the country.
But Iowa and New Hampshire would stamp on that, of course.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Plus, the 'reddest' states in the US are being won by Sanders and not Clinton. That said, we need to remember that the Democratic electorate within a state is not necessarily representative of that state's overall electorate (that goes for South Carolina as well as Utah).
I don't think any state should hold as much sway as IA and NH do. One alternative would be having 4 groups of 12-13 states (from various regions) vote every month and a half or so. The order in which the groups vote could rotate each election cycle (or the groups could change every election cycle). I'd have polls open from Thursday through Saturday to increase turnout. I'd also require that candidates meet a certain threshold following the first (or second) round of 12-13 primaries. For instance, anyone below 10% must drop out. Otherwise, the various alternatives to the frontrunner (assuming there is one) simply split the vote, which only helps the frontrunner (not an issue this year for Democrats but it has been in the past and certainly has been an issue this year for Republicans).
I'd do away with caucuses. I have mixed feelings about whether primaries should be closed or open. On one hand, I'm not big on labels and don't think someone should be supported simply because they have a 'D' next to their name. On the other hand, open primaries are ripe for manipulation. If you have no intention of voting for the Democratic candidate in November, regardless of who that person is, but you want the Democratic nomination process to be hotly contested, you can vote for the underdog in an open Democratic primary.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... who's been paying attention understands this.