63% of African Americans feel taken for granted by the democratic party

[Simfan34]

I have been saying for years and years that the Democratic Party has taken the African American vote for granted for generations.

Let me ask the powers that be in the Democratic Party

In spite of the fact that African Americans have been your most loyal constituency for generations, not once have you seen fit that an African American should be on the Presidential ticket.

Why?

Winfield, my friend, you've lost me here.

[Famous Mortimer]

Leading questions.

I doubt 70% of the general public even know who Jeff Sessions is and the percentage of Black people would be even lower, since they tend be less well educated.

Truth is, Blacks do appreciate the Democratic Party. That is shown when they vote 90% Democrat. Why wouldn't they appreciate the Democrats? Blacks disproportionately enjoy the benefits of America's limited welfare state, which is means tested specifically to target them.

It's non-Blacks who should fell left behind.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It's problems like this that enabled Trump's victory. The election should have been handed to the Democrats on a silver platter. The problem was that many people had little confidence in the Democratic Party, including people belonging to that party's base.

[Maxwell]

It will probably get worse if the party drifts further left.

why would that be? if they drift left the party may actually begin to fight for criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and other issues that matter to all voters, but particularly African Americans who have historically been treated poorly by law enforcement (supported, of course, by the right) and have been economically behind whites and even Hispanics.

by the way, Republicans don't get to talk about this subject. They sold African American voters down the river as soon as they could in order to embrace a new emerging voter group in the form of disenfranchised dixiecrats.

[Famous Mortimer]

Whether the Democratic Party drifts to the right or the left, Blacks will still keep voting for the Democratic Party 90% of the time if the Democrats are still committed to giving them welfare. Since both wings of the Democratic Party believe in this (the left-wing wants to give welfare to everyone including Blacks and the right-wing to no one except Blacks), it won't be an issue.

[Lincoln Republican]

I have been saying for years and years that the Democratic Party has taken the African American vote for granted for generations.

Let me ask the powers that be in the Democratic Party

In spite of the fact that African Americans have been your most loyal constituency for generations, not once have you seen fit that an African American should be on the Presidential ticket.

Why?

Winfield, my friend, you've lost me here.

Confusing I know, yes, that is my fault, but I was actually thinking of the Vice Presidency not given to an African American by the Democratic Party over all these decades, even just starting from the 1970's let's say.  Then you have the 1980's, 1990's, 2000 election, 2004 election.

That's nine elections.

You would think somewhere along the line after generations of African American extremely loyal support they would have been able to give the Vice Presidential nomination to an African American somewhere along the line.

I apologize to the forum for not making myself clear in the first place.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, I was actually referring to the Vice Presidency.

They've had since the 1800's to do it.

And what about your party? I don't recall Republicans ever having a serious Black VP contender.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Democrats don't need to and should not ignore or deemphasize economic issues or racial justice issues. It is possible to focus on both, especially considering that there are quite a few potentially winning issues, such as affordable housing, that fall into both categories. Ellison would have been good at this (I know, I know, muh strategizing and fundraising role, but it's not like there's any other obvious policy trendsetter for the Democratic Party right now).

[Maxwell]

Whether the Democratic Party drifts to the right or the left, Blacks will still keep voting for the Democratic Party 90% of the time if the Democrats are still committed to giving them welfare. Since both wings of the Democratic Party believe in this (the left-wing wants to give welfare to everyone including Blacks and the right-wing to no one except Blacks), it won't be an issue.

what are you advocating then? ending a social safety net altogether?

[Famous Mortimer]

Whether the Democratic Party drifts to the right or the left, Blacks will still keep voting for the Democratic Party 90% of the time if the Democrats are still committed to giving them welfare. Since both wings of the Democratic Party believe in this (the left-wing wants to give welfare to everyone including Blacks and the right-wing to no one except Blacks), it won't be an issue.

what are you advocating then? ending a social safety net altogether?

No. Where did you get that? I said nothing about my own views at all. I'm with the left-wing Democrats on this one. I just don't think moving in that direction would make any difference with Black voters. It would help win a lot of White voters though. If Democrats got White voters welfare, White voters would vote for them. Need proof? Black people are the proof.

[Lincoln Republican]

Well, I was actually referring to the Vice Presidency.

They've had since the 1800's to do it.

And what about your party? I don't recall Republicans ever having a serious Black VP contender.

This is true, I will admit, however, if Republicans nominated an African American candidate for Vice President, Democrats would scream tokenism, and African Americans would cry "Uncle Tom."

I myself would be delighted to see the Republicans nominate an African American for Vice President, even President, if they were qualified, someone along the lines of Colin Powell, for example.

1996, despite not standing in the race, Colin Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.

This does show the Republican Party is open to an African American Vice Presidential candidate.  I am not aware of Democrats voting for an African American candidate in the New Hampshire Vice Presidential primary.

[Blackacre]

Well, I was actually referring to the Vice Presidency.

They've had since the 1800's to do it.

And what about your party? I don't recall Republicans ever having a serious Black VP contender.

This is true, I will admit, however, if Republicans nominated an African American candidate for Vice President, Democrats would scream tokenism, and African Americans would cry "Uncle Tom."

I myself would be delighted to see the Republicans nominate an African American for Vice President, even President, if they were qualified, someone along the lines of Colin Powell, for example.

1996, despite not standing in the race, Colin Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.

This does show the Republican Party is open to an African American Vice Presidential candidate.  I am not aware of Democrats voting for an African American candidate in the New Hampshire Vice Presidential primary.

I am not aware of Democrats HAVING a New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary

[Lincoln Republican]

Well, I was actually referring to the Vice Presidency.

They've had since the 1800's to do it.

And what about your party? I don't recall Republicans ever having a serious Black VP contender.

This is true, I will admit, however, if Republicans nominated an African American candidate for Vice President, Democrats would scream tokenism, and African Americans would cry "Uncle Tom."

I myself would be delighted to see the Republicans nominate an African American for Vice President, even President, if they were qualified, someone along the lines of Colin Powell, for example.

1996, despite not standing in the race, Colin Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.

This does show the Republican Party is open to an African American Vice Presidential candidate.  I am not aware of Democrats voting for an African American candidate in the New Hampshire Vice Presidential primary.

I am not aware of Democrats HAVING a New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

Vice-Presidential results

A Vice-Presidential preference primary was also formerly held at the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire State Senator Jack Barnes, who won the 2008 Republican contest, co-sponsored a bill in 2009 which would eliminate the Vice Presidential preference ballot. The bill passed both houses of the state legislature and took effect in 2012.

The only time a non-incumbent won the Vice Presidential primary and then went on to be formally nominated by his or her party was in 2004, when Democratic U.S. Senator John Edwards won as a write-in candidate. Edwards, who was running for President at the time, did not actively solicit Vice Presidential votes.

In 1968, the sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic Vice Presidential primary, and then later won the Presidential nomination after the sitting President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped out of the race.

[Adam Griffin]

The black vote comprises 25% of the national Democratic electorate, 25% of elected Democratic House members (and 20% of all Democratic members of Congress), and has definitively decided the Democratic nominee in every contest going back to at least 2004 - arguably all the way back to 1992. Additionally and at the state level, black representation (as a share of Democratic voter coalitions) in most state legislatures where their population is a non-negligible percentage is at parity or exceeds their share of the Democratic coalition for said state. In terms of constituency size combined with propensity for bloc voting (in both primary and general), there is no remaining constituency within the Democratic Party that has as much influence as black voters.

Everything - messaging, resource allocation, redistricting decisions, policy proposals - is influenced by this reality. In fact, it would be a fool who doesn't realize that a large portion of the current unrest in the Party over strategy and ideology is being influenced by this; Democrats have been increasingly relying on narratives that largely tie into the prioritized political preferences of many black voters (i.e. social justice) at the expense of the prioritized political preferences of many non-black voters (i.e. economic justice). It has been an easy path to walk down, considering that most special interests and big donors to the Democratic Party prefer a message that prioritizes social issues over economic ones; combined with what the largest single bloc predominantly prefers, it's had a good run.

However, I find it difficult to believe that the sentiment shared by black Democrats (feeling taken for granted) wouldn't be just as palpable among the Democratic coalition at-large in a simple survey. The primary difference, of course, is that not all groups and ideologies within the Democratic Party have been getting ignored equally.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You guys are aware NH VP primary, which had now been abolished, was a meaningless contests no one campaigned in? Just look at the list of past "winners".

[Higgs]

But they certainly aren't going to be supporting Trump in 2020. The presidential primary process is heavily weighted toward the black vote and almost intentionally so. Strategically, blacks have plenty of clout in the Democratic Party, which is hardly being taken for granted.

"You guys aren't actually being taken for granted"

Good strategy, I'm sure that kind of message will resonate, way to win them over.

[MasterJedi]

But they certainly aren't going to be supporting Trump in 2020. The presidential primary process is heavily weighted toward the black vote and almost intentionally so. Strategically, blacks have plenty of clout in the Democratic Party, which is hardly being taken for granted.

"You guys aren't actually being taken for granted"

Good strategy, I'm sure that kind of message will resonate, way to win them over.

They are being taken for granted, but the Dems are for what they want in the end. Republicans stance is "black people are thugs/lazy/taking all the benefit money" that leads to "cut all the programs, drug test them, don't do anything for them but tell them they should vote for us!".

[Famous Mortimer]

But they certainly aren't going to be supporting Trump in 2020. The presidential primary process is heavily weighted toward the black vote and almost intentionally so. Strategically, blacks have plenty of clout in the Democratic Party, which is hardly being taken for granted.

"You guys aren't actually being taken for granted"

Good strategy, I'm sure that kind of message will resonate, way to win them over.

Win them over? They vote 90% Democrat in every election! They are already won over.

They are won over because the Democrats provide them with social programs. As long as Democrats keep doing that (which they will categorically), message is irrelevant.

[bilaps]

LOL at greater percentage considering Russia hacking bigger issue than Obama legacy

[Higgs]

But they certainly aren't going to be supporting Trump in 2020. The presidential primary process is heavily weighted toward the black vote and almost intentionally so. Strategically, blacks have plenty of clout in the Democratic Party, which is hardly being taken for granted.

"You guys aren't actually being taken for granted"

Good strategy, I'm sure that kind of message will resonate, way to win them over.

Win them over? They vote 90% Democrat in every election! They are already won over.

They are won over because the Democrats provide them with social programs. As long as Democrats keep doing that (which they will categorically), message is irrelevant.

They aren't won over if 60%+ of them feel taken for granted. And now you're falling pray to that same strain of logic, "They'll vote for us as long as we give them this one issue, who cares if the vast majority aren't currently satisfied."

This kind of thinking is setting the Democrats up to lose a loyal constituency. Maybe they won't vote Republican, but they'll become disenfranchised and vote in much lower numbers, as they did with Hillary.

[Famous Mortimer]

But they certainly aren't going to be supporting Trump in 2020. The presidential primary process is heavily weighted toward the black vote and almost intentionally so. Strategically, blacks have plenty of clout in the Democratic Party, which is hardly being taken for granted.

"You guys aren't actually being taken for granted"

Good strategy, I'm sure that kind of message will resonate, way to win them over.

Win them over? They vote 90% Democrat in every election! They are already won over.

They are won over because the Democrats provide them with social programs. As long as Democrats keep doing that (which they will categorically), message is irrelevant.

They aren't won over if 60%+ of them feel taken for granted. And now you're falling pray to that same strain of logic, "They'll vote for us as long as we give them this one issue, who cares if the vast majority aren't currently satisfied."

This kind of thinking is setting the Democrats up to lose a loyal constituency. Maybe they won't vote Republican, but they'll become disenfranchised and vote in much lower numbers, as they did with Hillary.

This is a BS survey designed to get a bad result "Hello, yes, have the Democrats made your life perfect? No? Do you think the cowardly Democrats have done enough to fight Trump and his ties to Russian dictator Putin? How do you feel about Trump nominating racist Jeff Sessions to be in charge of the police?"

and the "one issue" you talk about is giving them a ton of cheap housing and free food.

[AtorBoltox]

Well, I was actually referring to the Vice Presidency.

They've had since the 1800's to do it.

And what about your party? I don't recall Republicans ever having a serious Black VP contender.

This is true, I will admit, however, if Republicans nominated an African American candidate for Vice President, Democrats would scream tokenism, and African Americans would cry "Uncle Tom."

I myself would be delighted to see the Republicans nominate an African American for Vice President, even President, if they were qualified, someone along the lines of Colin Powell, for example.

1996, despite not standing in the race, Colin Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.

This does show the Republican Party is open to an African American Vice Presidential candidate.  I am not aware of Democrats voting for an African American candidate in the New Hampshire Vice Presidential primary.

I am not aware of Democrats HAVING a New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary

Vice-Presidential results

A Vice-Presidential preference primary was also formerly held at the New Hampshire primary. New Hampshire State Senator Jack Barnes, who won the 2008 Republican contest, co-sponsored a bill in 2009 which would eliminate the Vice Presidential preference ballot. The bill passed both houses of the state legislature and took effect in 2012.

The only time a non-incumbent won the Vice Presidential primary and then went on to be formally nominated by his or her party was in 2004, when Democratic U.S. Senator John Edwards won as a write-in candidate. Edwards, who was running for President at the time, did not actively solicit Vice Presidential votes.

In 1968, the sitting Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic Vice Presidential primary, and then later won the Presidential nomination after the sitting President Lyndon B. Johnson dropped out of the race.

Holy sh*t, you're utterly insane. So according to you having nominated and elected the first african american president isn't good enough because a black person has never won a meaningless contest that no one votes in or has even heard about?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It will probably get worse if the party drifts further left.

why would that be? if they drift left the party may actually begin to fight for criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and other issues that matter to all voters, but particularly African Americans who have historically been treated poorly by law enforcement (supported, of course, by the right) and have been economically behind whites and even Hispanics.

by the way, Republicans don't get to talk about this subject. They sold African American voters down the river as soon as they could in order to embrace a new emerging voter group in the form of disenfranchised dixiecrats.

I think he means dems moving towards the bernie wing.

This is not surprising. The interests to which HRC, Obama, and much of the Democratic leadership are committed aren't really any better on issues of racial justice than they are on issues of economic justice. Consider how devastating the housing crises was for black homeowners: Where was the Democratic Party when thousands of African American families were losing their homes? Major financial interests were given higher priority than preserving the wealth of these working- and middle-class families. Why was no one held to account for this?

Anyone inclined to default to inane Clinton-Sanders fault lines should note that the priorities identified in this study - from Social Security, to criminal justice reform, to electoral reform - hew closer to those emphasized by the Sanders campaign than Clinton's corporate identitarianism.

From what I intuit, the problem with the sanders campaign for minorities was that:

1. Tone, the sanders feel is decently good at appealing to people who on some mental level were used to being the majority, normal, in power culturally, just accepted, Its hard to verbalize, but I hope you get what I mean(as well as ideologues who want to be true leftist, the kind of person that puts on a G or S avatar to show how left they are. I was one of those people). It was rather awful, however, at appealing to groups who were culturally a minority, who have dealt with discrimination, people who feel like they're on the bottom culturally. eg in the primary, women who faced gender discrimination were much more likely to vote for Clinton then those that hadn't. http://bluenationreview.com/gender-discrimination-a-key-factor-in-support-for-hillary/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/11/in-6-graphs-heres-why-young-women-dont-support-hillary-clinton-as-much-as-older-women-do/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.1a799710c66c

I can personally attest to this pattern, and say that as my transition has progressed, the strength of my sanders support waned. I think I only kept supporting him for a while after my transition because I had supported him before and still had the cognitive biases, the privileged, out-of-touch worldview I had didn't go away immediately, the experiences that led to me losing said worldview took time to happen, I still am quite lucky on that scale(I've been hit enough to be able to understand and picture what it feels like for people who have it on a more extreme level, I've had a few instances of sexual harassment(not many, but two or three incidents on the bus are enough to change your perspective; I don't think I would feel too safe in a group of frat guys now; that wouldn't have been the case pre-transition, I've realized that I would be judged much more harshly for the caustic sarcasm and snark I would likely display as a politician, general assertiveness, etc as a woman then as a "man), etc.

If I had transitioned a year earlier, I probably would never have supported bernie(esp considering the resistance my transition would have faced at my middle school). I wouldn't have hated him as bitterly as now at the beginning, more a "whatever" feel.

Sanders and his die-hard supporters don't get the unique struggles of african americans, of latinos, of the lgbtq+ community, etc. When they talk about it, they come off as people who endorse many of the talking points on a partisan line while not understanding them with a proper depth. They seem blind to the issues.

Clinton doesn't come off that way. The Obama wing of "the establishment" doesn't come off that way. They aren't perfect on these issues, but they seem to understand them better then the sanders wing. This idea that Clinton was this corporate bought thing, and the muh evil wallstreet owns the democrats idea is very much a bernie wing one. Clinton did talk about economic issues. In her rally's etc. The media mostly drowned everything out for donalds outrageous scandels and muh emails because that got better ratings and fit established narratives, but if you watched Clinton speak for any length of time, you would hear a lot of economic populism, albeit a form less tailored to the bernie wing of the democrats. The ads were focused on trumps character, which is so terrifying and awful that it is quite understandable to think that focusing on that was the most effective route to take(and the disturbing nature of that sh**t coming from a major presidential candidate likely created an "oh god, we need to kill this with fire" feeling.

In case I didn't make this clear, the economic message of the sanders campaign isn't effective at inspiring voters who have faced discrimination and hardship for their identity.

[Famous Mortimer]

It will probably get worse if the party drifts further left.

why would that be? if they drift left the party may actually begin to fight for criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and other issues that matter to all voters, but particularly African Americans who have historically been treated poorly by law enforcement (supported, of course, by the right) and have been economically behind whites and even Hispanics.

by the way, Republicans don't get to talk about this subject. They sold African American voters down the river as soon as they could in order to embrace a new emerging voter group in the form of disenfranchised dixiecrats.

I think he means dems moving towards the bernie wing.

This is not surprising. The interests to which HRC, Obama, and much of the Democratic leadership are committed aren't really any better on issues of racial justice than they are on issues of economic justice. Consider how devastating the housing crises was for black homeowners: Where was the Democratic Party when thousands of African American families were losing their homes? Major financial interests were given higher priority than preserving the wealth of these working- and middle-class families. Why was no one held to account for this?

Anyone inclined to default to inane Clinton-Sanders fault lines should note that the priorities identified in this study - from Social Security, to criminal justice reform, to electoral reform - hew closer to those emphasized by the Sanders campaign than Clinton's corporate identitarianism.

From what I intuit, the problem with the sanders campaign for minorities was that:

1. Tone, the sanders feel is decently good at appealing to people who on some mental level were used to being the majority, normal, in power culturally, just accepted, Its hard to verbalize, but I hope you get what I mean(as well as ideologues who want to be true leftist, the kind of person that puts on a G or S avatar to show how left they are. I was one of those people). It was rather awful, however, at appealing to groups who were culturally a minority, who have dealt with discrimination, people who feel like they're on the bottom culturally. eg in the primary, women who faced gender discrimination were much more likely to vote for Clinton then those that hadn't. http://bluenationreview.com/gender-discrimination-a-key-factor-in-support-for-hillary/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/11/in-6-graphs-heres-why-young-women-dont-support-hillary-clinton-as-much-as-older-women-do/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.1a799710c66c

I can personally attest to this pattern, and say that as my transition has progressed, the strength of my sanders support waned. I think I only kept supporting him for a while after my transition because I had supported him before and still had the cognitive biases, the privileged, out-of-touch worldview I had didn't go away immediately, the experiences that led to me losing said worldview took time to happen, I still am quite lucky on that scale(I've been hit enough to be able to understand and picture what it feels like for people who have it on a more extreme level, I've had a few instances of sexual harassment(not many, but two or three incidents on the bus are enough to change your perspective; I don't think I would feel too safe in a group of frat guys now; that wouldn't have been the case pre-transition, I've realized that I would be judged much more harshly for the caustic sarcasm and snark I would likely display as a politician, general assertiveness, etc as a woman then as a "man), etc.

If I had transitioned a year earlier, I probably would never have supported bernie(esp considering the resistance my transition would have faced at my middle school). I wouldn't have hated him as bitterly as now at the beginning, more a "whatever" feel.

Sanders and his die-hard supporters don't get the unique struggles of african americans, of latinos, of the lgbtq+ community, etc. When they talk about it, they come off as people who endorse many of the talking points on a partisan line while not understanding them with a proper depth. They seem blind to the issues.

Clinton doesn't come off that way. The Obama wing of "the establishment" doesn't come off that way. They aren't perfect on these issues, but they seem to understand them better then the sanders wing. This idea that Clinton was this corporate bought thing, and the muh evil wallstreet owns the democrats idea is very much a bernie wing one. Clinton did talk about economic issues. In her rally's etc. The media mostly drowned everything out for donalds outrageous scandels and muh emails because that got better ratings and fit established narratives, but if you watched Clinton speak for any length of time, you would hear a lot of economic populism, albeit a form less tailored to the bernie wing of the democrats. The ads were focused on trumps character, which is so terrifying and awful that it is quite understandable to think that focusing on that was the most effective route to take(and the disturbing nature of that sh**t coming from a major presidential candidate likely created an "oh god, we need to kill this with fire" feeling.

In case I didn't make this clear, the economic message of the sanders campaign isn't effective at inspiring voters who have faced discrimination and hardship for their identity.

"Sanders is better on this issues than Clinton and Obama but I hate Sanders because I don't feel like he pities me enough on a personal level."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I guess Scarlet has changed her mind on whether emotions and narratives are appropriate drivers for political action.