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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

What a weird thread this has become.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

Of course a David Brock propaganda site like Blue Nation Review is going to say how awesome 3rd way is for minorities and how terrible Bernie is. But that doesn't make it true.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

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.

-What. The. . Shouldn't the guy pointing out sh**t's ed up be getting more votes from the downtrodden than the gal championed by ing Wall Street whose only message was "America is already great"? Not denying the reality of your experience (80%+ of Blacks voted HRC), just pointing out how outrageously illogical it smells to me. It's hard to verbalize because it does not make a whit of ing sense.

[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.

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?

Your childish personal attack aside, you can rationalize all you like, the fact remains the Republicans voted for an African American in this primary, the Democrats did not.

The Democrats, who have for generations had the support of 90% of the black vote, did not see fit to nominate a black candidate for the Vice Presidency, not even from 1972 to 2004.

Obviously, the Democrats have long taken the black vote for granted.

[ApatheticAustrian]

i am happy to see the other conservatives and republicans over here trying to suggest, the democrats must play HIGHER-LEVEL identity politics to win more elections.

much appreciated.

[Famous Mortimer]

Only the very financially privileged have the luxury of ignoring economic policy and voting based on how many trans tumblr posts a candidate reblogged.

Poor Black people did not vote for Hillary Clinton based on her constant racial self flagellation. They voted for her based on name recognition. Just like most poor White people voted for Trump based on name recognition.

If Sanders had won the nomination, he would have won the same percentage of the Black vote as Hillary did (and Obama did, and John Kerry did, and Al Gore did, and Bill did). Because they vote based on economic interest and it's in their economic interests to vote for the Democratic Party.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

I would agree with this except it's not an issue of Black voters (social justice) vs. White voters (economic justice). It's actually an issue of Black voters (economic justice for Blacks) vs. White voters (economic justice for everyone). Poor Black people don't care about SJW/intersectional crap. That's just window dressing to keep a small number of college Whites from going to the left-wing.

[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.

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?

Your childish personal attack aside, you can rationalize all you like, the fact remains the Republicans voted for an African American in this primary, the Democrats did not.

The Democrats, who have for generations had the support of 90% of the black vote, did not see fit to nominate a black candidate for the Vice Presidency, not even from 1972 to 2004.

Obviously, the Democrats have long taken the black vote for granted.

Reported

[justfollowingtheelections]

Trump received more of the African-American vote than Romney or McCain.

No one thinks he'll win a majority... but if Democrats adopt a "ignore race issues for now, focus only on economics" strategy then we could see another 5-10% move to the Republicans. And that would be deadly for the Democrats.

Yeah, African-Americans are not affected at all by economic issues.  What an idiotic and ignorant comment.