BLM is clearly being strategic, a very smart and effective tactic. Do people not understand that you start by going to people who are supposed to be your allies, and then (after the field has cleared a bit so you're not going after 16 "major" and a zillion more minor candidates) start taking on people you know will never help you, and will try to paint you as everything from "thugs" to racists? The Dems should be welcoming BLM, inviting them to come join them at rallies, etc. And no matter who you support, why take it as an attack rather than an opportunity to be a better ally?

and pretty much what I was guessing happened a couple weeks ago.



http://election.democraticunderground.com/128037296

^snip^

Is it possible that BLM was planning on using disruption tactics on all the major Presidential candidates and just picked who they thought was the easiest target first?

If so, I think it was smart to do Bernie first. They did it at an event that was not one of his rallies, so that may have made the event an easier target. Bernie gave up the mic without a fight, one might even say politely (something a nut like Trump has sworn never to do). He also responded quickly in his messaging, his staffing and the issues addressed on his website. This success got them some media coverage and helped them refine their tactics.

Then they tried a Clinton event, but with her security that may be extremely difficult. They did get some kind of meeting with her out of it, so at least that was something. We will need to see if her campaign makes any changes because of it.

Then they tried J.E.B. and pretty much made him look foolish. He is now in a tough spot and it will be interesting to see how he responds.

As a Bernie supporter I am not crazy about the negative news cycles because of the BLM protesters, but I can see why they would pick him first. I think you need to admire their strategy even if your candidate was on the wrong end of it.