AA only make up around 19% of total Dem voters. Evangelicals do not vote in bloc though. They tend to spread their vote diluting their impact. AA often do vote in blocs.

AA are primarily in the south and typically make up larger portion of the early votes in the primary.

Esp. the South.

You are right AA have impact because of timing of these primaries. 55% of AA live in the South. Majority of states voting on Super Tuesday are in the South, thus they traditionally have huge impact on primary elections because most times the election is wrapped up by Super Tuesday. Beyond super Tuesday, AA are small fraction of the voting in West/Mid-West/North East as they make up ~15% of the total population.

Evangelicals are found throughout the country, although they are more proportional in the South. The problem is they do not vote in bloc, thus limiting their influence. This is why you don't see President Huckbee or Ted Cruz.

I would wonder what side I was really on.

Which side where you on?

There were never any valid grounds for the claim that Bernie thought fighting racism was less important than achieving economic justice. He was always passionately committed to all justice struggles.

Please explain?

You have to have sizable (not necessarily a majority) of the African American vote to get the nomination.

The formula for a Dem presidential victory is win the female, AA, Latino vote and win 25% of the White male vote.

What should be enough of each group to win elections?

I guarantee you that in each of the last 10 elections candidates knew exactly which percentage of the white, black, Latino, Catholic, etc vote they needed.

There was a lot of discussion on this re: Romney post 2012. He though he had one of the percentages he needed, and he had hit his goal, but another demographic surprised everyone and made up the difference to beat him.

and polls are only very rough predictors

I'm voting for the least of the evils, myself. But that's just me.

I'm also not voting for her just because she keeps telling me all the things she's done for women. I google it and she has a lot of blood of women and children on her hands. The Honduras coupe that she helped put together... still killing mass people because the country is so destabilized. And it caused the mass refugee crisis from Honduras.

But you know what? That's substance. And I don't think you're interested in that when you vote. I think its about showing everyone the blacks can sway and election and you don't give a damn who it would be they are swaying it to.

Good luck with that. We'll all need it.

framing it e in a disingenuous manner avoids that truth but helps nothing

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 02:44 AM - Edit history (1)

post removed. Not related to this thread.

it was the truth I'll put it another way the Black vote is very significant within the Democratic party- it is less so within the American public as a whole

It's just insulting and wrong. 13-15% of the vote is enough to sway any election.

Your comment appears to be to brow beat the blacks into some servitude position of "you don't mean anything." I'm offended as a human, let alone a liberal.

now I'm brow beating Blacks into servitude I pointed out voting facts and I do not appreciate false claim or disingenuous bile being flung my way so someone else can appear whatever it is your attempting to appear here

Please cease attempting to prove your own liberalism at my expense

That is why I am so offended by your comment.

that considers Blacks her personal firewall now that's demeaning at least IMO

Would not have won without the black vote, period. A typical ceiling for a Democrat president is 40% of the white vote. We depend on running up huge margins with minorities to beat republicans. You should know this.

1 vote when it comes to the GE this thingy called the electoral collage gets in the way of that with it's state by state winner take all approach which sadly results in this of the 6 Southern States with highest Black populations

Georgia 31.4%, Alabama 26.38%, Virginia 19.91%, Tennessee 16.78%, Arkansas 15.76%, Texas 11.91% 5 are pretty securely in the GOP's pocket as they were in '08 and '12 the only exception is Virginia

I've been accused of diminishing the Black vote not so it is our election system that does that in Red States or as I said when it comes to the Primaries the Black vote is very important however when it comes to the national elections or the GE not so much

eta sadly the same is true of South Carolina the last time that state went to the Democratic party was 1976

thank you for providing an opportunity to explain

A lower then normal minority turnout or the Repub candidate getting a higher then normal percentage of the minority vote means defeat for the Dem candidate.

Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004 while Gore got 90% in 2000. In 2000, Gore got 62% of the Hispanic vote while in 2004, Kerry got 53%.

If you look at the white vote, Gore got 42% and Kerry got 41%.

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

and it's winner take all effect has lost us elections moreover in most of the Southern States with the highest Black populations the GOP wins out

Georgia 31.4%, Alabama 26.38%, Virginia 19.91%, Tennessee 16.78%, Arkansas 15.76%, Texas 11.91% 5 are pretty securely in the GOP's pocket as they were in '08 and '12 the only exception is Virginia also note South Carolina the last time that state went to the Democratic Party was 1976, it went to the GOP in all GE other years

so when it comes to primary votes Democratic Party only yes the Black vote matter very much and can make or break who the nominee is

So should us Latinos. But we show up, hoping to get more this time. We rationalize why we didn't before. Dang, we are too good for this party.

rather than just trying to "make a point."

I think he surprised himself and decided to change course somewhere along the way.

In that he has been wildly successful. When he realized just how much the message resonated he got serious about winning.

Bernie campaigned for Jesse Jackson twice in 1984 and 1988 and was key for delivering Vermont in the primary. Bernie couldn't get his endorsement. All Jesse did for Bernie was stay on the sidelines and not endorse Hillary.

Bernie also went to see Al Sharpton. So far, he hasn't endorsed anyone.

Bernie knows these guys. He formed the Progressive caucus and they caucused often with the Black caucus. In 2004, when black votes were being intentionally lost, they called an emergency meeting. Bernie was the only white to show up. From the outside, Bernie seems to have always been supportive and sympathetic to legislative issues that favored minorities. So Bernie certainly knows them.

Something is going on. I don't know what it is. I don't know what Bernie did or didn't do to have them respond this way. Or what someone else did or didn't do to affect the outcome. The thing with John Lewis seemed so uncalled for. Maybe Bernie had some sort of falling out with them. As someone said to me on the site, a number of blacks have more faith in the Clintons as someone they know.

Bernie got three congressmen. That's it.

It could be that they're just plain frightened because of who Bernie is going after. Maybe the Clintons floated something behind the scenes and they agreed. And they want to keep their distance. Who knows?

Bernie knew and reached out to them. Naivete has nothing to do with this

they don't think he has a chance to win

I think that anyone can look at the demographics of our political environment and see that it is utterly challenging for blacks, Latinos, and yes, even women, to get into the political environment and have sway. This is true even now in 2016. So there is a resolve that they don't want to lose what they've fought so hard for.

I fully believe if Sanders pulls out the nomination they will work as hard for him as they are currently working for Clinton. I don't think it's about being "afraid" of the establishment. I think they're resolved to continue making inroads in an environment detrimental to that, and they see Clinton as a useful bridge toward that.

The poor...

...nope. A poor black person or a poor woman has a much harder time than a poor white person. I know it's difficult to accept, I'm white, I don't like to accept these things, but it's true.

One thing I learned really quick was that none of them were poor.

that Bernie seems to connect with.

I think the race divide is overblown.

Yes black people overwhelmingly support Hillary but I don't get why that's like some huge controversy. Lots of white people support her too. I've never understood why people are so freaked out about this.

God forbid we talk about the issues.

Where he's decided to do no more campaigning other than a previously scheduled TV Town Hall?

...and either don't want to rock the boat, or want to protect their own spots at the corporate feed trough.
Sanders is doing us a favor by having them expose themselves.
It really is two simple questions. Is the party's future best served by handing over control to the 1%, or will it be the DEMOCRATIC party? Is the country's future best served by serving only the profit-driven interests of the 1%?
The two candidates differences on this couldn't be clearer.

But he did try. He went down south looking to build support but just couldn't attract much support.

Hillary had it all locked up for some reason. There was also a deliberate effort to drive a wedge between black voters and the bernie movement. There were concrete steps taken to sour the idea of Bernie Sanders in the black community.

It's also not true that he doesn't have support of prominent elected AA Democrats. He has 3 endorsements from Congress, and fully one third of those are black. So you see his real problem there is that he doesn't attract votes from prominent elected Democrats of any ethnicity or race.

the Clintons have formed a deep--though also flawed and complex one--with the African-American community. They're a known quantity.

Hillary was leading Obama amongst African-Americans until (1) their surrogates (Billy Shaheen, Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro) started race baiting Obama and (b) they thought Obama was for real.

Bernie says a lot of things they like, but they don't know if he is for real--can he deliver what he's promising or is it just a bunch of empty talk?

they are more vulnerable than white people are. they suffer more under Republicans than white people do.

so there will be a tendency to be more risk-averse.

Maybe it's like the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know.

but can he deliver what he's promising? how will he hold up against a rightwing blitz that really demagogues him on health care and taxes?

it requires a leap of faith. and that's a tough sell.

... as the more qualified candidate, with a wealth of experience drawn from her political roles as First Lady, a NY senator, and the SoS, along with her history of supporting the causes of minorities.

But let's just put it down to name recognition - with perhaps a soupcon of Stockholm Syndrome just for good measure.

Meaning more capable of winning the general election.

Another big issue is familiarity and comfort level. Bernie seems fuckin weird to a lot of people.

But a candidate's electability is determined by how many Democrats would vote for him/her.

I don't know of any Democrats who would consider Hillary "electable" if she didn't have the support she does. In fact, they would consider her unelectable if she didn't have that support.

Have you ever known any Dem who said, "THAT candidate stands for everything we Dems are against and has no support among us - but they're "electable" nonetheless"?

Bernie seems weird to a lot of people? Well, if you call being a Democrat-of-Convenience who wants to lead the Party he's demeaned for decades, and who promises things he knows he can't deliver "weird", I guess Bernie fills the bill.

Seen as "weird" = unelectable. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Sanders, on the other hand, has the highest rating of any Congressperson and is better liked as he is better known.

Years into a (scandal-free) Sanders presidency Democrats will be popular again. Years into a scandalous Clinton presidency (she won't win the general election, though) Democrats will be deeper into the minority.

You're backing a lame horse, Nance.

Except my "lame horse" has the support of the majority of Democrats, will be the Dem nominee, and will go on to be elected POTUS.

And guess what? All of the "she'll never win the GE" posts on DU are of no consequence to anyone in the real world.

And ya'll might take the rest of us down with you. But, I'll keep trying to stop you.

If the African-Americans were with him or even 50-50ish, he'd probably beat Hillary.

Without them, with them tilted heavily against him, there's a good chance he won't beat Hillary.

And you're right, it was the tipping point for Obama's support. They were with Hillary until after Iowa.

I think that's why Nevada was important. To further convince people that he can beat her and come out of there with some momentum to tighten the polls. But that's not what happened. Hillary is the one who is going to get the bump in the polls. With a certain loss in South Carolina, he's likely to limp into Super Tuesday not confidently looking like a winner.

He needs a game changer. Maybe the recent emails where she stabs the unions in the back trying to lobby congressmen to support the trade deals will help unions wake up.
Hillary Clinton Emails: Secret Negotiations With New York Times, Trade Bill Lobbying Revealed In Latest State Department Release

It's hard to overestimate how much damage the racially tinged attacks from Billy Shaheen, Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, etc did to Clinton with African-Americans.

John Lewis (and Black Lives Matter to some extent) incidents.

I think the one with John is pretty serious.

Those two were in the House a bunch of years together. Bernie caucused with them. They had to know each other. Bernie's voting scores with the NAACP and ACLU are higher than John's by a bit. I've read some of the congressional records and Bernie was fighting for minorities or blacks from the time he showed up.

For some reason, John doesn't feel very strongly or warm about Bernie. I don't know what happened. But whatever it is, it doesn't look fixable any time soon. And I think it's costing Bernie big time.

Maybe it's a simple as John was offended by the media ginning up what Bernie did in civil rights. When I tried to read up on it, Bernie didn't like to talk about it - he doesn't like to talk about himself. I think Bernie did enough that it was worthy of mentioning.

Anyway, we many never know what happened.

Bernie never had a chance with Lewis.

I do think the "Bernie is one of the greatest civil rights heroes ever" stuff from some of his supporters may have started to wear thin. White pols citing their civil rights era marches is almost a cliche.

so that's a BIG problem for Bernie.

"Bernie is one of the greatest civil rights heroes ever"

I can't recall seeing or hearing anything near that extreme. But I'd temper that with this: I was around in those years. It was a much different time. Segregation. Even in the north, where it wasn't as bad, it was still bad. In many social circles, you did not fraternize with blacks or you were ostracized or worse. There were not a lot of white college kids doing what Bernie did in the early 60s.

March on Washington is a little different. You're away from home. Strength and security in numbers, etc.

Clyburn: Sanders’s plan would kill black colleges
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270214-clyburn-sanderss-plan-would-kill-black-colleges

It's been his warm relations with black voters over the years that's bought her AA support. There's absolutely nothing about Hillary's own personality or actions that would ordinarily attract black voters (or anyone) to her.

to many in the black community who have been friends. including one of clinton's best friends vernon jordan.

She was always better

also he needed to go by himself and do small gatherings . he should have been doing that over many months and preferably more than a year.

he needed the give people the chance to ask him questions also .

he was never going to win the black vote but if he could get a certain percentage it would have helped to be more competitive with clinton.

... in the OP.

Dems are a diverse group, having people like Cornell West affliated with Sanders campaign turns away the comfortae level that people should feel when they're trying to get to know you

a unified coalition around common interests. That does NOT mean ignoring the needs/goals/ constituencies, but working together on common interests and also addressing those. They are not mutually exclusive and frankly I'm tired of the Clinton campaign emphasizing differences rather than commonalities.

That divising mentality isd also going to bite whoever is the nominee in the ass in the General Election.

Someone said that one of the worst aspects of this primary has been the seperation of social and economic issues. IO totally agree with that. The GFOP has been using that strategy to seperate people. We should not fall into the same trap.

You may be right about West. Personally he makes my skin crawl as a personality. But that has more to do with improvementsd that can be made.

.... doesn't sound like he wanted to build a coalition

But I said above, I think relying on him is a miscalculation by the Sanders campaign. I'm, f'ing agreeing with you on that.

But should we harp on Obama allying himself with homophobic ministers when he was running?

And Hllary's surrogates have screwed the pooch in terms of alienating constituencies too.

... legacy was our concern and not only did Sanders LITERALLY say he didn't want to do that but he also said we need a "course correction"

I can see maybe 1 out of 245534 thousand Sanders supporters who understand or admit that West was a wrong move... except Sanders doesn't think that

Why is it that Sanders Camp can't understand how NEEDLESSLY destructive the West association was?!



Also, I don't remember those homophobic ministers being surrogates and stumpers for Obama

I'm not going to waste time defending something sanders is doing that I don't agree with.

It's not that important in the larger scheme of things.

Then, Bernie himself calling for Obama to be primaried in 2012.

Strike #2!

Black people, in general, love the president. We've seen what he has gone through.

The bashing from Sanders himself, his supporters, and surrogates has not helped the candidate.

I do not think it was a good idea for Sanders to use West as a surrogate.

Must I repeat again?

And Bernie did not call for Obama to be primaried. He responded to a question ion a talk show that he thought there should be a discussion of issues in the primary. He was not trying to organize a primary challenge to defeat Obama.

He disagrees with Obama on certain things, That is allowed in a democracy.

... just some call into a show.

It's a strawman to say he was trying to organize a primary, he proffered one should be implemented because of the critiques about Obama that totally leave out the effects of the 2010 election.

Sanders doesn't just "disagree", his bashing has been consummate and at times personal calling Obama weak and rightward MORE THAN ONCE... not just on "some issues" either... that's Sanders spin now that he's going into areas that the president is more popular in.

My primary issue with Sanders is not his policies, but his electability. If he can't build a successful coalition in the Democratic Primary, that raises questions about building a GE coalition in November.

Sure Bernie was an unknown in the minority community. He had to introduce himself to voters of all races including whites and AAs.

Clinton is a known brand name.

But the phony divisive racialized smears -- and they were smears -- that Sanders has a "problem" with minorities threw an artificial roadblock and tarred his image in a way that was false by exaggerating race at the expense of his attempt to unify people to improve life for everyone....As for strategy, he has had to spread his time and resources among all pools of voters. He could not be the "All AA candidate all the time."

And rather than turning down that toxic noise, the Clinton campaign is amping it up for the minority primaries in a way that I find inexcusable.

That's why.

He was able to build support from Whites and millennials, but he definitively HASN'T build support among African Americans, and it doesn't appear that his support among Latinos is much better. Those are hard facts and reporting them isn't a "smear".

The Clinton campaign could have focused on actual differences of issues between her and Sanders without dragging race into it.

They could have let Sanders do what he needed to do (including making his own mistakes if he made any) in the AA and Latino communities without trying to ruin his chances at an impartial introduction and relationship building and without spreading their dirty memes.

But instead they pushed the racial aspects and made it harder for members of that community to see him unfiltered by manufactured biases.

That's why he's bailing out of SC (no more events scheduled) and why his Super Tuesday Plan ignores VA, AL, GA, TN?

Unfortunately you may bne accurate because time is not on his side.

But to me that is a "Yuuuge" tragedy, because a good man and the hopes of millions and millions for real reform will be beaten down for the wrong reasons -- and we will have missed another chance to at least contain the problems and bring some balance to an entrenched neoliberal/corporate conservative agenda that is decimating the quality of life for everyone except the well heeled minority at the top.

and our political system requires us to pick one.

No you can't but you can keep working to try to build that coalition.

I seriously doubt that most AA people are fixated on Dr. West to the degree you are.

Why would most AA people be that fixated with sticking it to this one guy?

Does that really outweigh everything else?

...clings to one of the most popular dems prezs in history.

You do understand that associating West with his campaign established a narrative; Sanders doesn't have a relationship with Communities of Color...

and

spent no time building one in the last 8 months.

Otherwise West wouldn't be with in 234312423 feet of Sanders``

... and he's done no service to Sanders

White ppl hold him up on this grand pedestal whereas he is actually considered a loudmouthed pompous jerk to most in the minority community.

And you'll vote for Hillary despite any substance on where she stands on issues because she courts the black vote?

Wow, no wonder she shows up and lies to the blacks so much. It's clearly working. How about that mass incarceration reform when she had the biggest private prison lobbyists in her super pac(Geo Group) and had been making money off of private prisons for years.

If you're not interested in the issues, then you're just not. Good luck with voting for anyone who courts you.

I'm going to vet my candidates. I'll go do some more vetting. I've got substance to narrow down and I'm finding out so much. It wouldn't interest you.

... because she wants to continue Obama's legacy and not set a total "course correction" from what has already been established.

Sanders voted for the 94 bill Clinton did not

The Hillary Clinton is Satan's daughter tripe doesn't work here.

I'm getting ready for work or would vet for you and post links here but honestly you're not interested in the truth or would vet yourself and find out.

Lets just look at blood on her hands. Honduras coup - how many people dead now with the destablization of that country? Perhaps being nice to blacks is more important than killing browns for you? You ether really ignore what it on Hilllary or don't care. I'm going to guess don't care. It's too late in the game and too much info is out to ignore.

And how about that plan Columbia and how about that destroying the chance of a peace treaty in Syria that the UN says her actions undermining it caused the current blood shed and refugee crisis? The woman has caused MASS DEATH and 3 major refugee crises.

I don't believe for a second you don't know about Hillary. And I'm getting pretty tired of these Hillarians that have so little interest in human life that they dismiss Hillary's profound and bloody wrong doings.

Anything Hillary has done after she became senator and bought out should NOT be negated because she was a decent human being before. Or at least looked like one. How about that bankruptcy bill Elizabeth Warren talks about to explain Hillary after she got elected Senator? That worked out really well for Americans, no it didn't and it went against all the years she fought AGAINST it and fighing it was it was supposed to be her crowning achievement, yet it's the first bill she voted for when she was made senator.

Gotta go and honestly the blood and corruption being ignored by Hillarians is more than WAY disturbing.

... so I'm not going to rest my vote on believing he's a 50% greater moral person than she is.

Hillary isn't a saint and isn't Satan's daughter either, no one but republicans believe that

You have no interest in vetting Hillary. Understood. No Hillary supporter has.

Excuse my poorly worded posts and I will quit responding to you. We cannot have a political conversation because we are on two different levels - my need to fact check and vet and your dismissal of even considering such a thing.

Hillary and Bernie supporters are ultimately divided on that quality. I would call that the number 1 quality that divides them. Nobody comes to Bernie who isn't vetting. Okay, goodbye.

... no believing that at all but I do.

I believe being part of the state dept and seeing some many people can do that to a person, I've seen it for myself.

Now, on to some real shit

Sanders at the current moment is tying himself to the establishment in the DNC and that has endeared HRC to the marginalized.

Because of that people will pick sides and forgive the rest...

I just don't see the establishment in the DNC ever holding ground and winning

That would be incredibly damning. He's supposed to be fixing the Dem party not joining in on corruption.

... the other being wealthy.

Demographically Sanders isn't paying attention to the fact that the racial establishment in America is being endeared to him while the marginalized in America are endeared to HRC.

That's being born out in the polls...

Last edited Mon Feb 22, 2016, 12:58 AM - Edit history (1)

It's nice to see those smug people muted now.

accept this truth.

they really didn't understand that people like me - a woman- could be alienated by the approach to social conservatives.
But yeah, they were talking about the math last year, - POC. Disheartening.

Bernie is trying to unite peope around common interests.

Have you ever heard of the iold saying United We Stand Divided We Fall?

If Clinton and her surrogates want to be divisive and create needless polarization on this basis, guess what? Divided we.....

They explained SBS had a history of "avoiding wedge issues", and what we are seeing is him trying to make up for a lot of lost time. I didn't create the problem. I always wished he had tried to be more inclusive.