that Sanders and his supporters are not getting -

Meaning... given that when it comes down to black college graduates and white college graduates from the same school with the same majors and GPA, the black graduate will struggle with employment. THAT is not "economic" (although the result impacts economics for one group) and it has nothing to do with whether the college is "free" or is the most expensive private college in existence. THAT is prejudicial - i.e., racial.

In a number of cases, the white student is offered co-ops, summer paid or volunteer opportunities, and/or mentoring with subject-matter entities in order to build a pre-graduation resume to prepare them for the post-graduation workforce. However this is not available for or not aggressively offered to the black student. And when these disparities are pointed out, the schools may reflexively attempt "outreach" for the next year or so to purportedly "recruit" POC into these programs... But then they eventually default back to "normal" (all white) once the outrage dies down. This happens cyclically. "Likes" hire "likes" - i.e., those who they feel most culturally "comfortable" with.

So no matter what candidate - the problem is more complex and is something that needs to be addressed that has nothing to do with whether a college is "free", "low cost/subsidized", or full-cost.

among black youth?

is not going to address the problem.

That should create a lot of new jobs and decrease racial disparities.

Although I agree whole-heartedly with the concept, the reality is that even today, with the massive disparities POC deal with even being able to get into the very trade unions that populate the industries that would utilize such funding due to persistent racism in many locals (and if closed-shop, then the POC is automatically disqualified if not a member not due to their not wanting to be), and due to many urban school systems essentially eliminating the vocational training needed to even work in these types of fields, then POC are already starting at the bottom with nothing when it comes to infrastructure jobs. This is further exasperated by the dearth of trade apprenticeships for POC - such positions often directed towards the "family members" of those already in the industry (primarily white) FIRST versus to "outsiders", and these apprenticeships are essentially required to enter and advance in the trades.

Unless this is addressed, then like the past, the problems will continue to persist and infrastructure spending will continue to help everyone ELSE except POC, other than perhaps those who empty the porta-potties at the job sites.

Then even racists have to hire POC. Also, the government tends to have requirements for percentage of contractors that are POC owned.

I want to put a rofl emoticon here but that would really be disingenuous.

I'm afraid that the reality would be the most perfect scenario for the racists (the caveat being that they have the "power" to implement and enforce their prejudice) and that is to "import" people (whether legally or illegally, which they have already been doing for some time) who would be defacto-designated as "honorary whites" for the purposes of filling labor pools, thus once again, skipping over the bane of their existence.

This is why the rest of the world scratches its collective head about U.S.-style racism. It is insidious because it changes its character (and rules of engagement) depending on the whim of the one who practices it, including the incorporation of South African apartheid-era policies (where the successive governments of SA got the idea from this country in terms of legal segregation but they added a category - "colored" to further divide and conquer). For example, there have been times when (brown) Hispanics were considered "white" (Caucasian) and east Indians as well. And there were times when both were vilified - essentially broad-brushed as "non-white" due to skin color. But at no time has the pheno- or genotypically (if discovered - see 1-drop rule) "black" (African descendent) ever been considered "honorary white" except for use in specific purposes to further divide and conquer, after which they were summarily dumped for another sucker willing to take on that role. Alternately, some, like our biracial President, will be randomly designated a particular hierarchical status, but one that the perpetrator generally felt would have the maximum negative impact in a particular situation because of the "taint" of his genetic make up.

The federal (and some state/local) government only has such set-aside requirements mainly due to EOs and in a flash, away those requirements can go.

of discrimination to prove.

See post #8 for one problem that needs to be addressed to even allow POC to even be qualified for some of these jobs.

Your other posts cite training in trades and apprenticeships. I agree that training and education helps. However, you also state that African American kids don't get jobs at the rate white kids do, even if they are trained. I agree with that too. And that is what I asked for your thoughts on--failure to hire.

The issue of a white kid and an African American kid, equally trained, applying for the same job, being of equal training and education, but the white kid gets the job. Do you have any thoughts on how we remedy that part of it? It is indeed the most difficult kind of education to prove. If you have no thoughts, fine, but there was zero wrong with my asking if you did.

and I am not a legislator.

When the narrative focuses on "free college", my thought is how does that help those who perhaps don't have the interest or aptitude to go to college?

When a poster talks about "Infrastructure Jobs", then the question is, how does an AA compete when the trades system is "fixed" against them... And that "system" has nothing to do with the "DNC" or any of the current politicians?

To address this latter issue, in the past (and in many cases, currently), urban areas were forced to try to remedy this via "affirmative action" or "affirmative goals", etc., for hiring in the trades, which essentially becomes the now-ugly term "quotas". The "excuse" was always - well these individuals "don't have certification to work in the needed fields" (e.g., electrical, plumbing, carpentry, etc).

Perhaps legislation can be pushed for the federal government to create an organization (either standalone or under an existing DOL agency) that would sponsor or coordinate opportunities for trade certification, including offering trade apprenticeships, through to journeyman level, and even master levels. This would remedy one of the "excuses".

As you know, the discrimination in the trades has a long history.

In Massachusetts, the term is not quotas, but "set asides." Without them, women and minorities would not have had a chance at all. However, set asides are required only on state and federal projects and they apply only to minority or women owned companies, not to individual kids looking for a job.

In Massachusetts, set aside requirements are not limited to urban areas. However, if you show your project is in an area where no minority subcontractors can be hired, you can get a waiver.

I fully support set asides (for all the good that does, given I am not a politician).

I have no clue, though, what to do about failure to hire in the private sector. You can file a discrimination complaint, if you feel you've been discriminated against, but, as I said, that is the hardest kind of discrimination to prove.

She won't carry the very red southern states in November and she won't win delegate rich primary states in the north and west after super Tuesday such as California, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.

And if she can't win those primary states she can't win the general election against any Republican.

And the south will pretty much go Republican. Remember, Obama couldn't win the south in 2008 and 2012 even with huge black voter turnouts.

Sanders is far from being out of the race for the nomination.

I see no reason it shouldn't again.

California is currently polling very well for her.