supported bernie i found some of his supporters to be "cult like".

They're all worthless in the General. But as the hillbots are so fond pointing out...a delegate is a delegate.

value to diehard Bernie supporters.

We hate the 'bros(many of whom are probably paid by David Brock, since Bernie's campaign would never have encouraged their shit), and they never represented the true Bernie campaign. Bernie has denounced the 'bros, too.

And Bernie doesn't owe it to the antiracist cause to give up as a candidate.

Only Republicans would benefit if Bernie got out now.

I said I noticed too. Like I noticed that the Red states with a large black population are said not to count but the Red states where we do not live in big numbers are said to count way more. That is not surprising after how folks ran around defending any op that was insensitive and just plain wrong.

What we're saying is that the contest for the nomination didn't END when those states voted. Bernie's campaign is continuing, we have done better(though still not as well as we could be doing)with POC outside of the South, and it's the natural thing to argue, when your candidate is behind, that she or he can still win by doing better in the later states.

Hillary's campaign would be doing the same thing if she had lost the AA vote on Super Tuesday. In fact, that's exactly what she did in 2008.

Also, the states Hillary carried on Super Tuesday are going to be less important in the fall-NOT because there is a large contingent of black voters in those states(we are all glad that black voter turnout is strong in any situation) but because the WHITE voters in most of those states are hopelessly right-wing due to the fact those white the white voters, most of whom(unlike Bernie's supporters)actually ARE driven by white supremacism, are likely going to vote heavily Republican for the rest of eternity.

It would be nice to carry those states, and black voters will get and deserve the credit if the Democratic ticket does carry them, but either Dem will be able to get black voters in the fall. I assume you'll concede the point that THOSE voters aren't going to flip over to Trump, for goddess' sakes.

the way Bernie supporters dismissed HRC's win throughout the south.

On Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:19 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I did not say they were all white supremacists
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1565129

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"I'm not saying that Bernie supporters are racists but Bernie supporters are racists."

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:27 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WWHD? --- Leave it!
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I see nothing inappropriate in this post.
No hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a perfectly fine explanation
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

shit being slung around here. Tunnel vision is the only explanation.

1. All sorts of races live in those states. They aren't "white" states.

2. I'm a diehard Bernie supporter and all votes matter to me. That's why the weird shit that happened in AZ is something everyone should be talking about.

Should I make a post that says, "Why don't Hillary supporters care about voter fraud and voter suppression? Oh yeah, because it benefits Hillary."?

Nah, I won't do that. Because there are more important things than posting comments falsely inferring that a campaign only cares about white people.

in AZ. As long as they can provide proof they were registered by the deadline their votes should count.

As far as Utah, Idaho & in many instances New Hampshire those states voters are statistically whiter there are no if & or buts about it. When you get to the southern "red states" minorities have a much larger voting block. For whatever reason certain Sanders supporters have decided us lowly ppl shouldn't even have our votes counted & the only differences are our skin color & who we voted for.

So your only options are admit that your homes want to discount our vote because of our race or our choice to support someone other than BS. Either way it's very undemocratic & possibly quite bigoted.

Stockholm Syndrome. Or that we should pay more attention to Vermont because it has a higher education level than South Carolina.

was deplorable and I didn't stand with it.

The second one.... has nothing to do with race. Try again.

And the fact that so many Sat quietly and ignored that nasty ahti black racism, but jumped on the chance to hound me. It seems like these upstanding folks can never speak out or even notice anti black racism in their own ranks. I have not seen one fucking apology.

but for very different reasons. The HRC folks are upset that voters were disenfranchised (whether by design or incompetence); whereas, the Bernie supporters seem up in arms that HRC, or the DNC, or both, cheated Bernie supporters out of their votes.

Should I make a post that says, "Why don't Hillary supporters care about voter fraud and voter suppression? Oh yeah, because it benefits Hillary."?

what's your point?

The discussion that Bernie is not attracting voter is not calling the supporters of said candidate racist. Trying so hard to be the victim undermines your arguments.

They are referring to white populated states, which Bernie is stronger in.

Which is interesting. Why do white Democrats go to Bernie? Where did they go in 2008? Hillary or Obama. Would be interesting if it was Hillary then. Do they just prefer the candidate that is not the one minorities prefer. Very odd.

Why make it a race war? Gee whiz.

there have been Bernie supporters that have been called racist, and you know it ... the Bernie supporting "Stockholm Syndrome" poster comes immediately to mind, as well as the Bernie supporting "Race-nagger" poster.

But beyond that, your point holds ... the rest is, merely, Bernie supporters interpreting the inferences suggested by people discussing that Bernie is not attracting (significant numbers) Voters of Color and hearing themselves being called racists.

It could harm her. Bernie supporters always presume someone who sustained any inconvenience in voting would have voted for Bernie. This is because he lost. If he won, this would not be a problem.

.... that's the possible proof it benefited her...

If there's a recount or even a historical re-vote and Bernie turns out to win... then that's solid proof that it benefited her... Why isn't she upset over the circumstances? Because she won? Let's move on, right?

She won so that proves she benefitted?

She might have won by a lot more.

And that undermines the enthusiasm argument. Hillary voters apparently are willing to wait long hours in lines to vote for her, whereas Bernie's voters slink away at the inconvenience. Some revolutionaries those.

Let me help you...

They just keep proving the shit over & over.

The contrast is striking.

And sickening.

🙉🙊

Ignoring it or denying it when race has been brought into the fray here repeatedly & it was hardcore Bernie or Bust supporters saying it & members reccing them like they were the greatest words ever said. Denying the exisitance if said OPs only make you part of the problem.

Hillary can't.

And, on that note, Hillary can't win any of the deep south states, that she won in the primary.

and Arkansas than Bernie has to win Utah and Idaho.

The demographics of the South have been changing. Georgia is a purple state now. The right candidate -- which would not be Bernie -- could turn it blue. Especially against Donald Trump.

Because I have real polling to back up my claim:
http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865650513/Poll-Utah-would-vote-for-a-Democrat-for-president-over-Trump.html?pg=all?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Sanders would beat tRump in a GE in Utah by 11 points.

While HRC is shown as winning against tRump in Utah, it is well within the polling margin of error so it is a tossup at best.

I find it incredibly unlikely that any Democrat, I don't care if it's PBO in a 3rd term, Sanders or HRC, have any chance of winning GA or AR in a GE.

The Dems have been steadily doing better in Georgia and for a good reason: the population is changing.

And I don't know why you wouldn't think Hillary could do well in Arkansas. Bill certainly did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zac-mccrary/sweet-georgia-blue_b_3385459.html

Most fundamentally, Georgia is quickly becoming less white and less rural. In 2000, Georgia’s population was 63 percent white; as of the 2010 Census the state’s population is 56 percent white. Of the state’s 1.5 million new residents between 2000 and 2010, more than 80 percent (1.2 million, or 81 percent) were non-white.

Over the past decade, the 6 percent growth among Georgia’s white population pales in comparison to the 26 percent growth rate among African Americans. This is in stark contrast to the growth patterns of the 1990s, when Georgia’s white population grew by more than double that rate (16 percent). Since 1990, Georgia has gained more than 1.2 million African-American residents and has served, according to The Wall Street Journal, as a “magnet for black professionals” from other parts of the country.

However, Georgia’s increased competitiveness is not driven solely by African-American voters. Georgia’s Hispanic population grew by 96 percent over the last decade — a growth rate double the national average and second only to North Carolina’s. From 1990-2010, the state’s Hispanic population has risen from roughly 100,000 to more than 800,000 — now totaling 9.1 percent of the state’s population. Additionally, Georgia’s Asian-American community grew by 81 percent from 2000-2010 and has almost quintupled since 1990.

In 2012, PBO was the strongest and most favorable Democratic incumbent president in modern history, who won in a landslide but lost to a very stiff and very white Rmoney in GA by 7 points.
If the person who many consider to be the greatest president in modern history, including myself, can't win GA than I don't even see HRC coming even close.

You cannot compare WJC's 1992 carrying of AR, as a popular governor, to HRC running in 2016. Especially since they left Arkansas behind for New York.
Not to mention that PBO lost Arkansas by 23 points in 2012 and 20 points in 2008. For whatever reason both Kerry and Gore did better but still lost.

There's a reason Repuke leaders are shittin themselves when they see how well Trump is doing; they know he's a disaster for their electoral goals.

So a slight loss with Hillary turns into a landslide win with Sanders, in the general against Trump or Cruz.

so why can't he beat her in delegates and overall votes?

Clinton supporters simply tend to watch too much TV.

of a blanket statement, almost like most old people don't know how to use tech. Maybe, just maybe, people in general like you and me can form their own opinions.

the most news wonks are the older set.

I had to tell him that he was voting in a primary between two Democrats, not the general election. I had to tell him that Sanders is also a Democrat.

He did vote for Sanders, but it was only because I asked him to do it. He still has never seen Sanders on TV and he doesn't know how to use a computer.

Grandparents are politically savvy. Not everyone, not even most can be put into a nice and neat stereotypical box.

Unless they are members of the 0.1%, obviously.

dick riding Bernie makes you "Savy"? Take a swing at me all you want, do NOT attack my family.

On Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:02 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Not as "savy" as they think they are if they voted Clinton over Sanders.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1565336

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Attacking a members family seems wrong to me.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 24, 2016, 11:06 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? How can this comment be worthy of an alert? Alert trolls make baby jebus cry.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That is incredibly mild. Stop abusing the alert system.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

its just an Internet Gangster that would never say that to anyone's face.

Winning the states that Bernie is winning and will with 100% probability lose all of the southern states that she won in the primary. That is WHY Bernie is the candidate to have IF you want to win the general.

Also, Hillary would win Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Colorado. She'll also win Virginia and likely Florida.

Utah will go R in the GE.

If Trump's the nominee, no matter which of these two we nominate, we'll win by 15-20 points easily.

No democrat can win Utah, and West Virginia now a real stretch...

of course you can't come right out and say it.
Nice try though..

Her campaign is literally sickening.

It's a form of confirmation bias, where people see phenomena that benefit or confirm their belief system as being positive even when the same phenomena are viewed as negative when applied to an alternative or opposing belief system.

It's a classic double-standard...and we all do it.

Here are some examples:

Red states for Bernie are a big win, a revolution of new voters!
Red states for Hillary are downplayed as being insignificant to the general election!

Voter suppression caused by Republicans in Arizona where Bernie lost: a huge big deal!
Voter suppression caused by Republicans in New Hampshire where Hillary lost: not that big of a deal!

I could go on and on, and although I'd like to pretend Hillary supporters don't do it too...we do...whether we want to admit it or not.

It's the whole reason liberals tend to watch MSNBC and conservatives watch Fox News, because those outlets largely reinforce our existing viewpoints rather than challenging them.

It's completely obnoxious, but it's human nature.

It's also the reason I can't wait for the primary to be over, regardless of who wins, because it's just one of the reasons DU has become so freaking toxic and unbearable lately.

And welcome to DU!

Thanks pnwmom!

I've actually been lurking behind the scenes and reading posts on DU for about a decade(?), but I just recently decided to create an account and start posting.

Looks like I joined during a very heated time though!!!

But I think for some, it really is about those more insidious reasons.

I recall how terribly unfair caucuses were in Iowa - so undemocratic - but now they are OK.

Welcome to DU.

(Sanders and Clinton supporters both) in both of last night's caucuses the figure is still smaller than the number of people who voted for Clinton in South Carolina.

So if it's not numbers it must be something else about those voters that makes them more important despite their paltry number. Something. . . colorful, shall we say?

It's not like you're fooling anyone.

I think they are calling you hypocrites.

Only swing states matter in the least in November.

The Republican nominee probably can't get to 270 without *both* Ohio and Florida.

And I'm sure that some of that is the case and do to frustration and underlying issues.

But it is something to think about if those states are red in the general.

Personally I'm proud that we voted in the numbers we are regardless if my candidate didn't get the lion share. I just hope we utilize that earned capital.

downplaying the opponent's wins. Part of the spin is to say Bernie appeals in states we might actually be able to win in the general election. Democrats aren't winning the deep south in the general.

That's really all there is to it.

but I keep watching what is happening in
the purple ones, like Nevada, Colorado, and
Montana.

is even lower today.

It could easily go the way of Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.

camp, and it did not help Obama in 2012.

Having that many more minority voters could make the difference.

They have a horrible governor and the legislature is even worse: witness the latest legislation against LGBT people. They are also destroying the state university system. In addition, they have passed legislation making it harder to register to vote. I have no doubt that regardless of who actually wins in NC, the Republicans will try to steal it. That state will need election monitors during the GE.

I think Florida and Ohio were the only 2 states where the margin was smaller. In another thread, I posted Romney's margin of victory in each of the states he won: The Red State Meme: Which States Are Actually the 'Reddest'?

single thought group?

bash the supporters.
I dont think it is based in antisemitism, or trying to sidestep.
its simply reminiscent.

In fact I have chastised faux supporters for their racist Confederacy comments.

If anyone actually denigrated wins in the southern states as "worth less" they should be admonished. But I haven't seen anyone do that.

What I see are observations that the early calendar included many states (particularly in the south) that favored Hillary. As the process moves forward, we are seeing a lot of states -- including a number of western states -- that favor Bernie.

All true.

No "denigration" there.

Your straw-man accusation is insulting to Sanders supporters.

and won't vote Dem in the general that it shouldn't matter who they prefer in the primary.

As the process moves forward, we just saw Arizona being carried by Hillary, as well as Ohio, Illinois, Florida, and Missouri just last week. Beginning with Utah and Idaho, we are running into a bunch of states with demographics more like New Hampshire's, including my state of Washington. But that will end when we hit the large, diverse state of New York.

What some Bernie supporters suggest is that such states will inevitably go red in the general, and so the ability to win them in the primary is not an indicator that the candidate will do well in the general. That would apply to states like Idaho and Utah as well.

The minority voters in the south were good indicators of how African American voters would vote in other states, like MA and Illinois. Their numbers weren't as overwhelming in the northern states, but they still picked Hillary by large margins.

African American and Latino voters are key parts of the Democratic coalition.Obama beat Romney even though Romney won the majority of white voters -- both men and women. Obama did it with a much more diverse coalition, like the one that Hillary is developing -- except that she's attracting the support of the majority of white women.

The important point is that Bernie supporters are not denigrating African American voters in the South when they say that those states won't matter much in the general. The simple fact is that Alabama and Mississippi, for example, like Utah and Idaho, will go red in November.

Of course it matters! I'll be on the lookout for claims to the contrary.

It would be valid to observe that a primary/caucus/PPE win in a solidly "red state" is unlikely to translate to a win in the GE. That observation goes for any Dem primary/caucus/PPE win in any state that is skewed way to the right. But I don't consider making that sort of observation to be "discounting" the preference for nominee reflected in the victory. Finding out those preferences is what this whole process is about!

are African American voters. Their votes in the South have served as early indicators of how African Americans will vote in other states.

Having their strong support can certainly "translate to a win in the GE." Obama beat Romney even though white men and white women both voted for Romney. Obama won with the support of the African American and Latino voters who are strongly supporting Hillary now. And Hillary also has the support of white women.

It seems like a lot of white, northern Bernie supporters are frustrated that the mostly black Democrats in the South just aren't progressive enough. Well, they're part of our coalition, and we need to welcome all the parts, including the voters in the South.

... or "blue states" has predictive value.

A perfect example is the interactive "What Would It Take To Turn Red States Blue?" page on fivethirtyeight.com

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-swing-the-election/

The Deep South and southerners in general are lambasted on these forums 365 days a year and criticized for both personal and political reasons. There is a long history of southern bashing on DU. It's borderline hysterical to see some of the very same people that participated in that bashing now heaping praise upon the south for its "diversity" and defending against claims of "low-information" voters now that it's primary season.

The pro operators who gave Obama's online supporters such a bad name in 2008 must be working for Hillary now.

We send PMs back and forth and giggle our asses off over the consternation we're causing.

Why do carbonated beverages exist?

An even better question is why I bothered to reply.

Essentially, you are pushing an argument that the only way Bernie can show respect to AA voters in the South is to get out of the race. That's simply not true.

You can't assume AA voters and other POC voters in places like NY and California will be in lockstep with southern AA voters. Most AA's in the Northeast and on the West Coast are progressive.

The southern states have a higher proportion of Democrats who are black, but those states almost always go to Republicans in national elections. This raises two points.

The first point is that we are messing around with racial politics. This can be good or bad, depending on how you do it. Some Democrats, most of whom would lean toward Sanders, feel we ought to back off the racial angle before we make ourselves the party that promises anything and everything to minority voters, particularly black voters in southern states, and forgets about other voters. The logic is, if you appeal too hard to southern black voters in the primary, it will be difficult to broaden your appeal in the general election. This is particularly true, the theory holds, in the southern states, where white voters will be more alienated by our candidates emphasizing the racial divide.

The second point is closely related to the first, but assumes western red state Democrats are more representative of the electorate as a whole. The idea here is that southern Democrats are more closely tied to the established party structure, more likely to go with the party favorite, less adventurous, willing to put loyalty ahead of ideals, etc. Yes, it has to do with that racial thing, but it also includes the notion that southern Democrats of all sorts are more comfortable with the tradition of a little nudge nudge, wink wink.

Yeah, there's a lot of stereotyping going on, maybe some suggestion that southern Democrats constitute some kind of coalition between illiterate black sharecroppers and white hillbilly moonshiners. Nobody would come right out and say anything like that, of course, but we all know the power of stereotypes is that they're hints and suggestions, maybe an occasional sly reference, mostly just fuzzy cultural assumptions we may not even realize we're making, or at least buying into.

The truth is that Democratic primary victories in red states are meaningful only in the primary. The candidates have to fight for primary wins any way they can, using whatever messages they believe will appeal to the most Democrats in a particular state. The sniping back and forth between the Clinton and Sanders camps is only natural, but it includes many unfounded assumptions about voters from various racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds. I wouldn't call it bigotry, exactly, but it reflects all sorts of prejudices, assumptions and stereotypes we hold against each other. It would be nice if we could stop and consider how it looks when we say one group of voters is more significant than another, but emotions get the better of us sometimes.

...that there are many BS supporters denigrating Hillary's wins in the South "as unimportant red states" while considering his own red state wins highly significant, beyond perhaps the fact that, being as far behind as he is, ANY chance to pick up delegates is significant. Personally, I think the belittling of red state wins (on the basis that the candidate won't win them in November) was always a silly argument to begin with.

Remember, there is more than one Bernie supporter on the other side of your screen. Unless the *same* user posts contradictory messages, there is no hypocrisy. You can't paint the whole group with every opinion any member has. And if you find one or two members who have actually posted contradictory hypocritical posts, that doesn't make the entire population of BS supporters hypocrites, either.

Might kill them to have to face or even figure out their candidate's stance on the issues.

those of us in states that vote blue are the ones doing the electing. Why should we be stuck with a nominee we don't want, chosen by people in red states who do nothing to elect Dem presidents?

We don't like it, ok? It isn't that hard to understand. A lot of people are getting tired of doing the heavy lifting, only to have to hold their nose to vote for the party's candidate simply because the Primary process is weighted so heavily in favor of the South.

If it weren't for the anomaly of Obama being black and thereby getting the South's votes as a 1-off, the South would've nominated HRC last time... which is exactly what's happening this time because Sanders is white.

Except for when a black candidate is running, the South is going to vote for the most conservative candidate. And that is not acceptable to blue state voters. It's dragging the party down, and dragging it right.

I think blue states in the previous election should get extra delegates. And I don't think so many Southern states should be at the beginning of the calendar.

A red state is a red state. And by we I mean Dems in blue states. This is not partisan, it isn't about only this primary, it's any primary. Fact is, Utah and Idaho are not pre-loaded and over-weighted to have way more influence than makes the slightest sense, as the South is.

I'm sure the DNC has no influence over anything at all.

are you suggesting that Democrats in "Blue States" should have more say in the Democrats in any other state, beyond their own?