Appears that we may have some ourselves.

Wonder who benefits from that?

Should have been hidden.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This poster is insulting African American Democrats by calling them "Low information voters", all because Sanders doesn't poll as well with that community. That is a low blow, and borderline racist comment. Please vote to hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 18, 2015, 09:05 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I am not seeing what the alerter sees, nowhere does the post say anything about African Americans.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm not sure who the "low information voters" that "we may have... ourselves" refers to, so I'll give this the benefit of the doubt.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Jerk statement
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've seen the phrase "low information voters" a million times in the past decade during election seasons. It refers to voters that don't have enough information to make informed decisions. It's about their information, not their mental capacity. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that it's an offensive or racist term. I believe that offense is being manufactured.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE

You really have no clue do you?

Wow...

And some say there's no such thing as white privilege.

Just, wow.

50% of minorities don't even have opinion of Sanders (35% of whites).

At this point these polls are irrelevant as its simply name recognition game. I would pay closer attention to the primary states in month or two when Candidates have had chance to get their message across to voters.

Hillary is only at 9% among the same group.

~1,000 people were interviewed. Lets say half of those were Democrats. So 500 people make up their results. Typically minorities will make up 1/3 of democratic primaries. So the non-white figures is for 150 people interviewed. Half of them didn't even have an opinion on Sanders, so we are talking about 75 who formed an opinion.

Confidence level for the whole poll of ~1,000 people was for 3.5%. The margin of error for those 75 will be off roof.

I trust accuracy of polls. They tend to be right. The issue I have with polling now is that its way too early where voters aren't engaged. And this is not the national vote where 90% of the time voters know who they will vote for (R vs D) and issue is all about turnout.

So yeah, these people are not representative.

concerning their issues. They are now suspect to me as a group meaning the BLM group.

They bore false witness in a way to someone on their side.

Indeed.

It was always there, but the key is bringing it out of them.

You've gotta know where to poke....

That is where it turned into a mess IMO.

Why would they do that?

After all, they can't possibly be trusted to make their own judgments of candidates, right? They need Real Progressives (tm) to show them the way?

It isn't his messages in his speeches nor his voting record nor his history of actions.

Progressive economic policies have, historically, come at a great cost to African Americans (Huey Long, Robert LaFollette, George Wallace, officially or unofficially segregated industrial unions, hell, much of the New Deal) so there's a lot of latent distrust when yet another rural white dude comes out and says he has the solution for everything, because in the past those solutions have put black lives and property in danger.

That's not to say Sanders's message can't reach black voters, just that he hasn't yet even addressed that history and he probably should.

Look at it this way: he's in as many words (and his supporters even more explicitly) calling for a return to the economy of the 1950s... you can't see why black voters would be suspicious of that?

And we had much of that system up to the 1980's.

And that's going to take a lot of work. If you believe Ta-Nehisi Coates, for instance, that's a circle you can't square. The postwar "prosperity" didn't have racism as an incidental but was profoundly and fundamentally built on racism. That's a critique that -- while by no means universal -- is fairly popular among black thinkers today.

It may be obvious to you that calls for returns to the economy of the 1950s mean "but everybody will be white in this reboot", but you need to say so. That would help a lot.

And, specifically, the period Sanders's supporters are calling for a return to was a time when working class white males were the sharp end of the stick being used to keep down African Americans. It's going to be hard to overcome that.

He took the New Deal even further. He brought in the Great Society.

Property was transformed into tenancy. Black communities were abandoned by the states and localities. While the New Deal was allowing the creation of wealth by white communities, the USDA and FHA were stealing black property and preventing wealth formation. Hell, the Great Society poured more nominal dollars into black communities than the New Deal had poured into white communities, but it was structured in such a way that they couldn't build with it or keep it.

When you look at how redlining actually worked, at how GI loans were denied to black veterans during this period, at how USDA farm loans were used to enlarge white farm holdings at the expense of black farm holdings, at how home loans were used to segregate neighborhoods and concentrate blacks in poverty (and I'm talking about up through the 1990s here), you can start to see why the New Deal/Great Society form of social and economic engineering is distrusted by a lot of people of color.

All I know is our current direction in economics is a disastrous one.

It's not a part of our history; it's still happening. And it was particularly powerful in the 1960s and 1970s, and even up through the 1990s.

And our society is not "integrated", at least by any standard I would use.

that's how he won much of the south against southeners clark and edwards. he got most of the black vote.

Or only barely won it.

and other minority groups which did decide to vote for Obama.

i think looking back one of the things clinton would probably change is to focus more on black voters, especially female and older black voters .

Super Tuesday 2008.

That would really help her.

Except for those who haven't forgotten.

Once Barack Obama demonstrated he could win in a homogeneous state because of his crossover appeal and perhaps become president African Americans naturally gravitated to his candidacy in a bid to make history. If Hillary Clinton could have even mitigated her losses among African Americans she would have won the nomination, given the closeness of the outcome.

I supported Hillary and was bitter and profoundly disappointed that she lost but I say it was all to the good. Barack Obama has been a transformational and consequential president and now Hillary Clinton has a second chance. I firmly believe she takes advantage of it.

has been a fighter for Civil Rights.

people focus on the bad such as the crime bill but sanders supported that also and this was in the 90s when there was a lot of racism and anti crime sentiment all across the country. it's when new york city elected Giuliani to be mayor.

so then you need sanders to appeal to them. and so far he hasn't really reached out. you also have to convince them you can win which was one reason many did not support Obama until he showed he could win with just white people .

by this time in before the 2008 primary voting started Obama had already been doing this .

WAY too hard.

candidate.

How many Latinos were in that 11,000 person crowd tonight.

It was Arizona.

She's white and far more privileged than Bernie or Martin.

She's for keeping the economic status quo.

I haven't seen her go out on a limb for them, either.

I'm really struggling to understand why economic inequality doesn't resonate with the very people who are most affected by it.

Part of the reason black lives don't seem to matter to police is that they consider them poor and unconnected to power. Many officers believe nothing will happen to them because they're just picking on poor black people who can't get them in trouble.

Those are two different questions.

you're input has been extremely helpful for me in this thread. You're really helping my understanding of what Bernie supporters need to consider as we reach out to the African American community on behalf of our candidate.

So thanks, seriously, for you contribution to this thread.

I get that I'm a pariah here in some ways, but I would really love for Sanders's campaign to bridge that gap and make that connection to people of color in a way it hasn't. But that would take a lot of work and a lot of re-thinking of sacred cows, and I'm not sure there's even time. But miracles happen.

Whatever happens with Sanders's campaign, I think it would be good for the Left for that conversation to happen.

you seem to understand.

But this has been an interesting sub-thread exchange. Many Black folks have been saying what you said ... and it has been incomprehensible to DU ... You say it, and despite your off-puttingness, the message is being understood.

using karl rove,s tactics. Attack your opositions strong point and your weak point. Divide and conquer. Very ugly politics, and it will leave a perpetual stain.

There's a reason the DNC hasn't scheduled debates yet. When they do, I will bet establishment Clintonians will make sure they are at a bare minimum. The coronation must go on.

divide and conquer strategy. Since the RootNet debacle, I'd say it's working pretty good. I mean, most Americans are boiling with anger over a bunch of issues - racism, poverty, crushing student loan debt, privatization of prisons, low minimum wage, health care, sucky employers that have no idea what family friendly even means, womens' reproductive rights and the right to access abortions, wars that won't end, domestic spying, police brutality, youth unemployment, high incarceration rates, 'free' trade agreements that cost America millions of jobs, union busting, pension rip offs, wealth inequality, crumbling roads and bridges...

And we have a candidate, Bernie Sanders, who is out there talking about this stuff. In fact, he's the ONLY one we've had talking about this stuff since the Kennedys, and that was clear back in 1960 and then tragically in 1968.

So now we have this massive internecine battle on here about how Bernie isn't talking enough about racism...

So I'm not gonna vote for him, you know.

Bottom line, the big capitalists that have been picking all our pockets and pitting us against each other for centuries now are real proud of us. Because once again, we're letting ourselves get divided so that we can continue to be conquered and exploited - nickel and dimed for everything until about 400 people on earth have ALL the money and ALL of us are their slaves.

Cause that's what they want. It really is. Slave labor for their factories, docile workers who are dumb enough to allow what SHOULD be their unflagging dislike of the billionaires and capitalists be diverted to hatred and mistrust of each other.

If we allow this to happen, knowing better, then we will truly deserve the neoliberal capitalist hell hole this earth will become.

he's been a civil rights warrior for more than fifty years, while Mrs Clinton used ham handed race baiting during her last campaign. But money talks, and her propaganda machine is fearsome. Iow, if black people really believe that Sanders doesn't care about them or won't fight for them as president, they are woefully misinformed.