Trump over Hillary (woman) and I believe the same would happen with Warren ( also a woman). This would be enough to throw the election to Trump... I hear over and over again how enthusiasm matters...only with white progressives I guess because the AA community is not enthusiastic about Warren and given the importance of this group in our party, Sen. Warren should not be the nominee, and I doubt she will be the nominee...I would do everything I could to help her if she was the nominee ...vote and work my ass off but...I don't think she will win a general.

No matter their race.

What does it say to AA voters if we ignore their opinions and nominate a candidate they don't support? We shouldn't do it.

Bullshit.

Avoiding supporting female candidates because we think sexists wouldn't support them is letting the sexists win.

I hate sexism but it exists and electing Trump will not help us.

a white man can "save" us.

I'm so tired of hearing "Men won't vote for a woman candidate!". Sick to fucking death of it.

I find It hard to believe AA males voted for Trump over Clinton. Many of them stayed home. Of those who did vote, Clinton won 82% of them, Trump won 13%.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
This link has a chart showing Clinton won AA males overwhelmingly.

https://www.mic.com/articles/159402/here-s-a-break-down-of-how-african-americans-voted-in-the-2016-election
Unsurprisingly, turnout for Clinton was higher among black women than black men, with Hillary earning 94% of the female black vote (4% for Trump) and just 80% of men (13% for Trump).

There's no way Trump is getting many AA votes this time. They know him now. He's a fucking racist PoS.

which I do grant is an issue, but I just wanted to make sure that people did not think that black men preferred Rump.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

https://edition.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

No one ever talks about geography. Black voters are so important because of where they live...places like Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Philly, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Atlanta, etc. We need enthusiasm amongst black voters and Warren is not doing that. She is getting progressive enthusiasm from whites in areas where the election will not be decided. That's why she can't win. If this was a popular vote election, Warren could win, but can't get 270 EV's.

If not why?

In 2016, every AA male co-worker I talked to, and all of them told me they were Democrats, said they just could not vote for a woman to be president. Most of them told me they were not going to vote for president at all on their ballots.
I don't understand it.

get votes from democratic African Americans come next November.

The African American community and POC at large are the heart of our party. Do people really believe that they or anyone else who are at risk would put their and their children's lives at stake by sitting on their hands or voting for Trump? Really?

None of us are going to go down without a fight, and this will be the fight of our lives. Warren will not take anyone for granted when it comes to earning their vote. However, it sounds like Biden could take the African American community for granted since there is this prevailing believe that they are already in his corner. In other words, why bother with reaching out if you believe that someone already supports you?

It's dangerous to assume that you don't have to work to gain someone's vote; It can make a candidate complacent.

So even if Biden does have the strongest African American support today, it's quite useless to depend on this as an argument for his electability in the general. Once we have our nominee, all focus will turn her or his way.

Then suddenly it disappeared for the wife of the "first Black president."

Biden is running as if he were going to be the third. But without Obama's coattails, he'd be Michael Bennett - i.e. more or less where he was when he ran in 2008.

His support from the AA community may be a mile wide right now, but it's an inch deep.

the latest A+ rated Monmouth poll for NH which she needs desperately (along with IA) in order to sway A-A's over to her. Warren is probably the only one with a shot at pulling some away from Biden in meaningful numbers. IF Warren sweeps IA, NH, and NV, and Biden falters, then we can talk abut that happening, and even then it will be hard.

and Biden is the only candidate who is going to protect Obama's legacy. Warren barely even mentions Obama's name. I can only recall her mentioning him one time at the debate in all of this year. And she's also running to get rid of Obamacare, his legacy achievement. If black people leave Biden, they won't be going to Warren.

What they fail to see is that no matter how enthusiastic Warren cheerleaders are, they are, demographically, on the political spectrum, the same.

It is certainly valid to address the huge gap in AA electorate support between Warren and Biden. This electorate, which supports Biden, is our base. Ignoring it is white-centric, politically unsophisticated, and proof of living in the bubble, which becomes, to mix metaphors, an echo chamber.

Biden supporters fear Warren will never have the wide appeal he enjoys. For good reason! He has earned his wider base.

And I am less than enthusiastic about Warren’s evasive responses to questions about how she intends to pay for her sweeping, extensive, and numerous new plans, especially at a time of record
high national deficit and threats to the existing social safety net system, as well as to many underfunded, broken, imperiled social programs and services across the country.

“That’s a right-wing talking point” is an attempt to shame and silence those who dare challenge her
policies, those who rightfully want and need more information.

and sing LA LA LA as loud as you can.

I take issue with the blanket statement in this part of your reply, though:

for many Biden supporters, the “enthusiasm gap” is much exaggerated by MSM, pundits, and many
here at DU.

Many of us are enthusiastic about the fact that Biden is running in the first place. We awaited this
good news. No way that the enthusiasm many have for the potential of a first woman president will
be matched in its expression.

And Liz is new for many. Many of us feel we have known Biden for a long time. Certainly the prospect of new, bold, fresh, big plans—potentially transformative—excite those strongly believing
they are possible and will be beneficial to the nation economically.

Excitement is but on measure of a candidate’s “draw” upon us, however. Many have been inspired by Biden’s launch, his campaign theme, his speech in Iowa; in fact, his entire personal and political history.

Inspiration, trust, confidence, hope (that we can regain our country, our democracy) may not announce themselves with “excitement,” but they are equal in their power to sustain support and to grow it.

I think he would make a great president.

This is anecdotal, but it's something that made an impression on me about Biden and I hope you enjoy it: The very politically-involved 20 year old daughter of one of my good friends is over the moon about Biden. She was so excited when she got to meet him in person a while back. I am glad there is enthusiasm for him from people in her generation.

Above all, we share the goal of winning up and down the ballot. If our nominee is Biden, I think he will electrify the party. I also think Warren will do the same. It's just at this point in time I'm behind Warren because I appreciate her bold policy proposals.

I'm with Biden on building-on the ACA as a platform to get more people covered. I see that as a more tenable way to move forward on healthcare. I think we'll see Warren incorporate more ideas in her MFA approach. She has yet to issue her own plan for MFA, and I believe there's a good reason for that. Now, I don't know the reason, of course, but I'm eager to hear more.

think, as you and others have suggested, that Warren will be looking at how she wants to deal with
healthcare separately from Bernie’s proposals and that she will be flexible and open in endorsing MFA in future.

As more people learn about Elizabeth Warren, her support has been growing steadily.

I'm not sure of the rules, and maybe it is allowed.

But I'm guessing that DUer posted in the Biden group because he wanted responses there. Not here.

Or should we start a free-for-all and start posting from the Warren and Sanders' room?

Just asking.

As this OP does...

here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

A good place for this question is the Community Help forum: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1256 or Ask the Administrators.

I hope they will add a rule about this.

I was thinking about picking a favorite candidate so I could post in the group. What's the point if people are going to do this. I see you have also copy and pasted it into the Warren Group. It seems highly unethical.

I thought the candidate rooms were to be a 'safe harbor' from the criticisms of other candidates' supporters.

It either is or it is not. Think we need some clarification here.

I have higher ethical standards than to do something like this. And my ethical standards are questionable, at best.

in the Warren group.

Because it has to do with and is even titled about Elizabeth Warren, I am not sure why it was ever posted in the Biden group. IMO, it should have been posted either in the Primaries Forum, as it is now, or in the Warren forum.

But frankly, I don't really see the problem. It's provoking discussion.

African-Americans are not going to turn out against Mr. Charlottesville? Or they're going to vote FOR Trump?

And you think we are going to lose because Republicans are going to claim that we are turning America into Venezuela because we are going to tax people after the first $50 million?

Under Eisenhower, the top “marginal rate” was at 94% and I'm pretty sure he was on the right side of the Berlin Wall as far as communism goes.

I found the original in the Biden forum and I wrote the Answers. I don't agree with the poster.

I also don't think African-Americans are going to vote for Trump. And I think the main reason they are for Joe now is that they know him and don't know Elizabeth Warren. She might not win the Primaries for that reason, but if she wins the Primaries I am absolutely sure African-Americans will support her in the general.

And at the same time, as a Warren fan, I'm reading an analysis of my preferred candidate in a forum where I'm not allowed to respond. That also seems inimical to a healthy DU.

I'd suggest the following two rules:

1. No reposting of material from candidate forums elsewhere, period.

2. Candidate forum posts should focus on the candidate whose supporters are in the forum, not on particular rivals.

As I understand it, the main reason to have a candidate forum as a "safe haven" is so you can post in support of your favorite without people raining on your parade, not so you can snipe at rivals without any chance of a refutation of your analysis.

I'm not saying that because I think African-Americans would automatically support a ticket that had an African-American on it. I'm saying it because I'm a huge Booker fan. He's a great guy; he's the right age to be VP; he's done extremely well in the debates; and he would balance out Warren's ticket perfectly.

Warren-Booker for America!

An article in a candidates forum that's about another candidate where its protected from criticism and fact correcting is worse. Please delete.

Oh my.

other posters telling someone what to post or not post.

forums for supporters of those candidates to talk to one another without interference from supporters of other candidates.

And the person who posted the OP not only dragged that other DUer's post to the main forum, but added to the violation by posting it in the Warren group where the original author would have had no chance to respond.

I don't recall this sort of thing happening the last time we had separate candidate forums. I don't think it would have even occurred to most DUers to try to interfere with the purpose of candidate forums this way.

See post #59.

thread had no business in.

I don't lurk in candidate forums for candidates other than the one I support, planning to drag anything I disagree with out into the wider forum, where it was never meant to be, to attack it here.

I don't know of anyone here other than the DUer who posted this OP copying someone else's post who does anything like that. Thank God. It makes a complete mockery of the idea of having candidate forums.

Whether or not you agree with an opinion expressed in the Biden forum is 100% irrelevant.

You weren't one of the people the post was intended for.

The only ethical way to have responded to that OP in the Biden forum would have been to change your preference to support Biden, and wait for whatever the waiting period is, and then comment on the thread.

accepting of Warren. Her popularity continues to grow. She shows courage and she is a tenacious fighter. Polls are a snapshot of an instant in time. All of her trend lines are going in the right direction. If she can beat Biden then she will be able to beat Trump.

Thanks for posting here so the nonsense can be debunked.

If Warren is the nominee, I think there will be a surge in the youth turnout, as well as,support from POC.

... low motivation in the general. Everyone on DU that I've seen express an opinion is going to vote for ANY Dem. Why should AAs and independents be different?

and will place the author on ignore. This is just plain wrong.

That seems much more wrong to me than complaining about such behavior in the Democratic Primaries forum.

captured the attention of many black voters. However, black Americans are over-represented in the healthcare industry and her current healthcare plan creates a climate of uncertainty. Warren will have to tweak her healthcare plan in order to cross the finish line.

If Warren wins the nomination she'll get the black vote. They are not going to vote for Trump. They won't stay home if Obama comes out and endorses the nominee, which he surely will.

She only uttered his name once all year and that was at the debate at a HBCU. She is running to strip Obama's main legacy achievement. Also, she is not doing anything to talk about issues that black people care about. I can assure you that black people aren't sitting around the kitchen table talking about Wall Street making too much money and breaking up tech companies.

I'm sure Obama would endorse her just like he'd endorse any Democrat, but I doubt seeing him on the trail.

"She only uttered his name once all year..." Where do you even come up with nonsense like this?

Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2019, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Studies have made clear that the vast majority of so-called independents are highly partisan voters who simply like calling themselves "independent." In fact, most "independents" are more partisan than the average party-affiliated voter was in the 1970s.

Furthermore, 2016 was not the result of Obama voters defecting to Trump. It was the result of suppressed turnout. Hundreds of thousands of Obama voters in key battleground states simply didn't vote, or they voted 3rd party. 25 years of Hillary Hate had taken a toll. Not to mention Russia, Comey, race-based voter suppression, etc.

The failure to understand all of that has led to this narrative that we need an old white male in order to defeat an old white male, that only Biden can win back those 3 states that had been won by the Democratic candidate for president each of the previous 6 or 7 presidential elections. It's nonsense, but for some it's become pure gospel.

Sanders has no chance at the nomination and probably would lose in the general. But Warren has a genuine shot at both the nomination and the presidency. I don't think she or Biden will be the nominee, however. Sanders hurts Warren's chances and I'm not sure she can do well enough among Black voters. But if Warren does win the nomination, I certainly think she can win. The biggest problem would be her insistence on doing away with private health insurance.

What I think will happen is that Harris will surge in Iowa and be able to take South Carolina once Biden fails to win either IA or NH. She'll then have a great Super Tuesday and go on to become the nominee. If that doesn't happen, then I think Warren has a great chance. It's too early to rule out Buttigieg, O'Rourke and others, though. The vast majority of people have not made up their minds. And we're still far enough out that the average voter isn't paying very close attention, especially with so many candidates still being in the race (the average voter isn't a DU political junkie and isn't going to bother trying to distinguish between 20 people they've never even heard of).

Anyway, how long Sanders sticks around will play a major role. If he loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have zero justification for staying in the race, which doesn't mean he'll drop out. He, again, has no shot at becoming the nominee, but he has enough of a following that he definitely has an impact on how others fare. Were he to drop out before Iowa (fat chance), Biden would be in serious trouble, as Warren would be a favorite to win both of the first 2 contests (if Biden fails to win either, his support will collapse). Again, though, I think Harris (or possibly someone else) will make significant gains over the next 4 months and may win Iowa. Klobuchar is someone who ought to do really well in Iowa, but I've never thought she would gain much traction due to a lack of charisma and the early reports about her being abusive toward staff. Booker, Buttigieg and Beto still have a chance to surprise. It's very reasonable to expect at least 1 candidate to surge in the coming months. Those who think the race will remain as is over the next 4+ months have not paid attention to history.

Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2019, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Don't underestimate candidates this early

Link to tweet