mad at those candidates

doesn't really make a difference to some.

maybe things would be different.

Did he bring that part up?

The issue is a lack of diversity in the race - meaning NO voters have a diverse choice.

This isn't simply about black voters having a chance to vote for someone who looks like us. Black voters vote for white candidates ALL the time, even when they're running against a black candidate. That's not the issue. This is also about other voters having a choice to vote for people who don't look like them.

The hostility being shown here to people raising questions about the lack of diversity among Democrats is really shocking to me.

their debate appearances or lack thereof, their financials, or poll support, or competency of their campaign teams.

It's shocking to this old white lady too.

Bad polling leads to money problems leads to less choices and less diversity.

The one thing that has to be looked at is the twin effect of IA and NH on the race. All (or virtually all) of our candidates appeal to much broader constituencies but they very often don’t get to show their stuff before it’s too late unless they poll well in the early states. The process is very long, outrageously expensive and, frankly, dull.

Biden has massive support among African Americans, it can be argued that group has kept him relevant.

Booker and Harris didn't cut deeply into that African American support. Why was that? Name recognition has to be a part of it, but maybe African American voters just trust an old White man to carry the banner on issues of concern to them more than they trusted the two African Americans who are(were) in the race.

This isn't about who black voters support. This is about having a diverse and representative slate of candidates for ALL voters to choose from.

Black voters don't only vote for black candidates. In fact, black voters are the least race conscious of all voters. We vote for people regardless of race and often vote for white candidates even when they're running against black candidates. When a candidate we like also happens to be black, that's a bonus for us.

That's not the issue. Running a virtually all-white slate of candidates isn't a problem just for black voters. It's a problem for all Democratic voters who now don't have the diversity they should have an opportunity to choose from. Diversity isn't important for cosmetic purposes. It goes much deeper than that.

And shrugging and saying, "So what. Most black voters were going to vote for the white guy anyway, so why should it matter that all of the candidates are white or male?" is not an acceptable response to this, in my view.

There were clear rules for people making debates. Harris made the debate but her polling was falling, so she dropped out. Booker and Castro have not yet met the requirements for making the debate later this month.

Should they be propped up and put on the stage anyway? If so, wouldn't that be playing right into the hands of what republicans try to paint us as? I think that is says something that the leading candidate in the polls is there to a large measure due to the strength of his support among African Americans.

and practices that give an unfair advantage to white candidates.

Among other things, two of the least diverse states in the country shouldn't be given such outsized influence over the primaries.

And opinion polls shouldn't be given the weight they're given now by the party and the media.

We also need to think about and push back against narratives that advance double standards and often just pass without any objection.

The problem is that, like most institutional discrimination, they are so ingrained and insidiuous, they seem like no big deal and appear fair, when in reality, they disadvantage minorities and women.

This doesn't mean giving an unfair advantage to minorities and women - just removing the obstacles many people don't even realize are there.

Kimberly Atkins made a great point today: (paraphrasing) "Many people said such things as, 'I like Kamala Harris, but I'm just not sure a black woman can win,' and 'I like Kamala, but this may not be the year to take a chance.' We need to acknowledge the problem with those 'buts.'"

He did that by planning ahead, he spent weekends in small Iowa towns, even staying in the homes of supporters. When time to vote came people there felt like they knew him. So, Iowa being first is not the issue that you make it out to be. Candidate that plan years ahead do better than once that just announce and start campaigning. BTW, in 2008, President Obama piled up some of his biggest victory margins over Hillary in lily-White states like Kansas, Idaho, North and South Dakota.

The fact that he did well in Iowa does not mean that black candidates don't have to deal with serious obstacles in the early stages that white candidates don't face.

Black candidates shouldn't have to be a damned Barack Obama - practically perfect in every way - in order to do what white candidates take for granted.

Please don't point to the success of one or two extraordinary black people as proof that discrimination isn't a problem. You probably don't mean it that way, but it's insulting.

The most extraordinary person should win. Harris was not it.

Please tell me how the multiple white men did in Iowa in 08.....or does losing delegates to both a black man and a white woman at the same time not count?

If you really believe that the playing field is now even and women and minorities don't face obstacles that white men don't have to navigate because Obama, that's your prerogative. I just don't have the energy to try to explain it to you any further.

Have a good evening.

But you're absolutely right on this.

perfect. President Obama put together a strong team and they planned way ahead. Harris and Booker didn't or haven't done that. It is more about planning ahead and executing than is is about race or gender.

Do we seriously want a person who structures a poor primary campaign as our General Election nominee? Republicans did that in 2008 and 2012 and got killed.

Best person, unless they are a white man is what it appears like.

Harris ran a poor campaign. That’s why she’s out. Not racism. Not sexism.

But there were several stories that were published in NYT, Washington Post, etc about how horrendously mismanaged her campaign was. No one is saying that the playing field between white people and African Americans is even. But those stories make it very clear that her campaign sunk itself through bad decision after bad decision.

The goal should be to remove the obstacles and hurdles that make it more difficult for anyone other than white men to get through the gauntlet. If that's done, diversity will occur naturally.

Clearly I am not black, and can never understand the situation in the way a black person can, in spite of having quite a few black friends, one relative (BIL), etc etc...

I also have mexican, iranian, omani, chinese, etc etc,, friends.... and have dated 2 black women in my life.. one of whom back in 1969, was beaten along with me, by a couple of rednecks while driving through Mississippi on a weekend vacation from memphis... all of which means ...well.. only whatever it means...---- so I have 'seen' and experienced a little...but....still.. I am white.... It obviously is NOT the same....

So the best I can do is to study, try to see, learn, understand and do what little I can..
Interestingly enough, it is my brother-in-law who has taught me the most... about the 'invisible' racism...

Anyway---
Do you think it is possible that the fact that the field has narrowed to all white people is perhaps not completely due racial bias?

To answer your question, I certainly don't think it's all due to racial bias. But racial bias is a component - and while all candidates have to deal with all kinds of obstacles, minority candidates have an extra layer to deal with that white candidates don't. And it's wrong for people to assume that because there are other factors involved, racism is either not present or not worth discussing.

Consider this in the hiring context. If a company never hired black people or hired only one black person in the last thirty years, would the fact that they interviewed black applicants for jobs prove that no discrimination was at play in their hiring process? Does the fact that one extraordinarily over-qualified black person got through mean that the process is fair?

Some might answer yes, but anyone who has ever dealt with these issues know that the failure to hire any black people is a flag that there's a serious problem since a fair process will usually result in a diverse mix of people. Sure, there can be exceptions when a fair process results in a situation where there's actually no diversity. But if the results are always all white, those aren't an aberration in a fair process since aberrations in a fair process would not always just happen to be all white.

There will always be many reasons candidates don't succeed. But, as Democrats, we should not be ok with one of those reasons being racial or gender bias.

that Sharpton was alluding to.

The fact that two smaller rural white states IA/NH go first in the primariy calendar sets the tone for the entire coverage, which influences everyone including PoC voters in the later states. Also knowing we live in a country that elected a white nationalist in Trump, so sticking with someone like Biden (and older white man who could win the white working class mythologized by the media) seems like the safe bet for many PoC voters, who are fearful, and wont' take a chance on a PoC candidate even if they like him/her.

And it never gets addressed.

People often point to African-American support for Biden without recognizing that some, if not much of that support is based on an understanding of the deeply-ingrained racism in the political system. I wonder what the numbers would be if so many black voters didn't assume that a minority candidate could not be elected in 2020.

choice more than any other group's, a majority of them anyway. They're serious about beating the Republicans. And I am also.

Btw, how's Sharpton feeling about Hispanics? Hope he's really indignant that when we speak of POC here we're seldom thinking of indigenous Americans among them.

Perhaps he will. And this is interesting that Harris did qualify for the debate.

Not sure whether Booker lacks donations or poll numbers.

Don't be fooled by all the hostile twists on this. The fact that Booker and Harris struggled for support of the black monolith this time is a measure of their determination to elect a Democratic president, and all that will come on his coattails.

Their commitment to winning is big strength most of the rest of us are grateful for and others should emulate. This is not a fake problem drummed up to insult and deny their determination to win, as well as that of a majority of the rest of their fellow Democrats.

I was ready to join his campaign if there were one.

But somehow he lost it. I really think that he was going to be a moderate but after Warren and Sanders became so dominant he was wavering, as some said realized the party was leaning left. I don't agree with this assertion. Most of the new House members, who flipped the R seats are moderate.

Perhaps he can still find his path and stick to it.

Harris really lost her path, started with Warren and Sanders M4A and then wavered. And I suspect that many AA do not support former prosecutors. Yes, this would be a problem to Klobuchar, too.

They're both needed, and they're now both big national names.

They seem to be able to cut through the bullshit and find the true essence of issues and the times. I wish that many on the left were as smart, but that wish clearly is not being met.

Not to insult it today, but in 2015-2016 I felt the AA forum easily averaged the best informed and well balanced on DU. I often dropped in to see what they were saying. Drew a lot of attacks from the hostile left, and no doubt RW agents, and some good people were either driven out or had enough and left. Good people still, but seems like numbers have dropped below critical mass for vitality. Wish some would come back. Maybe after the primaries?

If what you say is true...

Russian interference especially on social media.

social media nonsense.

and she was unable to make up for that. In 2008 I felt that President Obama made a weak choice in picking Biden over Hillary, but President Obama was able to carry the additional weight and win. Biden turned out to have been an excellent choice.

If Hillary had picked Liz Warren or someone that had pazzaz, we would be safe under her watch today, IMO.

to see the day when this no longer matters. It's entirely up to us.

support a White man that they know a lot about rather than two African Americans who they don't know as much about. To me that shows the remarkable societal maturity that African Americans as a group has, but no other group demonstrate nearly as well. If White as a group had that level of societal maturity, we would have been in nirvana as a society many decades ago.

based on constant references to color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc of candidates.
When will we start talking only about a person's qualifications, accomplishments, agenda, merits, etc?

At least, it was an excuse for the Rs who not so much voted for Trump as not voting for us. "They care about minorities, and LGBT, etc. What about us? Whites?"

After Franken resigned, a comment on the local paper wished that the governor would nominate Omar (she was only a member of the Minnesota House then) because... yes, a woman and a Muslim. These were the reasons that that person cites and, no doubt, were accepted by many.

including managing Walter Mondale senatorial campaign after the tragic loss of Paul Wellstone, V.P. of Planned Parenthood and LT. GOV.

Omar was an unknown, a freshman in the Minnesota House and, as was suggested the reason were being a woman and a Muslim.

And as a poster, above succinctly stated:

qualifications, accomplishments, agenda, merits,

The old "Content of their Character" argument that people always bring up whenever anyone tries to discuss discrimination and diversity.

If the issue was "qualifications, accomplishments, merits, etc." we wouldn't have a problem. Black women would have been running for - and probably serving as - president decades ago.

The problem is that, when it comes to minorities and women, "qualifications, accomplishment, merits, etc." often don't matter. THAT's the point.

You sum up my thoughts exactly.

Those people to whom race/gender etc is most important are bigots, period. They should be identified and made irrelevant.

If Michelle had run, she would have gotten media attention and tons of money. And she has never been a senator or a congresswoman.

Harris is more qualified to be president then Michelle. But I would have voted for and donated to Michelle.

That’s the way it goes. Some candidates don’t catch on and have to quit.

as far as I am concerned. There are other people outside of congress who can be called role models.
Michele Obama fits that qualification.

She would have tons of cash and have loads of support. She may not have won, but she’d clearly be in the race. Which means.....

Harris lost due to Harris. Not racism. Not sexism. She had more $ and better polling than Amy. But she wasted her opportunity. It’s that simple.

It's possible that Harris made mistakes and had problems in her campaign AND had to deal with unfair obstacles that white candidates, especially white men, don't have to face.

And FYI - she didn't "lose." No one has voted yet.

Amy has raised less money and had less polling success. But she’s still in. Can Harris not manage money well?

Every white man got beat in delegates in Iowa in 2008 by both a black man and a white woman. At the same time.

Harris didn’t connect with voters. That’s on her. Not on racism or sexism.

If not for them, Joe Biden m, who I think is the most experienced and qualified, might not be in the race right now.

African Americans are solidly behind Biden by every single measure I have seen.

Harris was somewhat qualified, but not exceptionally so. Biden has massive experience, Warren has a lot of credibility regarding finance and the economy.

Personally I think a candidate being female and non-white is no disadvantage amongst us Democrats, our last two candidates were one or the other, a candidate that is both wouldn't bother any of us.

A black man won the presidency twice and a woman got more votes last time, so issues of 'electability' make me suspicious of the person raising them.

If there hadn't have been a candidate trusted and backed extremely strongly by the AA bloc it might have been different.

My feeling is that there should be a person of color on the ticket. The candidates could bring that up in the next debate. I think that is one mistake that Hillary made. She got the African American vote in the primary, but she didn't get the turnout in the general.

anyone.

I was thinking that I could think of only three rivals who ended on the ticket:

LBJ in 1960, papa Bush in 1988, and Edwards in 2004, but perhaps there are more.

I think that would make other candidates more likely to accept it, if he is the nominee.

Obama picked him as his running mate.

Two White men will be a dead general ticket for us, and the same is likely for a White man and woman ticket. A White/Hispanic ticket may work, but Hispanics have a weak history of turning out, even for Hispanics. A ticket with Harris or Booker as VP is a sound ticket, I like Booker far more in that VP slot and I think that he would do more for the ticket than Harris. Although some here have a fevor dream about having Gillum or the woman who ran for governor in Georgia in the VP spot, I don't see either having the national level experience that Booker has after around a decade in the Senate. If a Hispanic VP is chosen, Joaquin Castro would be a better choice than his brother due to national level experience in foreign relations.

A historic woman being the first VP female isn’t good enough?

That ticket got crushed in the General. I think that VP has to be appealing to POC voters that will form the base of any General Election victory, without those voters being excited to turn out, we lose.

We are so partisan so it is almost a guarantee the generic Democrat will be in a 50/50 race. It is hard to cover all identities when it comes to the VP pick so issues & outreach are important. Plus there is a generational divide as younger voters especially Hispanic are backing Bernie Sanders while older voters back Biden. Warren has more African American support than Sanders last I looked.

I do think a moderate-moderate ticket will lose as we need to bring out those younger voters.

All are clearly left of center. People piss on Booker for supporting drug companies but don't piss on Warren for supporting Biotech or Sanders for supporting guns and the F35. Politicians are going to support the industries in their state or what is popular there, hince Booker supporting drug companies, Warren supporting major Biotech companies and Sanders supporting a defense company and gunmakers in his state.

I thought Booker did well in the last debate. I think he would make a good VP pick.

Your questions don't sound intended to actually understand where he's coming from but to challenge and counter him and to dismiss those of us who are very concerned about the lack of diversity in the race.

FYI, this isn't about "blaming" anyone or "protesting." Instead of asking hostile questions in such an accusatory tone using pejorative language, why not simply ask why people feel the way they do?

and... the threads here have already 50 plus replies.

But I don't think that concentrating on identities would help us in the long run.

Politics IS identity. It's only when we talk about gender and race that suddenly "identity politics" becomes verboten.

I think Bernie Sanders supporters complaining about "identity politics" probably drove away people that would otherwise support him. I think a better argument to make is how their candidate is better on issues of discrimination & decreasing the racial wealth gap, etc.

The identity being white men, with one exception. Funny we never heard about it till 2016. Never heard complaints about men playing the "man card" either.

voters can't choose who is a candidate. I mean, the field is diverse in every demographic. Some didn't support and dropped out. I mean, why be angry? We move as a party forward. My guess is there will be a minority on ticket if one of the front runners gets nomination.

His role in the Tawana Brawley fraud revealed his mindset.

I changed the channel when he started his complaints.

getting money out of politics.

And JFK remains the only Roman Catholic that we've had in the history of the republic.

Today it seems ho hum. Never hear it mentioned as an "issue."

One is a woman.
One is a gay man.
One will apparently not be replaced by idiots marching with tiki torches.
One has the majority of AA voter support.

Seems like this party is all about minorities.

OK.

It will continue like this, and only the wealthy and who hold political power will be allowed to have a chance. There should be a limit of money used for campaigns to stop this escalation of big supporters determining who succeeds, and who fails.

Are tom and Michael going to win Iowa and NH?
Yes they have $. No, they don’t have the support to win.