General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt tells us nothing at this point that HRC beats Bernie among women and poc.
She's been nationally known for years...Bernie is just establishing a national presence. A well-known candidate, in any race, will always outpoll a less well-known candidate. The voters have not made a final judgment on the merits of any of the candidates, and everything is subject to change in every voter's mind.
It's not as though Bernie's had a fair and equal chance and has already been proved to be unworthy of anyone's support. Nor has Bernie been proven to be rejected by any block of voters. It's early days yet.
And it's not as though HRC, other than the fact that she's been a larger presence politically, actually has a better record of concern or of achievement on anti-oppression issues.
Remember, she was a towering figure in the founding of the Democratic Leadership Council...a group that argued that feminists, LGBTQ people, and poc should be dismissed by the Democratic Party as nothing more than "special interests"
and that her role in creating that group, unlike her role as first lady, is unchallengably a subject of public debate.
If you are a woman, or a person of color, or LGBTQ, or differently abled, or fighting personal oppression on any other front, Bernie, unlike HRC, has never been actively involved in trying to lock you out in the cold politically, and unlike HRC, Bernie has never run, in any race he has ever contested, as a white backlash candidate who appealed to fears of black political advancement(as HRC did when she said "I'm one of you" while campaigning in West Virginia and other white states in 2008).
If you are simply speaking, as you have every right to do, out of concern that your issues may once again be ignored in this race(as they were in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and by HRC in 2008)you have every right to ask to know where Bernie stands if you aren't aware of his longstanding and uncompromised support of all anti-oppression causes. Everyone accepts that, I think.
(on edit...deleted the last graph...it went in a direction I didn't mean to go on. My bad.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)It's a command by a heterosexual white male that everybody else fall in line, to sit down and shut up.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It simply points out that HRC's poll ratings among black voters mean nothing at this point.
Why should they be taken as if they equate to an ultimate judgment?
I agree that social issues matter just as much as economic issues...so does Bernie...do we have to say they matter more to satisfy people? Does Bernie have to abandon the fight against corporate power and focus solely on the fight against bigotry before people trust the guy?
There is no reason for this "Bernie can't be trusted" meme to exist.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)That being said you can bookmark this post. Hillary Clinton's strength in the African American, Latino, Asian, and the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities and among women is real and will assert itself in the primaries.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the presumption that marginalized group don't know their own mind ... If they/we were only better informed, we would make "better choices."
How does one spell white, male, straight privilege? And tune the F@#% deafness?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I believe the world is more nuanced.
Chris Rock is part of the one percent. He still gets stopped for DWB.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to much ignoring, and gnashing of teeth ("why are you being divisive?"
And believe it or not, I don't have a problem with that ... so long as Bernie (and his supporters) understand, that is not a winning/attractive position for this Person of Color, as it dismisses my expressed opinion.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)If you remove the class struggle the problems of race, gender, and gender orientation will take care of themselves. IMHO, the problem is we aren't solving the class struggle anytime soon so it's best to address the problems on their own as best as we can.
*It's actually Marxist analysis but Marxism carries negative connotations to some so I rather not use it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)*It's actually Marxist analysis but Marxism carries negative connotations to some so I rather not use it.
I understand this. Question: Should one pause to consider that Marx was of a (largely) racially homogenous society ... and certainly a society without the racial baggage of the US?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He's never said that we shouldn't talk about racism, sexism, homophobia, trans phobia, ableism or religious/ethnic bigotry, because socialism would make all of those ills vanish.
If he thought that, he wouldn't have participated in the black freedom movement, a struggle that commenced when the socialist movement in the U.S. was at its absolutely lowest ebb(right after the McCarthy era).
And almost nobody on the U.S. left argues that struggles against social oppression shouldn't take place even while we still live under capitalism.
That's what's so maddening...Bernie's being attacked and his supporters are being attacked for something they haven't been saying.
Does he have to give up working for social democracy before people involved in anti-oppression struggles finally believe that he isn't ignoring them? If he gave up working for social democracy, there'd be no reason for his candidacy to exist, and nothing distinctive in it. He might just as well endorse HRC(not that she's actually good on anti-oppression issues) and retire to Vermont.
Economic justice doesn't end all forms of oppression-we all KNOW that. But it is crucial if we're really going to solve those problems in the end, because oppression can't be truly ended while we still have a capitalist economic system. The Sixties proved that. You need BOTH struggles for either to ultimately prevail.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was killed for making that connection.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We're on the same page.
I don't think there was an intentional omission there.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And why doesn't his lifetime perfect record on anti-oppression issues satisfy you?
I could understand if we were talking about Dukakis(who was homophobic) or Kucinich(who was weak on reproductive choice)
or Obama in '08(who opposed same-sex marriage).
But why does Bernie get more distrust than all of them?
Does he have to become anti-socialist to prove he's anti-racist?
(For that matter, did you think Paul Robeson wasn't really anti-Jim Crow because he was a Marxist?)
Class is a locus of oppression...it's different than race and sexual orientation, but it is real.
BTW...can we put the Chris Rock thing to rest? Those of us who are socialist are just as committed to making sure Chris isn't wasted by a white cop as you are.
Nobody really thinks that if you ended economic inequality we'd immediately get Utopia. Institutionalized oppression would still need to be fought. But it would be easier to fight it in an economically egalitarian country than it ever can be under capitalism, in which violence against poc, LGBTQ people, and women is built into the superstructure. It's not possible to reach the promised land under market economics.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bernie does not have to reject the class struggle to gain my trust; but, it would go along way, for me, if he would acknowledge that economic justice is not a primary concern for those denied social justice.
No... better put, if he would tell his supporters that economic justice is not a primary concern for those denied social justice.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But why does he have to say that the fight for economic justice doesn't matter to people denied social justice?
Most African Americans aren't Chris Rock.
Most LGBTQ people aren't Ellen Degeneres.
Most African American women aren't Oprah.
Most women aren't Angelina Jolie,
I'm not sure why you're so personally hostile to economic justice issues...they aren't "white only". People of all races, genders, and sexual orientations work for a living, are subject to wage cuts, benefit cuts, layoffs and the loss of their pensions.
Saying that doesn't diminish in the slightest the importance of the fight against bigotry, against police violence, against homophobia and trans phobia...it simply says that people in those fights are affected also by economic inequality and community abandonment just as they are affected by bigotry, violence and exclusion. If they are affected more viscerally by the latter things, that's one thing(and I fully accept that they are). But that doesn't mean that corporate dominance of life doesn't affect them, that greed and its consequences don't affect them(redlining, for example) or that it's possible to get an oppression-free society through alliances with Wall Street(it isn't-Wall Street is ALWAYS going to try to hold you down).
I want the biggest coalition for the broadest possible changes in this society...social AND economic...for freedom from oppression and freedom from want(which is its own form of oppression). I think that's what Bernie wants.
How does that concept disrespect victims of social oppression? They can't ultimately defeat oppression while market economics stays in place...because the market is always going to want social oppression to go on. Capitalism can't abide a land free from hatred-because that land will end up becoming anti-capitalist in the end. The social oppression is used to reinforce the economic oppression.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'd have said the same thing about polls showing HRC getting 87% support from anybody else.
My point was simply that it's early days...and that well-known people do better in polls than less well-known people. In ANY group. Why is that statement offensive? And how does it reflect white privilege? I'd have made the same comments(and I'm pretty sure I did)about Jesse Jackson doing poorly in polls of white voters(and I AM a white voter) in early 1988.
What meaning do you take from that figure? That the discussion is already over?
Why does it matter where HRC's support is based when Bernie just declared last week?
Can you think of any good reason for AA voters to prefer HRC over Bernie on their personal merits on anti-oppression issues? Other than the at-this-point-meaningless concept of "electability"?
As you see it, does "electability" automatically trump everything else? Even a far-worse record on any number of issues that both poc and LGBTQ voters are concerned about?
If it isn't "electability", than why would she get that support among AA and LGBTQ voters? It's not like she has a particularly good record on the issues both groups care about, and Bernie hasn't done anything to either group that comes remotely close to HRC's defense of DOMA and DADT and her support, while helping form the DLC, of the idea that poc, feminists, and LGBTQ people should be shunned by the party as "special interests".
African-American voters have the right to back whoever they want. So do LGBTQ voters. when have I ever said anything that contradicts that?
Cha
(296,790 posts)with flinging disingenuous crap like this around, too..
"..she doesn't give a damn about the sisters, or poc, or LGBTQ.."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6750111
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Nobody denies that.
All I really said in the OP is that it's early yet and things can change.
And that well-known candidates tend to do better in polling, in any group anywhere you could poll, than candidates just entering the race.
Nothing in that assertion came anywhere close to arguing that the groups being discussed were idiots or that I know what's good for them more than they do.
Bernie has work to do. He and his campaign will do that work. And he's got a good case to make to all those groups based on his record, a case a lot of them simply haven't heard yet(as most voters everywhere in the country haven't heard it yet).
It's not like he doesn't have any right to try to get support among those groups.
Question:
Why is it such a big thing for Bernie to make a specific appeal to those groups when nobody demanded that of Bill Clinton(who, frankly, never did a damn thing to earn support among any group other than CEO's and bitter Southern white dudes).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)he has plenty of time to address it, i think you mean.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He's got a great record on the issues.
Why dismiss the fact that a lot of AA voters(and you're not AA anymore than I am)simply hadn't heard of Bernie and don't yet know about what he stands for?
Do you really think most of them are outraged that he talks about economic justice? It does affect them.
And he's never said that the fight against things like police violence and the fight to defend choice don't matter.
Can you really make a case that HRC's been better on anti-oppression issues? She fought against AA's, feminists, and LGBTQ people when she helped form the DLC...a group that argued that CEO's and bitter Southern white men were the only people the Democratic Party should care about.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)And would you put more value in the ratings among black voters if they were more negative toward Clinton?
It seems like you pretty much just want to make them mean whatever you want them to mean while, consciously or not, sounding awfully condescending toward women and poc.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This OP is telling folks that PoC, women and LGBT folks are low information voters and support HRC, purely on the basis of name recognition.
I'se so glad I'se got sum body that knows me to tell me what I'se don't be knowin. Thankie kindly, boss.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... is also much obliged to be tole what's what and then sum.
Were it not for OPs like this, we of the female persuasion would just go ahead and vote for Hillry 'cause we don't recognize those other names being spoke of.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but you have no idea how much that wimmin spelling bothers me, and it bothers me like nails on a chalkboard.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... how much it grates on my nerves that some people here think the spelling of "wimmins" is more important than the issues women are currently having to deal with.
As long as everyone agrees to give me equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity to advance myself, and stays out of my vagina, how they spell "women" is of no consequence.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but hey, whatever trips your trigger, in thinking that about me. Have a nice day.
(For the record, I was civil, you were not... and that personal attack was not warranted)
And no I will not alert on this. I don't play that shitty game.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... you are free to state what gets on your nerves, but no one else is permitted to do the same.
And civility has absolutely nothing to do with it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but go on...
And with that, feel free to have the last word. I just pointed out that this particular spelling does. If you made that leap that I do not care about human rights, women's rights. minorities, and all that, well, that is quite frankly, your issue.
Duckies... water, and all that.
Have a wonderful evening and please, do have the last word.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)You think it appropriate to object to someone's rendering of a word because it upsets you. But when I point out what upsets me, you declare that to be "uncivil".
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)He has a perfect voting record on feminist issues.
HRC, on the other hand, helped form the DLC, a group which was devoted to excluding feminists, poc, LGBTQ people(and labor, who are represented within all of the other groups, since people in all of those groups work for a living) from having any real say in the Democratic Party and what it stood for in the Nineties. Thanks to her, the first Clinton Administration fought mainly for the wishes of the male-dominated corporate sector(that's what being a 'pro-business Democrat" means-being a Republican) and bitter Southern white men who hated the Sixties and still wanted to slap women, poc, and the poor back down "in their place".
As a senator in the Bush era, she was bland, quiet and centrist on all social issues-never seriously fighting the Bush agenda on those or any other issues(she should have been pushing the party to filibuster every piece of anti-choice legislation Bush introduced, but she never did).
In 2008, her "I'm one of you" slogan in West Virginia and other white resentment states meant she couldn't have been anything other than a white backlash president if elected(and that she wouldn't have done much of anything to protect choice, since white Southerners wanted it taken away and she only cared about them).
So tell me, Nance...why does Bernie have to prove anything about himself when you give HRC a pass on all of that just because of her gender? Why should she get any more of the benefit of the doubt on any anti-oppression issues than he does?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... a demand for "Bernie to have to prove anything about himself" or "giving HRC a pass" on anything "because of her gender" out of what I have posted on this thread is beyond me.
In fact, I find your response to be rather bizarre.
Given that you seem determined to have a conversation with yourself about things I haven't stated, nor even touched upon, I'll just stand back and let you continue the discussion with whoever it is you think is listening - or interested.
I'm am neither.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and the LGBTQ community.
You know me better than that. I'm more progressive than you are on any issues involving those groups. You usually end up attacking me and others who disagree with you from a position to our right.
If I was dismissive of poc, would I have campaigned for Jesse Jackson twice? If I was dismissive of women, why would I support Kshama Sawant and still be pissed off that Bella Abzug didn't get elected to the Senate or become mayor of NYC?
If I was dismissive of LGBTQ people, why would I consider Harvey Milk to be one of my political heroes?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm just trying to grow here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the first time I saw it was on Facebook a few months back. I took a second, third and fourth look to see if I was seeing that right. (And there are a few variations of the spelling as well)
I guess it is because I work with language and something in that one sets my inner spell-nazi off.
I have seen it used by both MRA types, don't ask, but I follow a few. (I guess there is a story in there and hoping they will give me one, maybe soon... they are dangerous dullarts), and the feminist types. Both sides use it and it is like a fight over the word. I guess that is where the various spellings are coming from... and that is just a guess at this point.
We all have things that "tick us off." They are not necessarily rational either. I s'pose I will not try to tell the person I told her that, anything ever again. I am getting good at "ignoring" folks without the ignore list. If they do not want to talk, no need really.
And I think she is a good egg.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)IOWs, have you found other women that object to the spelling, especially in the context of the post?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)yes
And in that context
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)how the stuff they write comes across?
Based on the number of posts of that nature, apparently not ... Know matter how many time those that they are speaking of/for tell them.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If I was anything like you just implied I am, I wouldn't have backed Jesse Jackson, the only progressive candidate in the Democratic race, in 1988 and even in 1984.
All I said was that most voters, this early on, don't have that much info. That's not the same thing as saying people who back HRC are stupid or inferior. It just means that nothing's really decided yet.
Cha
(296,790 posts)
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)On Sat May 30, 2015, 04:22 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
We wimmin folk ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6749268
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Accuses OP of being sexist when there is no evidence of that anywhere in the thread.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 30, 2015, 04:31 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: You have got to be kidding. Meanest, nastiest, cruelest alert ever. Seriously this is simply shameful.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter needs to leave Nance alone. What a cheesy, shitty alert. SHAME ON YOU, alerter. Let discussion happen without you "helping." UGH. You wouldn't know sarcasm if it slapped you silly.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I need a cup of coffee. Half and Half and a spoonful of sugar. Maybe then I will be awake enough to understand why this silly little post was alerted on.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's an opinion
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.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I'm saying is that it's early yet...and things can change.
Most voters in ALL groups haven't heard of Bernie yet.
You can't seriously argue that HRC is better than him on anti-oppression issues. When she helped build the DLC, she was fighting to lock poc, feminists, and LGBTQ voters out in the cold. That's why those groups got nothing from the Clinton administration.
Pro-Clinton poc, LGBTQ, and feminist posters on DU aren't entitled to act as if they speak for their entire demographics. They are simply individuals speaking for themselves.
It's not as if it would be a defeat for any of those groups if Bernie was nominated, or that anti-oppression politics would matter any less in a Sanders Administration than they would in a HRC Administration.
He's got a perfect voting record on anti-oppression issues. I could understand people being suspicious if he was bad on some of those things(like Kucinich was at one point on choice), but he hasn't actually been bad.
And it's not about telling you to shut up or know your place. I'm just saying don't think the worst of a person when you have no reason to think it. Be fair-minded.
Is that really asking so much?
It's not like Bernie's ever betrayed any of the causes you fight for.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #13)
Post removed
Number23
(24,544 posts)
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)But how dare they talk down to the white man about the new Great White Hope. She got hidden or I would have co-signed onto her's.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Even if it was a bit offensive it had to be one of the most hilarious bits of writing I have ever read on the internet.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)my posted was alerted on and narrowly survived.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And know how long she has advocated for POC. Women and children. I do not have any doubt she is going to continue. It would be foolish to try the scare tactic on me and others. It is like water on a duck's back, it rolls off, fast.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I like them, both.
My zero sum leaning comes down to matters unrelated to political positions ... like the General Election. It's going to take a lot more to convince me that Bernie can win the General Election ... though should he be the Democratic nominee, I will work my ass off for him (I think I'd have to).
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)supporters will jump on.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that MOST VOTERS are low information voters
It is a known fact that people do not TUNE IN to the smear (err election) until about six weeks before a given election. This is why campaigns also do most of the smearing, err campaign adds, during those same weeks.
This is not, I hope, your first rodeo
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)except those that poll for his preferred candidate.
Taken in conjunction, those supportive of Bernie this early are astute political students; whereas, those (PoC, women, and LGBT folks) supportive of HRC this early, are merely name recognizers? See a problem here?
No ... This isn't me first rodeo; nor, is it my first time being told what I was told was not what I was told.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)early polls are worth both shit and crap, for the reasons I already stated. Thirty days from any election, at the outset six weeks is when they start to matter. That is when most of the universe of voters will actually clue themselves in that there is an election coming.
They are useful right now only to slightly tweak messages if at all.
Have a good evening. It seems I have to go take some notes on some actual policy made by the Sanders campaign on the issue that is dear to your heart... and damn it, O'Malley is announcing tomorrow, which should shake this even more, and make it even less clear, or clear as mud. O'Malley has even less name recognition actually (at the moment, all that could change in an instant)
Personally I hope we get at least 5 candidates. More work for me, but at least more fun. And no more Republicans please, it is getting impossible to follow that clown cart.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I didn't single out poc voters or LGBTQ voters in that.
Why are you so bound and determined to see me as someone who can't be trusted? I've done nothing to you and neither has Bernie.
If you want to back HRC, fine, you can do that.
Why do you cut her so much slack though? She hasn't exactly walked through the fire for the AA or LGBTQ causes. In fact, she's never taken any risky stances in support of either group.
And Bill treated both groups like shit for eight years with her never saying anything in contradiction, even in private as far as anybody knows.
MLK, she's not. Harvey Milk, she's not.
Cha
(296,790 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026706470
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6709891
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Black people view HRC favorably NOW just because we recognize her name?
Perhaps, people think Black folks haven't been paying attention for the past 7 years. We knew her then ... we know her now; and for many, the support she enjoys among Black folks is owed to saying no better alternative.
Cha
(296,790 posts)guess what.. it's not working. only making Bernie's supporters look insecure, desperate, and mean spirited.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the aim of some has NOTHING ... Not ... A ... F'ing ... Thing ... to do with supporting Bernie ... no matter how many Bernie bumper stickers appear on your sign, as you read their posts.
Cha
(296,790 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts).
Exactly why we need him and he needs us to bring him our nomination to run for the office of the President of the United States of America.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
okasha
(11,573 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I simply question the idea that polls now prove something absolute about the race when they prove nothing at this stage.
This whole meme has been set up that Bernie hasn't proved himself on social issues.
There is nothing whatsoever that justifies that claim.
You can support whoever you support. Nobody's stopping you.
If you want to back the less-progressive candidate, that's your call.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)This point. Political advisors, at least legitimate ones, will tell you that they don't pay attention to position polls until about 30 days before the first debate, or about 90 days before the first primaries and caucuses.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)they use these polls to slightly tweak messages. It is like a large free focus group. That said, they do care for the polls for reasons that almost smack of arcane magic, and statistics freaks love this stuff too. But they do not start to get worried until 30 days before the elections since most voters tune in 6 weeks from one...good rule of thumb to live by.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I'm sure it helps.
JI7
(89,239 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What matters is what white men think that minorities and women are supposed to think. They just need white dudes like me and you to explain it all to them.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why is there this fixation with trying to drive Bernie out of the race over these matters?
What do you need to hear from the guy?
You've said yourself that you back HRC on electability grounds...and fine, you have the right to do that...but is it really fair to argue that alleged "electability" is the same thing as superiority on the issues?
And, if people in anti-oppression movements don't trust Bernie, why would they ever trust HRC? She doesn't really approve of movement politics(her "graduate essay" that supposedly contained some secret radical agenda was, instead, simply a bland centrist argument that Saul Alinsky should never have tried organizing communities for social gains but should have just called on them to mundanely vote for the Democratic ticket, no matter what).
Why should the poll on HRC's AA support be taken as if it's some sacred and unchallengeable statement? Why should it be taken as somehow proving that Bernie is the enemy of blacks, women, and gays? Would you have argued, in 1984 and 1988, that Jesse Jackson's low poll ratings among Jewish voters were proof that the man actually was an antisemite, as the right wing of the party cynically claimed?
I agree he should make a speech on anti-oppression issues, just to point out the perfect record he's always had on them. But what else would you call for?
If he gets out, economic inequality, downsizing, austerity and poverty won't be mentioned by anyone else in the race at all.
And we'll go on being the party of ceo's. How does THAT help the struggle against bigotry?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)May I have I please Have a list of the posters who asserted this:
Thank you in advance.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the "HRC beats Bernie among those groups" thing.
They are taking false accusations and meaningless early polls as if they prove something final-and as if they prove that it's justifiable to back HRC, the much more conservative candidate, against Bernie on "anti-oppression" grounds.
If I've got that wrong...what message SHOULD I be taking from those who keep citing the poll results and keep making false accusations that Bernie can't be trusted to fight bigotry?
Or from the poster who started a thread whose title was basically "only young white kids back Bernie"?(that's a slight paraphrase, but that was the essence of the thread title. If those aren't coded accusations that Bernie and his current core supporters are bigots, what the hell DO they mean?
And why is there this great push to put Bernie on the spot on this when he's done nothing to deserve such treatment? You'd think we could only hold the White House if Bernie withdrew from the race by Monday or something.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)All I am saying is that the groups you mention have an affinity for Ms. Clinton is going to be hard to shake. That doesn't mean Bernie is not a good guy.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What is so freaking offensive about saying that, in a poll between a candidate who's been well-known nationally for years and a candidate who just declared his campaign a few days ago and was not in the national awareness before then...that the better-known candidate would probably be doing better? How does saying that equate to the idea that I was claiming to know better what certain groups should want than people in those groups themselves?
It's just about combatting the idea that HRC has already won the argument on the merits. The comments I made in the OP were about her, not about anybody who's been polled. Why wasn't that obvious?
I'd say that Bernie should make a major speech on the social issues...just to point out how hard he has been fighting on them.
Some significant endorsements among poc, women, and LGBTQ voters would help too, as would a diverse face for his campaign staff(I doubt he's been trying to keep that lily-white or anything).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)had this conversation the other day with posters saying the community is just uninformed and voting against their own interest.
but, i think there is something more, i cant be informative about.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I guess what I look at(as an outsider)is the AA community supporting Bill Clinton when he never fought for them in office that I could notice and when he never challenged the Republican meme that everyone on welfare was a single black mom who was popping out kids for the hell of it(actually, the largest single group of people on welfare are white).
And women backing him when he never really backed them(he was barely pro-choice, did nothing to challenge the demonization of women who had abortions, and when he insulted their entire gender by endorsing the "welfare mother" meme.
And LGBTQ people backed him when he pissed on them by agreeing to DADT and signing DOMA.
To this day, HRC has never publicly(to my knowledge) challenged any of the above.
And yet Bernie gets treated as untrustworthy because he talks about economic inequality...as if doing that is the same thing as ENDORSING racism, sexism, homophobia and trans-phobia. And as if economic inequality somehow doesn't affect poc, doesn't affect women, doesn't affect gay and transgender people.
Obviously, addressing economic injustice does NOT make social oppression vanish-we all know that. But it does help. and including it in the discussion(as HRC didn't until recently) does nothing whatsoever to weaken the movements against social oppression and for human liberation on all levels.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and girl issues.
Cha
(296,790 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You don't get to determine whether your words are insulting to others ... the receiver of the message does; just as white people do not get to determine what is, or is not racist, and straight folks do not get to determine what is, or is not heterosexist, and males do not get to determine what is, or is not sexist. You can either accept their determination and step back, or not.
But know ... refusing to accept what you are being told by those you are offending and continuing to offend, crosses the line from not knowing to deliberate action.
Lilith Rising
(184 posts)that it seems to me that the major exception to his op lies in the final paragraph.
It struck me as condescending and 'splainy.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you FEED it. you are part of the feed.
gonna call chris hayes or calling sanders a bigot too?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That is you trying to get into the mind of those you refuse to listen to and trying to interpret what we are saying.
I, a Black man, say: Bernie sees economic justice as a means to establishing social justice; rather than, social justices as a means to establishing economic justice.
You hear me saying "Bernie is a racist (or social justice ambivalent)."
But understand, those are your words not mine.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)one again, it is you, actively addressing this issue, starting another OP to let those concerned about social justice know what is. IF we speak, we are accused of being unfair to sanders. we are accused we are calling sanders a racist.
how much did you try to stop the last two days, of many pro sanders people, who never SAW anyone call sanders a racist, how much did you call that fuckin insulting bullshit out for the bullshit it is? tell me ken?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Whatever you think of some posters here(and I join you in calling out those who say that social issues don't matter) Bernie has had a perfect record on every anti-oppression issue.
And I'm just as concerned about social justice as you are. I agree with you that the fight against bigotry wouldn't automatically end if we achieved economic inequality(though it would become a considerably easier fight)and that wealthy poc, women, and LGBTQ people can be and still are oppressed.
All I've said in this OP is that the poll ratings of Sanders vs. HRC among AA voters are not a final verdict. It's not insulting to anyone to say that a candidate who is better-known will pretty much always a candidate who is less-known. That's an innocuous statement and a truism.
What message do YOU take from that poll result?
Besides which, you, like me, are white...so who are you to claim any greater insight into what poc might think? And unless you are gay, what claim do you have to speak for gays?
Nobody is trying to sneak anything by you here...and whatever the behavior of some posters here, Bernie's commitment on anti-oppression issues isn't in question. He has a better voting record than HRC-on EVERY anti-oppression issue.
If you want to call out bad posters here, fine, that's legitimate...but why do your posts read as if you are constantly flying into some sort of panicked assumption that Bernie will betray and ignore you? Why does he deserve less slack than HRC, who HAS betrayed and ignored poc, LGBTQ, and feminist voters on many issues over the years.
You have every right to ask questions. But acting like there's some sort of diabolical conspiracy you need to battle isn't about asking questions-it's just about spreading unjustified fear and suspicion towards a candidate(one you claim to support)who has done nothing to deserve such treatment. And I was having these exact same kinds of conversations with white liberals who used false accusations of antisemitism to justify selling out and not backing Jesse Jackson on 1984 and 1988, when he was the only progressive candidate in the race on both occasions. And with people who wouldn't let it go that Dennis Kucinich talked about a damn UFO when that totally didn't matter.
I'll always defend a good person who's being unjustly attacked.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)betray, never. ignore? well.... kinda where we sit at this point. but, this is the start of the run and he has plenty of time. he has looked at the numbers and heard more than just me talk about it. chris hayes saying EVERYTHING i have for the last three weeks. nothing panicked there... facts. i am sure he will address it.
what i do not like is the group here on du and there dismissal, ect... oh, and saying i am callling sanders a racist and sexist and have called sanders a sexist and racist many times.
ya. a lie. flat out fuckin lie. that is allowed in two days to grow.
i do not talk for people of color. i do talk from my experience as a woman. i love AA community and lbgt community coming in saying what they have to say.
as far as presenting a NUMBER, a mere factual NUMBER, 87%. that is not talking for anyone.
and white? ya. i have already admitted sanders economic justice benefits me a whole lot, being in hte upper middle white catagory, hence my recognition of the privilege with sanders talking straight to me. will help me the best and fastest, out of all the groups
see, straight talk.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And he has the only proposals of any candidate that would help poor people(HRC doesn't mention them at all), a group divided equally among many races, all genders, and all sexual orientations.
You have no reason whatsoever to think that Bernie is going to leave you out in the cold. You have a lot of reason to think that of HRC...because she helped found the DLC, a group DEDICATED to leaving you out in the cold.
And again, since the guy has had a perfect anti-oppression voting record throughout his career, why would you even think he'd suddenly start not caring about oppression once he became president?
And I do straight talk, too. I've never lied to you...have never disrespected you...have never said that what you care about doesn't matter. And other than a handful of anti-social types(we are on the internet, y'know) almost nobody who backs Bernie has said that bigotry and oppression doesn't matter, OR that achieving economic inequality would end bigotry. Obviously, we'd still have to fight it. But it would get a lot easier to fight on some fronts, since the kinds of bigotry driven by hard times and scarcity would diminish greatly. The police would still need to be stood up to, gaybashers would still need to be stood up to, racism would still need to be fought where it lingered...and economic justice advocates will be right there fighting those battles with you, just as they always have been. Economic and social justice are not exactly the same...but they do overlap, and people of good will do care about fighting both.
Give us all a chance. We have much more in agreement than not, even if people do sometimes need to be challenged.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)many of us that know we will still be shot in the back by police or hunt a hanger instead of a legal procedure.
you are just sure, economic will trickle down to social justice.
we are just sure, economic will NOT trickle down to social.
and that is what is scary for us, trusting, .... those demanding theirs first, the economics (which will absolutely benefit me) for the trickle down to social.
i like you ken. i really really like you.
but no.... i cant give this up.
it has been my whole life.
it is ... who i am.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The post you responded to their said just the opposite. I've NEVER said that economic justice issues are all that matter.
I said that, even if economic justice is achieved, the fight against bigotry and oppression will need to go on. Does it harm anything to say that it might get a little easier to fight it, though?
And why do you seem to be arguing(if you're not, please clarify, because I don't want to misunderstand)that economic justice and social justice issues are totally separate? They aren't synonymous(as I said above), but there are connections.
Never asked you to give anything up. Never will.
What do you need to hear to put that fear to rest in your mind?
BTW, where do you get the idea that economic justice issues only(or mainly)effect white men? Do women not get their jobs outsourced? Do poc not get laid off? Do L
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)justice we are batting up against and being hit up side our head constantly. hence, why you hear more blacks, gays and women discuss this than men. and why sanders audience is in tuned more, toward men than 'others'
does that make sense to you?
if you not hunted to find a place for a niece to get a legal medical procedure, having to pay lots of money cause she does not have it, having to drive her out of state cause tx is closing them up and making women jump thru hoops. if you have not had to walk a line into this medical place with MEN, my age, my peers, hanging over a fence sneering, humiliating, shaming these girls walking in.... you are not listening to the same stories, you are not seeing the same needs as the rest of us.
white men (and i am not saying it is only white men, i am addressing what you asked), white men have none of this distorting their perceptions and sanders message comes thru loud and clear.
we hear the clutter of a police shooting our sons in the back, or girls grabbing for a hanger then a safe legal procedure.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I can discern, as an LGBTer, whether or not and by how much any candidate addresses concerns dear to me. Some LGBTers will agree with me, some will not. We will each come to our individual opinions.
Sea, you speak for Sea.
I'd appreciate it, thanks.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)connection with sex
when i said no, you demanded/insisted that it was biological? that men did not need it, but women HAD to have an emotional connection?
and i said no... we do not.
and you demanded/insisted that we ALL had to have an emotional connection with sex.
now... i was talking where the majority is going. the numbers are up, like 87% AA support clinton. maybe it will change tomorrow. maybe i am wrong. but, what i posted about? no, it is not speaking for the gay community any more than stating gays, women, and black support the democratic party, by a larger number
ooops, spoke for gays again.
i saw your game in another thread. not playing. beat me up.... tis yours.
Prism
(5,815 posts)If you knew my female friends, you'd know I don't think women need an emotional connection with sex. Being a gay man, it's a given my female friends will tell me the dirtiest things. God love em for it.
Please retract your statement.
If you believe that it is not a heterosexual's place to speak for a community when a member of it asks you not to, you will refrain and not play games.
That is if you honestly believe in that tenet of social justice.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And the fight to preserve choice.
I was raised by a single mother after age eight(my father had mental health issues and my mother was told that he might pass them on to me if she didn't divorce him).
It's horrible that you've had to go through what you've been subjected to to get an abortion. I haven't had to face anything like that.
I know you have a lot of reasons to feel distrust of a lot of people in power...but Bernie Sanders isn't one of those people. Please check his website and it will have his stands on all the issues you raise and many others.
What do you need to hear from him to satisfy your concerns? What would be enough for you to say "Ok, I can relax and trust this guy not to ignore me"?
You can't expect him to stop talking about economic justice...that's the reason his campaign matters...but give him a chance to show you that he won't ignore you.
BTW...as has been pointed out to you, HRC has a far greater record of pushing for the things you care about to be ignored. Why don't you have trust issues with her? Especially after her defense of the "welfare reform" bill that made life miserable for millions of women, millions of poc, and a far larger number of LGBTQ people than you'd probably guess.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)unless he updated it. and....
yes. i can expect him to talk about social issues also. his campaign should not matter simply because of economic, and that is what he is going ot have to accept, and his supporters to be competitive in a national election. that is gonna just be his reality.
i THINK....
i could be wrong
but, i think.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I gotta say, it's not out reach at all, is it?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)They're just getting the site up and running.
He's not excluding anyone...most likely, it was just an oversight. Which shouldn't have happened, but still.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)That is to huge segments of the Dem party? You should emmail him some tips to be more inclusive since you are so very invested in his campaign. He's actually going to have to work for our votes, Ken. Same as he works for yours.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What I meant was that you can't assume that it meant that Bernie doesn't care about those issues. Why are you so suspicious of him, when his voting record for decades has shown his commitment on all of these issues?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)White middle class men. That is who he is reaching out to pretty exclusively right now, and when that ain't you.... You tend to notice this narrow focus, and you calling it an oversight- well it's an insult but not nearly as bad as many posters here accusing women and POC of being paid shills with phony concerns.
There is a lot of belittling going on here. It's a trap you really should try harder to a avoid. Stop admonishing voters for not researching past his website- or telling them to beg Bernie for recognition. That's not how campaign works.
The onus on good outreach is on Bernie and his supporters. Stop acting like we are thorns to be plucked out and cast aside, or people with misguided concerns. It's disrespectful on its face.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)HRC can't be that candidate. She's on the side of the CEO's...she doesn't give a damn about the sisters, or poc, or LGBTQ. When you get Wall Street money, nobody's oppression means anything to you any more.
And Bernie isn't deliberately running a campaign for white guys only. He's better on all anti-oppression issues. HRC supporters just pretend he isn't because he happens to be male.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I know you're passionate about your candidate, but no one is telling me why I should be too.
Sorry you seem to think that's okay.
Trashing Hillary is deflecting my concerns- it's a foolish and desperate move.
Number23
(24,544 posts)You tend to notice this narrow focus, and you calling it an oversight- well it's an insult but not nearly as bad as many posters here accusing women and POC of being paid shills with phony concerns.
There is a lot of belittling going on here. It's a trap you really should try harder to a avoid. Stop admonishing voters for not researching past his website- or telling them to beg Bernie for recognition. That's not how campaign works.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)if you are telling us sanders will have the same passion (and yes, i believe he has the passion and quite capable) of fighting for our social justice, without just counting on the trickle down of economic, that is a whole different story.
there. is that articulated better?
TDale313
(7,820 posts)As you've said, it's early. And personally, I have a lot to learn about him, and want to hear from him and Hillary on many issues. I do feel passionately that we need to address both social and economic justice, and that they do go hand in hand in many ways, but are not the same and one shouldn't eclipse the other (which can be hard)
So far, just looking at his voting record and just general impression, I have not felt like supporting Bernie would mean sacrificing one for the other. I can't say the same for Hillary. And I can't say even when she says "the right thing" that I can believe it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I specifically made the opposite argument a few posts above. I'm not saying the things you're accusing me of saying.
You act like we are in disagreement, but we're not.
I agree with you that, even if economic justice were achieved, the fight against bigotry and oppression would go on.
What we can't possibly do is defeat bigotry and oppression once and for all while preserving the current economic structure-a structure that is designed to keep bigotry and oppression going.
Capitalism(of the form we have now)and social justice cannot coexist. That's a major part of why the freedom struggle was stopped in the Sixties...the market forces types wanted it stopped(and want the ERA kept off the books so they can keep paing women less, and want abortion criminalized because that makes it easier for them to mistreat female workers, and want homophobia to go on because that makes it easier to take working people's minds off of the fact that they are getting screwed.
I want all the battles you fight to be won...so does everyone else(from what I can see) who backs Bernie's campaign. A lot of his supporters are former Sixties and Seventies activists who have been in all the fights you are still fighting...and stand by your side in those fights today. The only thing we are really adding to your argument is that greed and massive concentration of wealth need to be defeated if we are to make this the oppression-free society you and I both want.
You can't fight oppression as a member of the Stock Exchange, or in a corporate boardroom. You can only fight it from below.
And you need a coalition of all who are oppressed...economically as well as socially...to defeat oppression.
If Bernie's campaign was making the Marxist argument from the 1870's or something that everything would be fine "come the Revolution", you'd have a point. But nobody's being that reductivist nowadays...both struggles need to go on, and people who want change need to be part of both struggles.
There's much more openness to the social agenda than you seem to acknowledge. Please be willing to listen...you have more friends and more allies than you think.
We are all fighting for what the late Guy Carawan called "a right...to the Tree of Life" that means the good things of the world, not "life" in the anti-choice, anti-woman sense).
okasha
(11,573 posts)when you write trash like "....poor people [are] a group divided equally among many races, all genders, and all sexual orientations."
That is pure fantasy. The poor are disproportionately women and children. The poor are disproportionately people of color. The poorest counties in the US have persistently been in the lower Rio Grande Valley, mid Mississippi, and southwestern S. Dakota. Hispanics, African Americans, First Nations (specifically the Pine Ridge reservation.) We're talking poverty rates north of 30% using federal standards.
Please. Just get back on your pink unicorn and ride into the sunset. You are not helping your candidate.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)as smart as you.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Just that it's arrogant to act as if polls taken now really mean anything.
How could any candidate who's just entered the campaign, just begun to enter national consequence, be fairly expected to be instantly competitive in every demographic?
Why should we act as if these polls somehow end the discussion and prove that Bernie is unacceptable?
It's not as if anything progressive or positive, or anything that benefited the fight against social oppression. could possibly come of Bernie being forced out of the race.
And why do you act is if the his perfect voting record on anti-oppression issues doesn't matter?
It's silly to assume that HRC would be better on anti-oppression issues simply because she's a woman. Did that work with Margaret Thatcher? With Indira Gandhi? With Golda Meir(who started the insane West Bank settlement movement)?
TM99
(8,352 posts)the incongruencies and game playing optics?
http://www.alternet.org/hillary-appoints-former-junk-food-lobbyist-head-black-outreach?akid=13157.319429.giEI3b&rd=1&src=newsletter1037081&t=1
So a black woman was chosen to do the black outreach. Looks great on the surface until you discover that the woman is a junk food lobbyist.
So she hires someone whose job was to harm the people she is now going to liaison with.
Then there is the obvious hypocrisy.
Right now it appears that Clinton is presenting the right optics on race and such but when you look at who and what she is surrounding herself with, you see the same neo-liberal economic agenda which actually does harm POC in particular a great deal.
We do need to wake up to that and think about what is really good for us and what is not just because she talks a good talk and has high name recognition.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)reach far beyond the implications made in that nasty crud you're linking to. She was chosen for her commitment to raising African American voices in Washington and ability to use outreach effectively,she was voted one of the top 25 most powerful women in Washington under 35. That article for Alternet is a low brow attempt to demonize a woman who has done nothing to deserve that.
TM99
(8,352 posts)To describe how LaDavia Drane has worked as an industry lobbyest for junk food which has done nothing to support POC but because she is a successful black lobbyest then she is A-OK? So as long as the woman is one of the top young women of color financially and in regards to political power, the what and how she is done that is off topic? Is it not relevant?
It isn't demonization. It is another factual example of Clinton's faux populism and the incongruence of her campaign. There is talk, now where is the walk.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus and worked for the mayor of Washington D.C. before that. She was hired by the Clinton campaign because she's good at outreach after years of practice. This argument that she's some kind of mole for Big Grocery is insulting and ridiculous. You guys need to get a grip.
Get a grip.
I am consistent in my dislike of New Dems and the neo-liberal take-over of the Democratic party.
Her race is irrelevant to me if she still promotes that political agenda. Why? Because ultimately it has and will continue to harm the very people it claims to want to help.
That is the incongruency of the neo-liberal message. Her tenure with Big Grocery let's me know what her principles are and where she stands ultimately. If Clinton is choosing staff like her, then I know what kind of cabinet she will choose. I do not want any more of the status quo. I want a real change not just the illusion of one with great optics, the right colored people in positions of authority, and yet the same mouth on the tit of Wall Street, corporations, and the MIC.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Go for it, I won't stop you.
TM99
(8,352 posts)You keep using hyperbolic expressions that no one including myself has uttered.
She is not a 'mole'. She is not a 'monster'. She is a fucking neo-liberal! She is working now for another neo-liberal New Dem, in fact one of the founders of the New Dems.
I dislike their policies, and after more than 25 years, I have witnessed how bad they have been for both the Democratic party and the US.
But you have nothing but strawmen to attack instead of addressing the concern.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)get the insults.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(even though that was pure happenstance and meant nothing at all)were also low brow attempts to demonize someone who's done nothing to deserve it.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to a hit piece written to destroy a woman's reputation using the yellowist of yellow journalism.LaDavia Drane has an accomplished backround that was fine until she signed up to work on the Clinton campaign,then the knives came out. Sickening.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)other than how they change over time.
I also note that a post like this, if made in the Bernie Sanders group rather than in GD, wouldn't be subject to the standard coterie of nonsense that seems to happen when anything is posted that questions Hillary's ownership of the White House come 1/20/2017.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Straight white males, transgender black females, and everyone in between.
It's the nature of early polling. It's uncontroversial to note this.
But, of course, people are doing their damndest to paint you as patronizing and privileged for stating such. We're even getting faux minstrelsy upthread. *facepalm*
This isn't honest disagreement. This is just people being vicious for the fun of it.
And after all those admonishments to be civil, too.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Oh dear.
Would you like to explain what you mean there?
Cause it comes across terribly.
Prism
(5,815 posts)And it's not exactly subtle.
marym625
(17,997 posts)
Segami
(14,923 posts)The review was completed at Fri May 29, 2015, 09:28 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Apparently merely not agreeing with some people is now seen as "offensive." Hey alerter, don't expect juries to fight your battles for you. LEAVE IT.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
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: Frivolous alert. Better to discuss differences than alert on them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Somebody needs to offer the alerter a chill pill. Nothing disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive or over the top here.
marble falls
(56,996 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Fri May 29, 2015, 09:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
It tells us nothing at this point that HRC beats Bernie among women and poc.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026749151
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
First off, this is incredibly offensive to women and people of color to suggest that their support of a candidate is baseless and uninformed. And secondly, this is a tasteless accusation that Hillary is a racist. This is just condescending flamebait.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri May 29, 2015, 09:28 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Apparently merely not agreeing with some people is now seen as "offensive." Hey alerter, don't expect juries to fight your battles for you. LEAVE IT.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
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: Frivolous alert. Better to discuss differences than alert on them.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Somebody needs to offer the alerter a chill pill. Nothing disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive or over the top here.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Lilith Rising
(184 posts)comes in your final paragraph.
I agree - and I think most people do - that polls mean very little this far out from the primaries, but that last paragraph comes off as condescending and 'splainy to the actual majority of the Democratic base.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Thanks for the suggestion.
Lilith Rising
(184 posts)an observation.
Hopefully you see why it was objectionable - to me anyway.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I deleted the graph and I admit I was dumb to include it.
Are you really going to quibble about the exact words I used to thank you?
Lilith Rising
(184 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Hillary Clinton might have a following among women and people of color for some real, and rather fundamental reasons? Namely, (a) she is a woman; and (b) the Clintons have a very loyal, long-standing constituency among African-Americans. You'll recall, for instance, that Bill Clinton was dubbed the "first black president." If you further recall, back in 2008 Hillary Clinton was leading Obama dramatically among blacks until after the latter's strong showings in Iowa and a few other states. Even then it was a tough choice.
So while I agree that things can always change in an election, and that it is still very early, I find it somewhat ridiculous, and insulting, to propose that the candidate's apparent advantages among these groups is purely fictional.
I have no preferred candidate in this primary at the moment (for the first time ever). I like them both (though, frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing someone younger than either get into the game). One thing to keep in mind is that (despite my reference to 2008 above), this is not 2008. There were 8 Democratic candidates then. As of now, there are only these 2 (with perhaps a few more about to join in). Although Clinton had a lead at this point back then, it was in the 30-percentage range, with voters split among the rest of the crowded field (Obama steadily climbing as things went along). One person closing the gap against such a commanding lead will not be so easy in a smaller field. And very few candidates have the political talent and zeitgeist appeal that Obama did.
It's always depressing to me when I hear people resort to arguments that the polls are fixed, or that the media is directing people's decisions. I've lived with those delusions myself in previous elections, working very hard on the ground for a particular candidate, and learned that they are just that: delusions. I decided that I'd never again get so besotted by a candidate that I would be deluded into thinking that if people would only listen they would surely agree with me and choose my candidate. It's self-centered, and its insulting to the people who vote. If you think you're a populist, you'd better respect the people.
So whatever happens (and I'd be okay with either candidate), let's keep it real. And let's not resort to conspiracies to explain the results.
Cha
(296,790 posts)we're all being duped.. and only he knows what's going on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6750111
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Throw the mic to the ground and walk the F@#% off the stage, knowing you won this thread!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)This isn't an accidental oversight. These simply aren't issues Sanders is passionate about in the way he's passionate about economic injustice.
i will continue to read the OP i got this from.
but.... sounding like sanders answered my question. just cant get the passion for DEAD lives.
does that piss me off?
pisses me the fuck off. !!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)next lines....
i will continue to read
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle.
well, golly gee. seeing he didnt have race gender or gender orientation struggles. i bet it was not top concern for him
shall i go on????
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Why do you act like his voting record isn't proof of that?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)passion for social justice.
so tell me? we are talking lives... what are we suppose to believe.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026749264
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)I don't know who 'we' are, but Bjorn Again posted an OP 'we' must have missed...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026743489
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If they don't become more inclusive it'll sink him.
Violet_Crumble
(35,955 posts)There you'll see that those who are running round pretending that he's not interested in social issues are completely wrong. Which is the reason I posted the link to the OP by Bjorn Again several times this afternoon in the hopes that it'd sink in.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Racial issues. Not seeing much about reproductive rights either. Both are also ignored on his campaign web site and his kick off. No ones pretending he's not interested - he's not showing us that these are his priorities.
I'm not a low information voter, I'm one that is noticing his focus is almost entirely on economics right now. He'd likely do the country a lot of good - but that ain't going to happen with the narrow type of outreach he has now.
I think if he keeps it up, he will continue to have limited support. I have to wonder why people think raising 2k here in a month for him is a big accomplishment. I helped a coworker with a four hour bake sale and we made half that. It is what it is- disappointing.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Hillary has made it an important issue.
Hillary blasts the court's decision on immigration. link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6735126
Bernie. Nothing.
This is one of the most important (the most important to many) issues of a great segment of voters.
Bernie is the one ignoring it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Her first two major events/speeches were on immigration and criminal justice reform, the former is of great interest to the Latino community and the latter is of interest largely to the African American community. These folks were bound to notice. Everybody wants to feel they matter.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)I just wonder if they are so deaf (meaning uncaring) to these issues affecting Latinos and African Americans that they don't even notice what she says.
Doesn't matter, really. PoC notice, and will make their mark loud and clear when time comes to elect the Democratic nominee.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)We have two friends; one a woman from the Philippines who had a procedural problem with her green card so she is technically here illegally and another strange case where a friend, a Mexican, got married to one of our friends but was having problem with his citizenship because he wasn't here legally...I thought all you had to do to become eligible for citizenship is marry an American citizen but I am obviously misinformed.
This issue is huge to me...I can't imagine having someone's husband sent back.
Bernie is a good guy but it's about focus and priorities and Hillary is more in tune with my priorities.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Cha
(296,790 posts)direction he didn't want to go.
And, no I don't think anyone deserves "scorn" except the OP.. which he is getting.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's bullshit to argue that I was denigrating poc, women or LGBTQ. I didn't say(and don't think) they were stupid. I didn't say(and don't think) they didn't know what was good for them.
I simply said it was early.
I don't deserve scorn, because I wasn't intentionally disrespecting anyone.
Why is there such a fixation with treating Bernie and his supporters as if something outrageously offensive has happened? As if there is good reason for distrust and anger?
From some of the reactions here, you'd think the Sanders campaign was a conspiracy to put Zombie Lester Maddox into the Oval Office.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)It seems some people are upset that some people are voting for candidates they don't like and they believe those people for whatever reason are not as smart as the people coming to the same conclusions they have.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this DUer is on the money ...http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6750077
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,265 posts)The lead among POC was asked about in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026706470 , which has been referred to again, but I don't think anyone knew.
has anyone ever seen a poll with both Clinton and Sanders in broken down by gender or race; or approval ratings for Sanders broken down by those criteria (and including "don't know"s)?
