Charles Blow is probably the NYT’s most under-rated columnist. I found this interesting: [INDENT]Black voters are not monolithic and of one mind. There are a hundred ways to analyze the factions within the black community, but I want to highlight one cleavage…
There isn’t one black America, but two: The children of the Great Migration and the children of those who stayed behind in the South. (Black immigrants are another story.) Having spent the first half of my life in the South and the second in Great Migration destination cities, I can attest that the sensibilities are as different as night and day. [/INDENT] I’m fairly well read but I had no inkling of this cleavage. Which is really pathetic as the distinction Blow draws is anything but trivial.
It’s not endorsing Clinton. What’s funny is that people on both sides seem to think he is endorsing the other side’s candidate, because he criticizes both of them. Here are some tweets just from the past day or two to illustrate:
How can you really do that, though, if the person who does your payday loan can also go in back and sort mail when the loan window isn’t busy? And of course they have the efficiency of sharing the same building.
Yeah, I was surprised too. If anything, I would have guessed the Northern African American leaders to be *more *hardcore and uncompromising.
As a Canadian I have to say I find the idea that Hillary just owns the black vote to be strange. What has she done for the black population of America? I saw an article today that one of her events was interrupted by a protester asking her to clarify exactly what she meant when she (twenty years ago) categorized blacks as “super predators”. Here’s the CNN report (warning, autoplay video):
Bernie Sanders has never had to apologize because a law he helped pass landed a bunch of black people in jail. Is there something else going on here that I am not understanding? Is there some tension between the black and Jewish communities that goes deeper than Ice Cube calling out Jerry Heller for breaking up NWA? Because it just doesn’t make sense to me that Bernie Sanders is the guy they can’t get behind while Clinton shares responsibility for thousands of incarcerations and dozens of deaths.
You’re misrepresenting Hillary. Hillary’s core values are not those of a Great Society/New Deal liberal. When she compromises with us, she’s kind of OK. When she runs home to her own biases, we get prison buildup, free trade, and bubble economics. Those things have a track record, and while it’s “good” for her social class, it’s not so good for the masses.
(I was raised a Reagan Republican, and I still have a reflexive sympathy for the words “free trade,” and even I admit its track record is not great for the median household.)
Well, she was a kid. I’m more concerned with her behavior since leaving Yale, which has largely favored the elite economic “right wing” of the party and indeed of the country.
Why? Also, this is an overly broad description of a category of government effort.
I stand corrected, and as a Sandersnista I thank him for his support.
Nate Silver has some kind of rough demographic analysis here, which I think is based on racial categories:
It’s a bit odd, but Silver tries to figure out what result Bernie would have in each state if he got to 50/50 nationally while maintaining an advantage among white voters and a disadvantage among black voters.
According to 538, Bernie isn’t yet polling well enough to beat HRC in the state primaries to come, but I found this interesting. Relative to Nate’s hypothetical whites-heavy 50/50 split, Bernie was behind by 19 points in Iowa, 10 points in NH, and 5 points in Nevada.
That means he’s technically been gaining on even, not falling further behind.
Yeah, that’s concerning. I will feel a lot better, hopefully, next Tuesday night (or I won’t). If it goes down like I hope, I can go ahead with my plan to vote for Trump on the 15th.
Even if Bernie gets on track to win, he may have to come from behind repeatedly.
(And since you’re so worried about the GOP nomination, you totally should vote for Trump, anyway, to keep Ted Cruz down. I think Cruz can beat Clinton more easily than Trump can.)
Or simply that there are many anti-Clinton voters, or non-voters when Clinton is on the ballot. Or that some potential Sanders voters would be as attracted to Trump, were Sanders not available. Or some combination of all the above.
I won’t accuse you of providing disingenuous false “advice”, but that last sentence is pretty silly. The InTheseTimes article, however, is an interesting read for sure. Something I think the author is not accounting for, though, has to do with the superdelegates. If they were to jump in and give Hillary enough juice to squeak out the nomination even when a clear majority of primary and caucus voters had said loud and clear that they prefer Bernie, then I do think this would be a problem for sure.
But the scenario depicted there, with Bernie winning pledged delegates by a single vote, relies on his working the delegate math–particularly in low-participation caucus states. Not said in the article but implicit in such a “victory” would be that Hillary would have a clear lead in actual votes nationwide. That would be a trivially easy peg on which superdelegates could hang their justification for giving it to her. “The people have spoken!” Bernheads would whine, “But-but-but…he won those pledged delegates fair and square, under the rules they both played by!” Yup, and those rules also say superdelegates can vote for whomever they like. Check and mate.
“Because they are both outsiders” and “a miracle happens”, Far Side style. It’s actually very uncomplimentary to Bernie and his fans, if you stop to think and unpack it a bit.
I wasn’t talking about “Sanders voters,” in the sense of people who currently like him and might then choose to sit out on Clinton (as your post framed it).
I was talking about people who, given a choice between Trump and Sanders, might go for Sanders, despite not going for Clinton in the equivalent match-up.
Some Sanders supporters support him for good reasons. Some support him for bad reasons. The same is true of any politician. I’d prefer, of course, that everyone chose their candidate for good reasons, but that’s not the world we live in. If some people support my candidate’s opponents for bad reasons, and some people support my candidate for bad reasons, well, at least that partly cancels out.
