Low information voters, by their nature, are less moved by what a candidate says if they have to go find it. What can he say, if they don’t hear it because they aren’t seeking out what he says?
He’s not actually saying “I’m the best candidate for minority voters” - his record as a civil rights activist and his policy proposals speak for themselves.
… If people were so inclined as to find out what those were. Which they aren’t.
I know you’re trying to paint me as some sort of condescending racist, but what’s more plausible: That the average black voter has thoroughly looked at Bernie’s civil rights record and evaluated his policies and the effect they would have on their lives and rejected them on their merits, or that the “Clinton was the first black president” cultural meme and extremely high name recognition have people voting for Clinton without a deeper look at the issues?
The perception that the Clintons are supportive of black interests isn’t just a hope. The Clinton administration was in office for eight years and Hillary Clinton was one of her husband’s advisers. She was then a Senator for eight years. So there’s a record that black voters can look at.
Bernie Sanders can argue that he would be supportive of black interests if he was President. And it’s probably true. But it’s not unrealistic for black voters to decide they’re better off going with somebody who’s done things rather than somebody who’s saying they will do things.
So it’s wrong to dismiss these votes as “low-information”. Black voters are making the informed choice.
Indeed. All this lamenting that black voters are too stupid to know what’s best for them is a really bad look for Bernie Sanders supporters. Stop it. Think it inside your head if you must, but otherwise shut up about it.
ETA: Maybe it’s some of the Bernheads who are low information when it comes to Hillary Clinton. She was going to various parts of the South in the 60s and 70s to undertake dangerous projects to fight for black civil rights in the South. Bernie got arrested up North, but there’s no evidence he ever went down South like she did, nor is there evidence that he continued to fight for civil rights on into the 70s after it was not in the spotlight as much anymore, like she did.
CNN,FOX and MSNBC are 24/7 covering these bullshit primaries. Where are you getting your “other” news, that being, everything else that is happening on earth?
Clinton’s campaign has included significantly address issues important to the black community from day one. The very first major address of her campaign talked about criminal justice reform. Yes, she was on board with Bill’s crime bill, but so was then Representative Bernie Sanders. So that’s a wash. Her and Bill both disavowed it during the “silent primary” and said it was a mistake, and she felt criminal justice reform was important enough to make it a centerpiece of her first major policy address.
Bernie’s response when it was obvious (which was only around January) he was getting no traction with black voters was to add a few statistics to his stump speech talking about race.
Hillary has said “we need a new deal for communities of color.” This isn’t what Sanders is saying–Sanders is largely arguing flawed economic theories targeted at boogeymen in Wall Street and claims when they are implemented, magic tides will raise all ships and blacks will do great. Hillary is saying they need targeted help from the government, above and beyond what the broader public will receive.
Agreed. Bernie is at sea when it comes to the black vote. My take on it is he cozied up to the militants of the #BLM movement after they stormed the stage. He developed a policy based on their demands, which is admirable but misses the mark in terms of explaining HOW he was going to do so. He then aligns himself with the wrong players. Dr. Cornel West said Obama “n” the office of President. Bernie himself wanted Obama primaried back in 2011 and has taken a few swipes at programs vital to the poor such as the ACA. Rightly or wrongly it’s an affront to how far they have come.
Obama’s supporters don’t forget. We’re talking 90% of the black population. Regardless of how anyone feels about Obama’s presidency, the fact that Obama holds the highest office in the land is as huge a fucking deal as MLK’s march on Washington.
They saw Bernie from vanilla Vermont as only wanting to get their vote. There are those who say Hillary just wrapped herself in Obama to get their vote. But she’s the only one who can. She served him at his pleasure as Sec of State. Moreover, she aligned herself with the more mainstream black activist that wasn’t about having a revolution. It was about building on Obama’s legacy.
In other words, Hillary respected them, Bernie treated them in a patronizing manner with the full force of his white male privilege, then wonders why they prefer Hillary.
But its ok to be patronizing, because they are low information voters, they don’t know whats best for them.
Women and minorities are a little fed up being told what we should feel and think and how we should behave by white men - and insulted with “oh, you don’t understand” when we dare to have an opinion that varies. Maybe we do understand - we just have different priorities, experiences and opinions.
I also wonder to what extent the history of the New Deal–the premier example of American Democratic Socialism–shapes perceptions about Sanders.
Much of the New Deal was built through compromise with Southern white supremacists, deliberately excluding African-Americans from benefits and protections. Part of the reason there remains a persistent wealth gap between black and white households of equal incomes is that New Deal policies encouraged the creation of white wealth at the expense of black wealth.
Maybe that history doesn’t matter, but I would think it might lead to some residual suspicion over politicians who seem to focus on economic/class issues and frameworks instead of racial ones.
Not to worry, I’m a transgender crippled proud woman of color, my opinion means something.
I don’t want to touch that racist, sexist mess except to say that so far as I’ve heard from him, Bernie does not have the attitude you suggest he does. I would invite you to back up your characterization with the man’s words.
Speech last Summer to the National Press Club. Gave me the distinct impression he knew what was best for me - and I don’t believe he does. Once again, I get to decide what I think is patronizing. Its more than words, its attitude. To me he reeks of the white male privilege of an ally - someone who believes he knows what’s best for me. Well intentioned, and utterly not interested in my opinion about what is best for me because he’s made up his mind.
Both are plausible, but based on my experience talking with black people, the first is a lot more likely.
And you really sound no different than Republicans claiming that Democrats are the real racists, and black people don’t support them because they’re stuck on the “Democratic plantation”. Black people really are capable of making these decisions on their own, and just 'cause they disagree with you doesn’t mean that they’re wrong, or stupid, or low-information, or just going by “name-recognition”, or whatever.
Some of his supporters may think that, indeed I think the media was made up of a lot of white elitists who made the decision that Bernie was the only candidate with intellectual gravitas. However, I don’t see evidence of Bernie himself using his white privilege to somehow be obtuse. I think Bernie has a set of values that are rooted in the protest movement of the 60’s. The way to fight injustice is to have a revolution. There is a lot to admire in that sort of idealism, but it really doesn’t help a black kid who needs healthcare now to wait for Bernie to overhaul ACA for a single payer system. Even if we believe that Medicaid is for all, how does Bernie get there when it’s run through the individual states, many of whom have Republican governors who want nothing to do with it? The hard truth is during a transition, anyone who is poor is not being helped. Hillary’s message was more appealing to build on what is there, which implies the maintaining of a hard fought program that is now seen as a social safety net, warts and all.
I use these stats because states that could go either way will be the first ones to show if one candidate or the other is surging in a way that polling data has not caught up to yet.
Sanders is winning somewhere around 50% of the white vote, and Clinton is winning around 88% of the black vote. If there were meritorious ideological reasons that reasonable people could be split on the candidates, why is the black vote overwhelmingly in favor of Clinton?
Is it because Clinton has a much better civil rights record than he does? No. Is it because her policies are better for them? It’s arguable, but it would seem not - she’s much more subservient to the oligarchy and that rarely lines up with the interests of minorities. Is he racist? Does he indicate hatred for them? Obviously not, and quite the opposite.
Why, then, if whites are split on the vote, do blacks overwhelmingly support Clinton?
My guess is a cultural issue. There’s a perception in the black community that Bill was the first black president, and that the Clintons are extremely popular amongst black voters. So they’re not actually looking at the merits of Bernie’s policies, but rather, they’re going to vote for Clinton over any other white person regardless, because of the cultural value and recognition of the Clinton name. Is there a white politician in the country who could run and beat Clinton in the black vote?
The fact that they vote as such an overwhelming block shows something other than an informed, meritorious evaluation of policies is at work, since Clinton does not clearly have a lead in that department, and probably is significantly worse than Bernie on those issues. If similar candidates were evaluated on their merits in an informed fashion, you would expect a more even split.
Just consider the possibility that Bernie screwed up, and if he had gone into communities of color and asked questions and listened, and then modified his messaging, then perhaps he would have done better.
LOL – I’ve heard almost the exact same argument from Republicans… “whites don’t vote altogether – if blacks vote altogether, that means that they’re low information and aren’t making thoughtful decisions on their own!”.
Maybe you’re just not going to consider the possibility that Bernie might have screwed up, and that black people really might just feel differently than you do, or consider the possibility that black people feel that Hillary’s approach towards them was better than Bernie’s…
But black people have meritorious reasons to vote as a block for democrats. The Republicans deliberately cater to racist voters with dog whistle politics, and more importantly, Republican policies are unfriendly towards most minorities. They have a rational interest in voting overwhelmingly democratic.
But such a divide does not exist in Sanders vs Clinton. Bernie has real civil rights cred, and his policies are as friendly to minorities as any presidential candidate the United States has ever had. The overwhelming bloc of voters in this case does not appear to be based on a meritorious evaluation of self-interest.
The same magnitude of a divide does not exist between Sanders and Clinton, but perhaps there is still some sort of divide – perhaps black people have thoughtfully evaluated the two approaches the candidates have taken in their campaigns so far, and generally have preferred Hillary’s approach.
And perhaps, at least partially, it’s for the reason I suggested – that Hillary went into black communities and asked questions and listened, and modified her messaging, while Bernie went into black communities and told them how he would help them, and did not modify his messaging.
Nope, I don’t get it from Clinton. I get someone who is open to changing her mind - as she’s done on gay marriage - given input from the people that it matters to.