In South Carolina, Clinton got 87% of the black vote. In the 2004 general election (the last one not involving a black candidate, taking race out of the equation) Kerry got 88% of the black vote. It’s the same divide.
What percentage of black voters, do you think, are even aware of these meetings?
I think you’re presenting an even more implausible speculation than you accuse me of - that black voters are all super informed and savvy and that they’ve sussed out subtle but important differences about the intentions of the two candidates.
Incidentally, what modifications of her message are you referring to?
Also, is there any particular person or candidate that you could think of, who wasn’t themselves black, who could beat Clinton in the black vote?
I’ve actually pointed out Hillary’s messaging on affirmative action and civil rights. Bernie is running a campaign, he has to craft a message. I don’t buy 100% that Bernie’s policies are more favorable to blacks than Hillary Clinton, and I haven’t actually seen you back that claim up with facts.
Plus, it’s deeply unfair to present a scenario in which you imply that all of the Sanders voters are deeply familiar with his policies and vote on him for meritorious reasons–this ignores the fact that many Sanders voters are probably wholly ignorant of most of his policy proposals. How many do you think could tell us what the forecast deficit increase of his policies are? How many do you think could tell us that he claims his policies can create a pie-in-the-sky 7% GDP growth rate? How many can tell you that even on the lowest five income tax brackets, he will raise tax rates by a 10%?
Saying shit like “Clinton is in the pockets of the oligarchy” is just more angry Bernie nonsense. Someone tell me again how the candidate who has said there needs to be a New Deal for blacks is proposing less beneficial policies for black Americans than the guy who just rattles off statistics about black wealth lost during the Great Recession and how income inequality “disproportionately affects blacks.” Those aren’t solutions–those are statistics, and the solutions he does propose are for society at large, with the implicit assumption “everything will just get better.”
Please, show me the specific policy proposals where Bernie is out in front of something on race versus Hillary.
SenorBeef, I think you are missing a fundamental point. Most black voters, from the impression I get, are *pragmatic *voters. They are not evaluating candidates based on a purity test but on who they think is a more plausible figure to nominate to keep the Republicans from winning. In that regard, I find myself generally voting like a black Democrat, and “approving” like one too (I never joined my white liberal friends in abandoning Barack Obama at any point in his presidency).
No it’s not – for one thing, Clinton got 87% of the black Democratic vote, while Kerry got 88% of the black vote altogether – for another, I’m talking about the magnitude of the divide in terms of how black people view the choices, not in number of votes.
It’s entirely possible that many of those 87% that Clinton received are favorably inclined towards Bernie, they just like Clinton’s approach more.
Probably lots.
I don’t know if they all are, I just reject your assumption that black people are not supporting Bernie because they are low-information. It’s entirely possible to be high-information and still prefer Hillary to Bernie.
Many things – one of the biggest in my memory was the recognition that, many times, white people should do a better job of listening to black people on issues of discrimination, as well as a lot more emphasis on white privilege.
It would depend on their approach and campaign, but possibly Biden or Gore.
Do you at least recognizing that calling black people who support Hillary low information voters will be very insulting and offensive to many black voters? Do you recognize the possibility that well-informed black people might still prefer Hillary to Bernie?
Isn’t it possible that other smart and informed people just think differently than you?
Yeah, I don’t really get more of that from her than most other politicians. But what I do get doesn’t really bother me.
My primary interest in presidential qualifications is not someone I would like to have a beer with. (Tho I think Obama would be wonderful to converse with on many topics. Strikes me as very intelligent AND personable - I’m sure others of varying stripes are his equal, but he’s damned impressive.)
I prefer that my representatives - and especially my president - be people who are smarter and more capable than I, and who acknowledge that their access to different information/personnel than I have puts them in a better position to make certain decision. While I’d like them to consider the self interest of individuals similarly situated to me, my perception of my self interest certainly ought not be a primary former of policy.
As others have said, there’s a difference between speaking to black people and saying “This is what I will do for you” and speaking with black people and asking “What would you like me to do?”
There is also the fact that Hillary has actual established cred. She has been there from back in the day working her first job as a lawyer. The communities there know her and believe her. She has demonstrated respect for them and they respect her.
Sanders? Has mouthed some words, some nice, some condescending, some cringe-worthy, but has has no reason to have any cred with them. Where has he been all these years? Not working with them. Why is the issue of income inequality and the system being rigged gaining traction now? Because some middle classed white younger adults are now experiencing that it is no longer rigged for them. Surprise that such plays poorly. You look down on them as “low information” because they care less about moving the Overton Window than voting for someone who they know has a track record they believe and who they believe will actually continue getting things done? Suck it up.
Obviously one cannot win the Democratic nod with the overwhelming majority of Blacks voting against you, most Hispanics rejecting you, and really only younger Whites voting for you in the majority and them not coming out in large numbers. And if you could it would a horrible thing for the party’s future. Hoping that the White states will save him over the rejection of the non-White communities of the coalition? As disturbing as it is sad and delusional.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Probably already been said, but I’d say that religion has a lot to do with the difference. The perception is that Clinton is more religious and more favorable to the religious than Bernie is, and while in the ‘white’ community that doesn’t mean as much (especially in the northern states), it DOES mean quite a bit in the black community (as well as the hispanic community, where IIRC Clinton is also doing pretty well). I’m sure there are some other factors, but I’d go with that as the main differentiator between why Clinton is doing ok in the white community but better in the black and hispanic communities.
Yup. He participated in a protest against segregation as an undergraduate college student in Chicago in 1963.
And then?
He’s been a professional politician for a long time. Lots of years since 1963.
Do you really think that participating in a college protest 53 years ago is the cred these communities are looking for?
It fails. And then he characterizes Obama, whose approval in these communities is quite high, as ineffectual at best? And shocked he is that they did not all rally around his flag?
Again the question: if theoretically it was possible for him to get enough young and/or angry White voters to come out for him offset his solid rejection by Hispanics and his overwhelming rejection by Blacks, and his modest rejection by older Whites, would that be good for the party?
I am. Segregation was wrong and kudos to him for protesting it. But surely you can’t be serious that being in a protest when he was 21 proves that he has worked with the black community.
In my exposure to the candidates I’ve noticed that Clinton is addressing racism as racism.
Sanders is addressing racism as one aspect of income inequality. Sort of a rising tide lifting all boats idea.
This makes a divide like 50/50 white and 80/20 black make sense. White people often can afford not to address racism, or to think about it, or to even believe it exists. So when a candidate doesn’t address it head on, well, that’s hardly even noticeable to a lot of white voters.
But for black voters, I think it’s a lot more obvious when someone seems to be addressing only economic issues and not racism itself.
Yeah Hillary has pretty clearly differentiated herself that way. I’ve heard speeches where she pretty specifically says “income equality won’t cure racism”. So a black person making a decent living, who still gets pulled over for “driving while black” doesn’t give a shit about Bernie’s “I’ll fix everything by raising taxes on rich people” idea.
Or one that doesn’t get a job interview because her name isn’t white - doesn’t matter what the job pays if you don’t even get called for an interview. Or parents whose kids face stricter discipline at school because of their skin color. Or when your community has three hour voting lines, but the white neighborhood can get in and out in ten minutes.
Its a naive view of race that income equality will fix these problems.
