It is a bit odd to claim that the one who is not actually a member of the Democratic Party is the “MORE Democratic candidate.” I have been a Democrat for a long time and Clinton is to me by far more representative of the party. Perhaps you want to believe that Democratic means farther left and the more leftward you are the more “Democratic” you are. Funny that in actual impartial ratings on actions and statements Clinton is a longstanding liberal, more liberal than is Warren and barely more moderate than Sanders.
Let us be very clear: actual Democrats overwhelmingly vote for Clinton; Sanders wins more among those who may lean D but identify as Independents. You may want the Democratic party to be farther left than even Clinton has rated, but the party is not the Democratic Socialist Party and being that is not “more Democratic.” Don’t be silly.
Bernie has a way of preaching to the choir, tends to say the same things to the same kinds of people wherever he goes. Hillary, love her or hate her, is a true pol, behaves in a way, and says things, that she feels will please whatever audience she addresses.
From what I can tell Bernie is a mostly northern fringe candidate, with his greatest support in the northeast, New England, especially, and the upper midwest and northwest. Put him in a warm climate where guys drive pick-up trucks and are against gun control and he withers. He can’t connect with low to moderate income white Christians.
This is a problem even I have with him and I’m from Bernie’s neck of the woods: he’s the dream candidate for a certain kind of highly educated elite Boomer yuppie, is fortunate to appeal to young yuppie wannabes as well, can’t seem to break through his own constituency, by which I mean expand it.
That was one of my main concerns with a Sanders candidacy as well-that he’d be another Eugene McCarthy/George McGovern/Gary Hart/Bill Bradley/Howard Dean type (of which Obama was also one to some degree although he benefitted by enjoying strong black support) of "progressive’ candidate who only had support from college students and the culturally left element of the bourgeoisie. However, election returns are suggesting that he indeed has an appeal to the white lower-middle and working-classes that these previous candidates did not. Consider these election results which show that Sanders won states like Oklahoma and did very well in areas like rural Missouri and Illinois. Even in the South, the counties that Sanders won aren’t the urban or suburban areas or even college towns but disaffected white areas in Appalachia and the Piney Woods of Florida. Exit polls confirm this with Sanders doing much better among whites who are lower-income and without college degrees.
Is it literally true that Clinton is a “member” of the Democratic Party and Sanders is, currently, not?
Either way, though, I agree with the point. Sanders talks about the Democratic Party like it is some wealthy entity utterly outside himself. That’s what actually impressed me in the video where he apparently threatened to withhold a Clinton endorsement.
This ain’t Europe. Our two major parties have no members as such – no membership rolls, no membership cards, no membership dues, and no way to expel a member. If Lyndon LaRouche wants to call himself a Democrat or David Duke wants to call himself a Republican, then he is one.
Thanks. That cheers me up a little. Bernie seems more polarizing up north maybe. Or it could be (big duh! :rolleyes:) that the media is presenting Sanders in a way as to suggest that he’s not electable, has an essentially leafy suburb and college town base. It looks and feels that way when I watch the news, but then that’s what I’m being told, and it may not be true.
My best answer is pride, racial and regional. The Civil War still (figuratively) rages in parts of the South; and we saw as recently as fifty years ago how deeply rooted in the past Southern culture was regarding race. I’m not even sure all the opposition to civil rights for blacks was truly racial,–that was, obviously, a huge part of it–but cultural, as in “no damn Yankee’s gonna tell me what I’ve gotta do, how to think, how to feel…etc.”.
Now it’s more religion, it seems, and patriotism, American more than to the old Confederacy (that seems to be fading). The South is also a deeply indebted to the military region, is full of army and navy bases; aeronautics is big business down there. It’s just not like other places. I’ve known many Southerners, some quite well, including close friends, and also friends of my family when I was growing up. There are times when I swear that the real religion of the South is…the South. It’s a belief system.
Disclaimer: I’m pretty white last time I looked, so I can’t really speak for African Americans. Haven’t had the chance to talk about it with the black people I know. I’m only guessing here, but I’ll speculate:
I think the name recognition of Hillary might be part of it. African Americans in the South simply know who she is. They have generally fond feelings toward Bill Clinton and the Clinton name. There was some friction when Hillary was running against Obama, but I actually remember a number of black people I was acquainted with who supported Clinton over Obama and were pretty bitter about it when Clinton went down, so go figure that one out. And I think she’s made up and mended fences with the black voters who supported Barack Obama, especially having served as his Sec of State.
I think that blacks also compare the two when it comes to perceptions of toughness and who’s had to endure more. When they look at Clinton, they see themselves in her. They see someone who’s been vilified. They see someone who’s been targeted by a radical republican agenda, whose husband endured impeachment. They see someone who herself got bullied when she was trying to push for healthcare reform in the early 1990s. They know Hillary has gotten down and dirty, and she’s also had to work with and build broad coalitions of people.
I’m not sure they see this with Sanders. Yes, Bernie has been an advocate for all people in the working class, and I think they appreciate that. But they’re not sure whether he can stand up to the forces that would oppose him in congress. It’s one thing to go around the state of Vermont championing positions that are on the edge. Bernie knows he doesn’t risk alienating voters in Vermont. Now try doing that with voters in Ohio and Florida, or try it in a 535 member body which represents places as liberal as Hawaii and as conservative as Indiana or Iowa.
I think most people who support Bernie Sanders mean well – for everyone. I think that Bernie Sanders appeals to academic-minded whites because Bernie Sanders proposes some ideas that make sense. But people actually do consider more than just academic arguments when considering who they want to represent their causes. Black people, like a lot of white, latino, and asians, are thinking both academically and also pragmatically.
I’ll take the same disclaimer as you, but I believe that is it. He was very popular here as Governor and President with African Americans, although I am told somewhat less after his welfare reform, limiting the time that a person was eligible.
Meh, they’re just passionate about Sanders being the one guy who can fix things. They’re particularly committed to the movement to fund a campaign through individual donations, which appeals to me as well. I don’t necessarily see it as a sin to take political action committee money. PAC money influences policy, but it doesn’t always dictate policy. In the end, there are compromises to be made. Presidents have to negotiate and make deals with people they don’t like and partially accept ideas they may not like. You can do that and not sell out everything you stand for. That’s where I part ways with some of the Sanders ideological purists. But I think their passion is good for the progressive movement and the democratic party.