Black Feminists Don’t Owe Hillary Clinton Their Support

[Bubzer]

Great article. I recommend reading it in it's entirety.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act—which Hillary Clinton lobbied for, Sanders voted for, Vice President Joe Biden authored and President Bill Clinton signed—shows why black women shouldn't just follow the Democratic Party by default, even if the front-runner is a woman.

Mass incarceration and its tentacles have been disastrous for black America. On everything from HIV and AIDS to poverty, crime, limited access to a quality education, destruction of families, and recidivism most often due to difficulties finding and maintaining employment, the law has been disastrous.

Then, in 2008, when Clinton faced off against Obama in the Democratic primaries, she trafficked in the bitter racism that such structural inequities cement in the hearts of white Americans. From the New York Times:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in [an] interview, citing an article by The Associated Press. "[It] found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. [...] These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

Her call to bet on bigotry in order to win a Democratic election matters.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/02/black_feminists_don_t_owe_hillary_clinton_their_support.html

[EV_Ares]

1. No nobody owes anyone their support. Support has to be earned by each & every one of the candidates.

[VulgarPoet]

3. +1

[Bubzer]

19. As it should be.

[JaneyVee]

2. But Hillary isnt the one writing off any votes.

Even stuck around for an amazing concession speech in NH.

[NWCorona]

4. Picking your battles and writing off are two different things

[JaneyVee]

5. Why dump massive $$$ into Oklahoma instead of Alabama?

[NWCorona]

6. Because it would most likely be a more effective use of funds

[JaneyVee]

8. Does that strategy deserve their vote?

[NWCorona]

11. You'd have to ask them.

But don't act like this is anything new.

[JaneyVee]

12. I think we did, see: South Carolina.

[NWCorona]

13. And doesn't that back up my point?

Allocate the funds elsewhere

[JaneyVee]

15. It kinda backs up my point a bit more.

[NWCorona]

16. Not really but you have your opinion and I have mine.

[JaneyVee]

17. Diversity is America's greatest natural resource.

[NWCorona]

18. That we agree on!

👍

[sabrina 1]

21. What we saw in SC was a frightening lack of enthusiasm for Hillary where so few Dems turned out to

vote. We saw that Bernie won the youth vote AGAIN. Older loyal Dems won't win this for her and younger Dems apparently don't show up to vote for her.

Now we will continue to see Bernie winning until the Convention, and if he wasn't in the race, Dem turnout would be abysmal.

[auntpurl]

23. I don't believe this to be true.

South Carolina did not show a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary. It was widely perceived as uncompetitive - everyone thought Hillary would win. Which makes people dis-incentivised to come out and vote.

African Americans and minorities in general will come out in droves to vote against Trump. He is literally a lethal threat to them.

[sabrina 1]

27. The turnout was frighteningly low and it was low among Dems in Nevada and Iowa also. That is an

indication that the Dem base is far from enthusiastic about the perceived Front Runner. I remember having this conversation before the last two Mid Terms where the DNC stubbornly refused to listen to voters, backing Third Way candidates over Progressives every chance they got.

They LOST us the House and the Senate as a result of backing candidates the voters did not want. AAs or anyone else did not show to prevent that from happening.

We are now in the same boat, with the Dem party having lost nearly 12% of its registered voters down now to just 30% of registered voters and many of them not showing up to vote.

When a party dismisses its base, and gets behind candidates the voters have said they do not want, votaers will stop supporting that party and do what they have been doing focusing on Local Elections, getting their issues on Local Ballots and winning.

I have signed people up as Dems eg, to vote for Bernie. They will not vote for Hillary as they were non voters for years due to disgust with the whole rigged system..

If the party wants to win, then they need to start listening to the voters.

[Arazi]

28. Trump is driving massive numbers of people to vote for him - indies, Republicans, even Dems

Hes getting amazing cross over voters. We dismiss this at our peril

When a party refuses to listen to their voters they lose the elections. The DNC candidates have been stunningly third way which voters are increasingly rejecting with every election. Turnout will not going to improve with HRC topping the ticket

[Arazi]

22. Sure she is. Her divisive campaign is burning bridges all over the place

[JaneyVee]

24. LOL. Burning bridges? She's forming a broad, diverse coalition.

Endorsed by:
Civil rights icons ✔
Unions ✔
Womens rights groups ✔
Enviro groups ✔
LGBTQ groups ✔
Progressive economists ✔
Gun control groups ✔
Many more ✔

[Arazi]

25. She's shit all over Sanders supporters - many (most?) of them are forever alienated

Independents now make up 43% of the electorate. She's losing more and more of them daily

[JaneyVee]

26. Ok buddy whatever you say.

[gollygee]

7. Nobody owes anybody anything

Everyone gets to choose whom to support all by themselves.

[BlueMTexpat]

9. This is about the umpteenth time

this op ed has been posted and usually not by a POC. SSAD

[Bubzer]

20. And that's...a bad thing? I'm confused.

[Codeine]

10. No, they're giving it willingly. nt

[auntpurl]

14. Of course not. No one owes anyone their vote

Which is why it's especially meaningful that many black feminists, and other minority groups, ARE giving their vote to Hillary.