If Bernie were the nominee, would AAs vote for Trump or Cruz?

[Armstead]

Since Clinton and her supporters want to make this all about race, just a simple question.

If Bernie were the nominee, would all AAs defect to the GOP to vote for Trump or Cruze or whatever horror show they decide to nominate?

And before you say "Well they won't bother to vote" best remember that's the same line Clinton supporters are using against the "Bernie or Busters."

[FarPoint]

1. They just may stay home...

It wouldn't be the first time.

[Armstead]

4. See third paragraph in OP

[FarPoint]

8. Paragraph 3 not related to my observation in history.

So, we all know how history repeats.

[Armstead]

9. Then you're okay with progressives sitting it out too?

[FarPoint]

11. Maybe that could be a new thread.

If you start it...I may jump in an discuss the issue.

[Armstead]

19. There's been a gazillion threads on that

I am referring to the likliehood of AAs having the same choice that all voters have in the election if it were between Bernie and a Trump.

The argument is that Clinton should be the nominee because she has a larger share of AA votes, and Bernie's victories don't matter because they are "white states."

But is that really a legitimate comparison? Would AAs defect from the Democratic coalition simply because their preferred candidate didn't get the nom?

And if so, if that different than Bernie or Busters?

[FarPoint]

21. I don't see the motivation or inspiration with Bernie.

He does not have the trust built for the AA Community. They just may stay home....not motivated .

[Armstead]

22. So they are not loyal to the Democratic Party or opposed to the GOP?

Then why is that different than the same point used as a cudgel to beat progressives over the head with the "you must support the lesser evil" to change the SC and avoid a conservative takeover?

[FarPoint]

25. Many who typically are not motivated during non Presidential Elections....

That majority will remain complacent, not really pay attention without trust and inspiration. Democrats but seem to get busy and the election slips by....Not just AA Community either... I sense the off season/ non- Presidential voting syndrome will come into play.

[NWCorona]

63. I do see your point but I'm not sure the percentages

Will be as absolute as you are saying.

[Sky Masterson]

5. Its almost as if you hope that that would be the case.

You'd rather it burn than Bern.

[FarPoint]

10. Your imagination is taking over.

Stop with the misleading assumption.

[Sky Masterson]

12. You mean like the assumption you just assumed.

[FarPoint]

14. Ahhh ...you'll be fine.

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. Some may well do so, just like young Bernie voters if Hillary is the nominee.

I think "party first" folks have an uncomfortable choice to make on that point: which nominee produce the net gain in swing states?

[FarPoint]

31. Sure...that had been taken into consideration.

They wouldn't of voted anyway.

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. Depends entirely on the nominee.

For Sanders (as they did for Obama)? Yep. For Hillary? Nope.

Seriously...it's one or the other this year: blacks or millennials (including black ones).

[Betty Karlson]

43. Lovely: the "Hillary or Else" mentality is out in full force today.

What an entitled, privileged position PoC must be in, to refuse to vote for the most progressive candidate in ages.

Alternatively, maybe things aren't as "black and white" (if you will forgive the expression) as the Clinton camp claims they are, and maybe PoC do not have some monolythic group-mind to begin with. I know the LGBTQ community is politically diverse, so why would we assume the PoC to be any less diverse? (Some of them ARE part of that LGBTQ community as well.)

What a racist thing, to assume all PoC think alike.

[FarPoint]

45. That is your perception.

History does repeat itself....I'm looking at that myself. Don't call me a racist again either.... Look at the OP theme.

[Betty Karlson]

48. History is certainly repeating for Saint Hillary Our Blessed Lady of Inevitability.

But as usual, she is one of the last to see how the tides have turned.

[FarPoint]

50. Take your hostile tone elsewhere please.

I find it aggressive and unnecessary. This thread has had fruitful discussion, agree to disagree in peace. We all are Democrats with same goals.

[Betty Karlson]

54. Oh so when Clinton wins a state, it's perfectly acceptable to "stick a fork in him, he's done"

and all over the board, with added "math" thrown in for good measure.

But make a comparison to 2008, and it's "hostile", "aggressive", "unnecessary" and what else. When Sanders wins, we must "disagree in peace" (= not mention why Bernie won).

It's OK to accuse Sanders' supporters of being callous racists, but it is not a "fruitful discussion" when I point out that PoC are as diverse a group as LGBTQ, and not all of them live in the south?

Still suffering from double standards, are you? Can't take what you give out? Refuse to reap what you sow?

How privileged a life you must lead. My warmest congratulations.

EDIT: almost forgot to ask. In what world does it constitute "fruitful discussion" to imply that all PoC will stay away in the GE to spite Bernie Sanders? Seriously: explain to me how that statement of yours equals fruitful discussion.

[FarPoint]

56. You seem to be over stressed today.

Sorry for your frustrating feelings. Don't take it out on me please. Move along now. I wish you well.

[Hiraeth]

65. welcome to ignore.

[Baobab]

68. I don't think that Obama, for example, has been a good President for

African American interests, necessarily, and I dont think Hillary will be.

One BIG issue is the energy deal she's cooking up on fracking. That could lead to huge losses of rental housing in cities. any people's low rents are tied to a single apartment so they would likely have to move to the country. Sure, we would get a building boom in places like the Poconos, (where land is cheap) but nobody in their right mind would want to commute two hours each way to work.

That may be blamed on Hillary but the seeds would have been sown during the Obama Administration. many people depend on natural gas so its going to really impact us. Electricity is crappy for heating and coal fired electricity is very bad for the environment because of mercury flux..

[Betty Karlson]

87. Clinton was always big on fracking - she sold it to the world,

and if the world didn't want it, she'd find a way to stuff it down the world's throat. Yes, Obama maybe gave her too much room to operate like that. But let's not misidentify the prime operator here.

[thesquanderer]

51. Good news and bad news

Good news: Yes, I think most of Hillary's AA voters would switch to Bernie in the general. Contrary to many posts here, AA voters DO like Bernie Sanders, AAs just seem to like Hillary better. If you can only vote for one person on the ballot, that doesn't mean you necessarily dislike the other. So it's not a matter of choosing Sanders as the lesser of two evils in the general, but rather, choosing Sanders as another good choice, almost as good as Hillary was.

Bad news: Most of the states with the largest percentage of AA population are red states that the Dem nominee is likely to lose regardless, so unfortunately, in many of these states, it may not matter whether or not the AA turnout for Sanders is strong. But, you never know...

[kristopher]

97. Actually that's how Bernie might remake the map

His economic crossover appeal to ALL working class voters stands an excellent change of making the map more blue than it's been since the Voting Rights Act passed.

[Baobab]

62. They might vote for Jill Stein

Actually, Jill Stein is quite intelligent.

Perhaps thats why she's being ignored by the media?

[hack89]

2. Of course not. Bernie is an excellent second choice. Nt

[Trust Buster]

3. Agreed. The AA and Hispanic communities would not be motivated to vote.

[Armstead]

6. So they're as bad as the Bernie or Busters? They'd help to elect trump by staying home?

If so, do they deserve the same pressure job that Bernie supporters get?

[Trust Buster]

16. Look, only Bernie supporters hold this misconception that you are being pressured.

I don't care what you do.

[ljm2002]

44. Absolute nonsense...

...there are dozens of posts a day around here castigating Bernie-or-Busters, exaggerating their numbers and claiming that, should young people not come out and vote for Hillary if she is the nominee that they are beyond disloyal and that a Trump Presidency will then belong squarely on their shoulders.

Well the argument may seem compelling, but the OP makes an excellent point by asking about another voting bloc that has so far been very clear in their preference. But what if Hillary is not the nominee? Would a lot of AAs stay home? And if so, why is that different from young people staying home if Hillary is the nominee?

We are talking voting blocs here BTW. The question is hypothetical and is not about race per se, it is about identifiable voting groups that we discuss here at DU every day of the week.

Of course, although the question is not "about" race, it cannot be completely separated from race either. I suspect that AAs are far less likely to stay home, myself, because they are much more acutely aware of the dangers of a Republican / Trump presidency. That is partly due to the white privilege that we talk about here -- and yes, many young Bernie supporters are white, and they would be more likely to stay home than their black counterparts on either side of the divide this election IMO.

What is interesting about that assessment, is that it supports a Bernie candidacy over a Hillary one, as less risky. Of course I could be off base about that -- i.e. AAs might stay home in droves. But if one believes that is what would happen, then we are back to the OP's question.

[Trust Buster]

47. That was very well written. I think that this competition is significantly different than the

Clinton vs. Obama competition. Sanders is an Independent with an ideology that skews farther to the Left of Obama. The gap is wider between Hillary and Sanders than between Hillary and Obama. The AA community is one of tradition. I'm not suggesting that AA's would not benefit Sanders. I'm suggesting that they won't be nearly as motivated as they were with Obama and would be with Hillary.

[ljm2002]

57. Yes, this primary election is definitely different...

...from the Obama vs Clinton one, and I think you are right about how it is different.

But that is what makes politics fascinating to me. Things are never the same. Always new ideas and new factors to consider.

Of course, arguing that AAs would not be nearly as motivated as usual, is similar to the arguments about young Bernie supporters, who would also be less motivated if Hillary is the nominee.

Interesting times, indeed!

Thanks for the response.

[Armstead]

80. Thank you...That explains part of what I was getting at

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

36. Oh my gosh, what nonsense...

Bernie's only problem with voters--regardless of race--is they don't know him.
But once they do they become loyal fans, because what's not to love?

In my WA caucus yesterday (our neighborhood precinct) we had two AAs. They both voted for Bernie. George who is in his 70's told me he'd been following Bernie since the 60's and LOVED him. Furthermore he'd been on a letter writing campaign supporting his nomination. I've known George for 9 years, when we met at a neighborhood Dem event for Obama's campaign (he's a longtime active liberal, who is also gay).

And then Tracey a 55 years old married woman with a 13 year old daughter. Her husband and mine both are nerdy-tech guys and we've hung out a lot with each other because we share the same radical-liberal views. Tracey loves Bernie, and she also has known who Bernie was for years. She's originally from Philly and she's doing what she can to get the word out to her connections to rally them to Sanders.

Ps-- Did you see Nina Turner in Brooklyn yesterday:

[NWCorona]

66. Why are you talking in absolutes when

That's not even the case at at the moment.

[Trust Buster]

67. I'm responding to the generalized theory in the OP.

[NWCorona]

69. I get that but I just hate absolutes

I think it does a disservice to the black community.

[yourpaljoey]

7. They will vote for Bernie, of course

Word is getting out, by the time the General rolls around, ALL minorities
will be wildly in favor of Bernie. (That trick question is not so tricky at all

[Recursion]

13. I think we'd see lower turnout among AA voters if Sanders is the nominee (nt)

[FarPoint]

17. I sense Bernie won't get the necessary endorsement and campaign stump support.

Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, they may not go out Nationally and stump for Bernie... There may indeed be other's who are needed for inspiration and trust and will channel their efforts towards Congressional Democratic Candidates... Take over Congress is a vital goal too.

[Armstead]

24. That would not speak very well for Bill or Obama or any Democratic leader who sits it out

[FarPoint]

26. Oh well.

That is what I see...They will stump for Senate race candidates like say Ted Strickland for example.

[Armstead]

20. Then they would the the same as Bernie or Bust.?

Let the GOP win because their preferred person isn't the Dem nominee?

[Chemisse]

15. Clinton supporters, just like Bernie supporters, are going to go out and vote for the Dem nominee.

Because the alternative to the Dem nominee is so horrific. It may take a few weeks for that to sink in, once the nominee is chosen, but we will all get there eventually.

[Trust Buster]

18. This thread is a matter of degree and not if AA voters would vote for Sanders in general.

[morningfog]

23. No. Like millennials to Hillary, they would support Bernie.

At least enough for a dem win.

[RDANGELO]

27. Bernies aproval numbers with AAs are well above the 50% range.(70-85%)

The polls I have seen with breakdowns show him getting the typical AA support for a Democrat.

[FarPoint]

32. Ohhhhhh

That appears grossly inflated...

[noiretextatique]

75. No, it isn't AA's will vote Democratic

As per usual

[Chasstev365]

28. Specifically, name more than one thing the Clintons have done for African Americans

[Loki]

30. This is an ugly statement

and beneath you as a poster Armstead.

[NorthCarolina]

33. What????

How is this an ugly statement. The definition of an ugly statement is NOT whatever "Loki" doesn't like. If anything is beneath contempt here it is NOT the OP. Think about it.

Here is the ugliness you seek: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511585402

[Armstead]

34. The statements that Sanders can't win because of AA's is ugly

[Jackie Wilson Said]

52. They will be blamed , no matter what, if the GOP wins.

[Loki]

79. Truth is not always pretty.

[Armstead]

81. If so, then your calling the Op ugly is misplaced

You should note it was stated as a hypothetical question, not as necessarily reality.

[Punkingal]

35. No, it is a legitimate question.

[emulatorloo]

37. Of course not. Stop being so damn divisive, Armstead

While we are at it you also know 99.9 percent of HRC DU supporters will vote for Sanders if he were the nominee.

honestly, why are you posting flamebait? Somebody hack your account?

[Armstead]

40. No I see all these posts where Sanders victories don't matter because they are "white states"

And how AAs don't like and can't support Sanders. And the logical extension of that, which is an underlying claim that AA's don't like Sanders and won't support him in the general.

That's a claim that has to be unpacked and talked about, as the Clinton campaign is using that implicit threat as a selling point.

Personally, I wish these racial distinctions had never been injected into the primary campaign (or at least kept in honest perspective, without the "Bernie has a problem with AAs" that was launched early in the primary.

[emulatorloo]

53. I see far more declarations of "Bernie or Bust". As to "racial distinctions"

let me share my observations on this issue. I hope you will take the time to read this.

In my opinion AA posters initially correctly pointed out the difficulty Bernie was having connecting with Black voters.

The majority of those posts were objective an analytical and gave the Bernie campaign CONSTRUCTIVE ADVICE about what the campaign could do to better reach AFrican Americans.

Alleged Bernie supporters jumped on those posts and WILLFULLY MISINTERPRETED them as "So you are calling Bernie a racist!"

It was one of the most craven displays of twisting people's words I have ever seen on DU.

And in the meantime, WillyT,s racist and homophobic "Stockholm Syndrome" was rec'ed to high heaven and his blatant trollism was protected and rewarded time and time again.

A few Bernie supporters called him out, but he was mostly glorified and exalted.

At the same time Willy got his crown, African American posters were systematically targeted and alert-stalked into silence.

Additionally There was hypocritical treatment of BLM by these alleged Sanders supporters, one day they are evil power mad BLACK LESBIANS paid by George Soros. Then the very same people who vilified them called them heroes cuz they confronted HRC.

I hope that helps you understand my perspective on the subject of your OP

[Bobbie Jo]

59. Spot on and well said. nt

[Armstead]

70. Here's my perspective...

I had been away from DU for a while and checked in out of curiosity early in the campaign. And it happened to be right around the time of the BLM protest.

I had been expecting the usual personal differences and primary spats between supporters of candidates, including some of the arguments about "socialism" and "corporate sell outs."

But what I was not expecting were the racial divisions because, as a long time fan of Bernie I know that social justice for all has always been at the top of his agenda. It's like, er, water and coffee go together.

And I was shocked and appalled at all of the outright statements and insinuations and distortions that Bernie is a racist, or racially insensitive or "has a problem with AAs." And describing his supporters as "racist white progressives" in those exact words.

Yeah, I got upset, and was shocked that this was being used as a wedge.

And I saw that same crap being spread and supported by the Clinton campaign, who started sending out surrogates to say, in effect "I support Clinton because Bernie is insensitive to AA's (Latinos, women)."

This campaign should have been about structural issues of concentration of wealth and power. Race is one aspect of that, but basically Clinton and Sanders are on the same side on issues of structural racism, despite the points of strength and weakness in that regard....Bernie's message of unifying to Lift Everyone Up is NOT the same as ignoring racial issues.

That was deflecting from the core issues of concentration of Wealth and Power, and seemed to me a lot like a mirror image what the GOP has been doing for years.

[emulatorloo]

83. Nobody called Bernie a racist. People put words in other people's mouths...

Person A: "Bernie is having problems reaching AA"
Person B: "So Bernie is a racist, huh?"

This is DU bullshit, not the campaigns or surrogates.

There has been talk of white privledge which exists. If someone says:

Person A: there is white privilege
Person B: You are playing the race card


On edit I see a meme is being planted, and I suspect it is coming from OUTSIDERS. pLease do what you can to push back.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1586646

[Armstead]

88. The terms have been much stronger than that

But regardless, I think it was an artificial creation of a division that needn't have existed. There are plenty of actual differences between the candidates on issues that should be the real focus

[riderinthestorm]

89. Of course they have.Nobody is fooled that "tone deaf" isn't code for "racist".

And that's been repeated over and over and over about Bernie and his supporters.

[Number23]

94. You are fighting a seriously uphill battle. But please know it is appreciated

Every word, every post from you in this thread is 100% correct. And the folks that don't know the difference between "tone deaf" and "racist" will -- as usual and as to be expected -- be the last ones to understand. Please don't waste your time.

[Vattel]

95. Nobody simply called him a racist.

But they accused him of doing racist things and of being racially insensitive and clueless about race, etc., etc. It has been disgusting. And Hillary and her surrogates and many of her supporters lapped it up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. They went so far as to question racial identities

of supporters (and non supporters ) they perceived as such.

And that is what they will have to own. Of course the antisemitism is now quite open.

[Armstead]

40. Self delete

Duplicate accidenalt double post

[Number23]

93. For you, kiddo

As a sane Sanders supporter, you're seeing a tiny taste of what black posters here get regularly. I hope you've taken lots of vitamins and gotten lots of rest.

[Vote2016]

39. I wish we could see that race is not voter destiny. Hillary's campaign likes to pretend she owns the

African American vote, but no race acts like a pack at the ballot box and it is a queasy-making generalization to reinforce this race-based oversimplification.

[Armstead]

42. I do too, and think it should not have been injected into the primary in the way it was

Bernie's "problem" with AAs was the same as it was with all "demographics," which is that he did not have a big profile and brand-name recognition with any voters.

[Vote2016]

49. The very same (antisemitic?) race card players would have a tantrum if someone pointed out in

similar racial terms that the white vote is over 60% of Democrats and over 70% of Democratic-leaning independents and Hillary has a "white voter problem." That is just unnecessary, and the motives of those who unnecessarily inject race are suspect. "White voters" are no more of a pack vote than any other race.

[bigwillq]

46. I think most would vote for Bernie if he is the nominee (nt)

[Onlooker]

55. I think the white Bernie supporters are a bigger worry than people of color ...

... the white middle class Bernie supporters really don't have as much to lose with a Cruz or Trump presidency than do people of color. So, if your point is that Bernie might do better in the general election because he has selfish supporters who won't care about minorities, I agree to some extent.

[Armstead]

58. That's a load of crap...We ALL (except the top 10 percent) have a lot to lose and...

have been losing since the late 1970's.

The idea of "privileged" selfish white supporters of Bernie is a lot of unmitigated crap.

[Onlooker]

92. You don't believe white privilege exists? n/t

[Armstead]

99. That's a stupid question. Of course it does.

But that doesn't mean all white people are privileged in an ultimate sense.

Not does it equate to the conservative Republican belief that values and ideals are the same being privileged.

[Kip Humphrey]

60. Both the AA community and the Dem establishment will vote for Bernie in the GE in Yuuuuge numbers

running against the likes of Trump or Cruz. Bernie will have the Dems, Independents, the disillusioned Haven't-Voted-In-Years crowd, and a good number of republicons and tea partiers. Bernie is WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN in the GE. Hillary is... not so much.

[JoePhilly]

61. Your first sentence is a BS strawman.

[Armstead]

71. I will amend that to largely about race

You can read the rest of my responses on this thread for my elaboration.

[JoePhilly]

72. The GOP made this election largely about race.

Have you watched any of their debates?

[Armstead]

74. I'm not referring to the GOP

They are the enemy on that issue. The question is how we fight them most effectively.

[JoePhilly]

76. I think Hillary will be more effective.

Clearly we disagree on that point.

But Hillary supporters are not making this election all (or largely) about race. That's simply where we are as a country.

The GOP has clearly decided to be the party of old white guys.

And Hillary has the most diverse coalition of supporters of all candidates in either primary.

[Armstead]

78. I think either candidate could build a diverse coalition

Clinton started out with a yuuuuge advantage in terms of previous legwork for her run and brand name recognition. And it might propel her to the nomination.

But it is very telling that Bernie had to start with basically nothing in that regard, and has advanced to this point, rather than being a fringe 8 percent Kucinich type of candidate as most predicted he would be.

My point in the OP was that Sanders successes and potential to win should not be based so heavily on those demographic distinctions, which largely have been based on name recognition, rather then who is really is or what he is capable of in terms of unifying a coalition to beat the GOP.

[karynnj]

85. Not a strawman, it is the scenario that will exist if Bernie is the nominee

I assume your point is that we are still in the primary and you reject any questions that ask people to ASSUME Bernie is the nominee. The fact is that in all Democratic elections since 1964, the Democrats got over 80 % of the African American vote. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/ An interesting observation is that Bill Clinton, in both races, did LESS well than the elections before or after him. This includes the races against New Englanders, Dukakis and Kerry.

I think if Bernie were the nominee, there would be two major forces that would move African Americans to vote for him against the Republicans. One would be the overt racism of the Republican party has not been papered over as it was in say 2000 thru 2012 - it is almost celebrated! The other is that if Bernie Sanders were the nominee (which I know is not all that likely), the same people of influence in the black community who strongly pushed for Clinton are very likely to speak to their community in a positive way about Sanders. It is regrettable that Clinton allies tried to swiftboat Sanders' real commitment to civil rights activism in the 1960s. (PS arguing that the action was all in the South, ignores that Chicago in the 1960s was both racist and dangerous if you opposed the city government.

It is also true that Clinton is beyond a doubt the first choice of the majority of African Americans. No one contests that -- and they would be ignoring all the facts to do so. The question asked, is one that is tricky to ask at that point in time. In the midst of primaries, we ALWAYS see people, polarized by the race, ponder whether they could vote for the other if they become the nominee. However, I remember a point in 2008, where for me things became crystal clear that I would vote for any Democrat. That was when Bush vetoed an expansion of Kennedy's Children's Health Insurance program. I KNEW every Democrat would have signed the bill into law and every Republican would have, like Bush, vetoed it.

What is strange about that moment is that it followed months of John Kerry in 2007, before he endorsed anyone, arguing that all Democrats shared his values on health care, environment, etc while the Republicans did not and that any Democrat was better than all Republicans running. There is no one in politics whose judgement I respected more, but it took that real life example where I could see the ramifications of what he spoke of to make me challenge anyone - for Obama or for Clinton - when they spoke of maybe not voting.

The question will be not what percent of African Americans vote for the Democrat, but how many are motivated to vote. Just as the Republicans were able to motivate evangelicals to vote in unprecedented numbers against Kerry because they put referendums on gay rights on ballots in many states, I think that the fear of the Republican demagogue chosen -- in and of itself -- will motivate the African American voters (who prefer HRC), the Muslim (who prefer Bernie), and the young liberal population (who prefer Bernie) and the older female population (who prefer Clinton) to join in common cause to keep the Republican out.

One concern is that the republicans have brought out HUGE numbers of people to their contests - far more than the Democrats. As there is a real hard fought race between HRC and Bernie, you can't write it off to there being more of a contest on their side. I hope that this disparity in the enthusiasm to vote between the parties represents that many democrats are not motivated NOW to vote for (or against) either of their choices. This does not necessarily mean that in November when the choice is (Trump, Cruz, or Republican to be named later) or (HRC or Bernie), there will be similar lack of motivation.

For that, I think the better things to watch are:
1) Obama's approval has been rising since the start of this year. http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm and http://pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm
2) The Democratic Party's approval is rising as the Republican party's sinks. Dems - http://pollingreport.com/dem.htm and Republicans - http://pollingreport.com/rep.htm

These favor Democrat over Republican - no matter which Democrat.

Another poll question is the direction of the country:
In general, people have been unhappy with where the country is going since Bush was in his second term.This is really weird when seen against economic changes (very positive over Obama's terms) and Obama's approval and favorability. http://pollingreport.com/right.htm -- look at the longer Gallup series that is after the Bloomberg data (which shows the same thing for a shorter time interval). These numbers are far higher than the single digit right direct before the 2008 election, but they are historically low. This might explain the reason that everyone - including Hillary Clinton - is presenting themselves as change candidates.

Putting these together, one very positive inference is that unless something major changes, the Democrat should win. From it, I can see why Bernie out performs Hillary Clinton in the head to head match up. He can more readily be seen as an agent of change and he is likely hitting some of the underlying issues that led to this dissatisfaction. I can also see why BOTH are favored over the Republicans. To me, what the first set shows, is that even as people are not satisfied with the status quo, they don't blame Obama or the Democratic party as much as they have blamed the people in power when there was similar dissatisfaction in the past. In addition, it seems that progressively more people reject the alternative that is offered by the Republican party. The combination is very good news.

The good news may be that EITHER democrat can win -- in spite of the DU threads that BOTH sides have littered GDP with. This thread is one that counters many threads that implied that HRC supporters (in this case the AA) will not vote for Bernie. It could have its mirror image arguing that Bernie voters will vote for Clinton. What I prefer is to argue that BOTH groups of partisans ignore the stark choice we will face in November. I suspect, the intensity of the fight now reflects a fight for the should of the Democratic party. It is interesting that some articles saying HRC will win also say that Bernie's vision and issues are the real future of the party. This ignores that if HRC is the nominee and wins, she will control the party for the next 8 years.

[one_voice]

64. I haven't read the thread. I'm just answering the OP.

It pissed me off when people would said that AA voted for Obama because he was black.

That's not true. AA are the most loyal voting block that the Dems have. Period. Were the numbers slightly higher. Maybe. Did they vote with more pride in their hearts. Absofuckinlutely!

So, here's my short answer. I believe they will come out and vote. Because they're loyal Democrats and because they know the damage that will be done by Republicans.

That being said, it was absolutely disgusting the way AA that lived in the south were dismissed and written off in the nastiest of terms, not because they were red states, but because they voted for Hillary.

Bottom line, THEY. ARE. DEMOCRATS. Virginia & NC are swing states. you'll want their votes in the GE if Bernie is the nom.

I have family all across the south, that voted for both the candidates. And the Hillary people were just as pissed as the Bernie people with the things that were said. Contrary to what was said about them, they pay attention and know what's said on twitter, fb etc. They didn't appreciate it.

[Armstead]

73. I assume most AAs would vote for Bernie...

But I think Clinton is doing the same you are accusing Sanders supporters are, of writing off large segments of voters. The mantra now that Bernie is winning some states is that they don't matter because they are "white states."

My own opinion is that voters should not have been "demographically" segmented in this primary as they were. You can read my elaborations on that in other posts on this thread.

[noiretextatique]

77. No...and they know it

Hence the focus on race from the start. AA's will support the D candidate, even if it is not Clinton.

[Major Hogwash]

86. Yeah, this isn't even worth discussing.

There may be a few that are willing to sit it out this fall, but I doubt if it turns out to be very many at all.
We know what we are up against this year . . and whether the GOP chooses Kasich, Trump, Cruz, or even if they decide to dig up Reagan to run him again, the Republicans aren't going to take the White House.
Not this year.

Not after they have treated Obama so badly for so long.

[noiretextatique]

90. AA's are reliable D voters

That's why Clinton shock troops have been targeting us with ridiculous claims about Sanders from the beginning. That and the Clintons' record is not exactly great. Superpredators and mass incarceration are not as appealing as playing the sax on Arsenio and doing the nae nae in a black church.

[baldguy]

82. Democratic voters are generally a smart bunch.

Which is why the Democratic nominee shouldn't expect to rely on Sanders supporters.

[Armstead]

84. Yes that 40-some of the primary voters don't matter

[JI7]

91. Yes. He would get about 85 percent for sure

But probably 5 to 10 percent more than that.

No question about it either .

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. Aftrer having read more Trump than anybody should

More than a fair number of minorities will vote for Trump. In fact, I predict he will be more attractive than oh Cruz... and those thinking that this is fantasy, I suggest you do the work. This will be an expanded Reagan coalition.