2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPrivilege Is What Allows Clinton Supporters to Keep Supporting Her
When the overwhelming preference among young people for Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton first became apparent, old-school feminists like Madeleine Albright were quick to vote-shame younger women for abandoning the cause of feminism.
Now come the concerned citizens preemptively scolding supporters of Sanders who might be tempted to stay home if Clinton is on the ballot in November. We’re told that we have a moral duty to vote for Clinton, that we are sexist if we dislike her, and that a refusal to vote for her would be an act of privilege because vulnerable people will be hurt if Trump wins.
Well. Let’s talk about privilege and vulnerable people for a minute.
There’s no question that a Trump win would be a disaster. It would give a vain, unstable, and completely unqualified man great power and fan the flames of racism, violence, and xenophobia.
But if you are helping Hillary Clinton win the nomination, please don’t talk to me about privilege. Because you are choosing, right now, in this moment, to support a candidate who is deeply disliked by independents, has historically bad favorability ratings, is under investigation by both the FBI and the NSA, and is running much worse in head-to-head polls with the Republicans than Bernie Sanders.
In other words, you are choosing to put the country at risk by supporting the far weaker and far more vulnerable candidate. And then telling me I must support her. What does that say about your privilege?
http://noiwillnotyield.com/blog/2016/3/25/privilege-is-what-allows-clinton-supporters-to-keep-supporting-her
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)Clinton by a commanding margin, will be....interested....to learn that they are the new face of "privilege" in Bernie World.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/08/how-hillary-clinton-won-mississippi/
Lazy Daisy
(928 posts)Bernie by a very commanding margin, will be... interested... to learn that they are not as important as African Americans when it comes to being counted as a minority in Hillary world.
https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-hawaii
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)It's also thoroughly irrelevant to the OP. Do you have any response to the actual issue I brought up about the absurdity of "Hillary supporters" being pegged as the "privileged"?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)As well as the far more dishonest "Bernie doesn't care about racism" meme.
Native Hawaiians and Asian Hawaiians face just as much institutional racism as AA's.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)like African Americans...wake me up.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hawaiians were an independent people whose homeland was conquered by American imperialism. Their culture was nearly crushed by white supremacism and "Christian" arrogance and their language banned for over a century. They still fight extensive battles over land claims and water rights.
Asian Americans faced bigotry and persecution in this country until very, very recently(ever hear of the Chinese exclusion policy, the segregation of Asian Americans into Chinatowns and Japantowns and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II?).
It was just as tough to be Asian American and indigeonous Hawaiian as it has been to be African American.
Besides which, there's no way the less-progressive candidate can be better at standing up for oppressed people. And Bernie never dismissed anything African Americans have been subjected to. He not only got arrested and beat up as an organizer in the freedom movement, he campaigned for Jesse Jackson when HRC was founding the DLC, a group created specifically to disempower African Americans within the Democratic Party and and appease bitter spiteful Sixties-hating white racist conservatives instead of building the Rainbow Coalition.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)have been educated on.
brush
(53,764 posts)My wife and I visited there a few years ago. We are African American and the native Hawaiian hotel workers sought us out and to tell us about their plight and how they identified with our struggle here.
Stephen Kinser' book, "Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" details how US ex-pat sugar and pineapple planters conspired to overthrow the monarchy because they weren't granted more land.
The book is well worth the read.
I am not in agreement however with the notion that Hillary supporters who represent the full spectrum of the Democratic Party demographic are anymore privileged than Sanders' less diversified supporters.
I mean come on. The premise of the OP is kind of off-putting considering how dismissive many Sanders supporters have been of the Clinton wins in the south where we all know the black vote contributed greatly to Hillary's wins there. If the Sanders' campaign had actually taken the so-called red states seriously and gotten a good portion of the black vote there instead of denigrating us for "not knowing what was good for us because we vote heavily for Clinton", Sanders would be winning right now.
Seems to me their privilege they didn't allowed them to know what was good for themselves.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Our objection(as Sanders supporters)has been to the implication that this proves HRC, who is far more conservative, is the superior candidate and that Super Tuesday proves that Bernie should never have run.
The OP shouldn't have said "all" HRC supporters, I'll agree, but what the hell was the Sanders campaign supposed to do after Super Tuesday? Were we supposed to say "this proves we're a joke and we're getting out right now"? We're we supposed to let the movement for economic justice die, which is the only thing that could have come of an early Sanders withdrawal?
Seriously...what were we supposed to do? What response to Super Tuesday, other than getting out, would have been considered acceptable and respectable to AA voters?
brush
(53,764 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Somehow it is not theirs any longer. Some peoples take that sort of land grabbing thing very seriously. Are you willing to say that all peoples who have lost their national territories to imperialism have not been treated unfairly?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)can speak with authority what it means to be and feel worthless. Read up on their history.
jfern
(5,204 posts)
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)But, oh, she is not white-privileged. Riiiiight. I supported Barbara Jordan, did you? I also supported Jesse Jackson, did you?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Tanuki
(14,918 posts)Didn't think so.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Change the words on the screen, sorry, but you had your own words thrown back at you and you did.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)for Hillary from a position of "privilege"? That is the claim the OP makes about "Hillary supporters." I think that is ludicrous. I am happy to have my own words on the subject "thrown back at me," and I stand by them. But neither you nor Lazy Daisy get to make up shit and falsely impute opinions about Asian and other minority residents of Hawaii. If you need to make up lies to make your point, you are beyond pathetic.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)them, please quote me directly or stop lying about what I say.
While you're at it red post #4 again. I am beginning to thing that you do not read very well.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)You have not addressed the substance of what I actually did write in the post to which #4 responded. Why is that?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)your response to #4 that's it. If I intended to respond to your nonsensical red herring previous to that I would have.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)of what I actually did say. That certainly clears things up.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I will not respond to you again, will you continue bullying fellow Asian Americans? Likely. Just as likely they will be less shy and hand you your ass.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)alleged "privilege." Sorry if taking exception to that claim makes you feel you have the right to make up stuff about me.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)THOSE ABOVE THE $100,000 dollar per year range.
Most Hillary supporters are Well off comfortable people that do not fear her trade policies or extremely hawkish views, her positions on minority rights are not superior to Sanders and he has actually put his actions where his mouth is unlike her lifelong privileged ass, truth be told her tough on black crime and war on drug bullshit has been in fact most harmful.
You brilliantly assert that all her support comes from minorities as if they were some monolithic entity (which we are not) while excluding her largest base of support that are the well to do and coerced.
You make no actual sense, that is why I seldom address you, as pathetic as that may be, there it is.
I usually act a bit kinder and do not tell the nonsensical why I don't often respond to them because of their inability to pose proper arguments, I don't like fucking with anybody's self esteem as it is sorta mean even when the truth is what it is, but you just leave me with no other option than to ignore my normally polite nature and evaluate you honestly, disregarding your feelings.
I think electronic ignore is in order as even tho few get that from me (because as even many distasteful, or Conservative posters here sometimes make decent arguments) you seldom do, and as such are a waste of pixels on my screen.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)Response to Tanuki (Reply #25)
Ken Burch This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)OP was talking about Clinton supporters. If there was some sort of carve-out, who weren't included in the broad brush accusation of "privilege" as the position from which they are voting, I missed it. Please note that I am not the one treating either of the candidates as an "enemy" in this scenario.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Not because African-Americans considered their options and voted for the candidate that they considered best represented their interests ... just like you smart white folks outside of "that region."
There you go again arguing your favorite straw man. For the (seemingly) millionth time, no one has said that ... what has been said is that Bernie's economic primacy theory treats AA issues as secondary. There is a difference.
Where do you get this crap? Who has deemed, or treated, Bernie "as an enemy of Black America" or, even, suggested that Sanders "withdraw from the contest just to prove he respects AA voters"?
Your head must be a very noisy place.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You just insisted on claiming he did because you can't accept that economic injustice does plenty of damage to people and does disproportionate damage to POC. And because you, I assume, are personally privileged economically and can't accept that we really can't create a racism-free society without also creating a poverty-and-exploitation free society.
Bernie's program was never raceblind and never assumed that working-class whites had it exactly as bad as AA's. And you know it.
Bernie never dismissed police violence and institutional racism. That's what he's been fighting against without interruption since 1961.
All he is saying is that you have to address both forms of injustice to defeat either. Why is THAT offensive to you? It's exactly what MLK and Malcolm said in the Sixties(why do you get so indignant when people point out that those men were not conservatives on economic policy?)and what Jesse Jackson and Harold Washington and, to the degree he could, David Dinkins said in the Eighties.
Why do you think it's even possible to defeat institutional racism WITHOUT challenging corporate control of the economy? It's the corporations that insist on keeping the institutional and grassroots racism in place in this country. Without them, without their insistence on using fear of want to keep people apart, racism would be dying a natural death. Racism does not survive as hate for hate's sake...it survives because the rich want it to survive.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Posted to you for the (seemingly) millionth time, Bernie's own words:
...
Well, here's what you got. What you got is an African-American president, and the African-American community is very, very proud that this country has overcome racism and voted for him for president. And that's kind of natural. You've got a situation where the Republican Party has been strongly anti-immigration, and you've got a Hispanic community which is looking to the Democrats for help.
But that's not important. You should not be basing your politics based on your color. What you should be basing your politics on is, how is your family doing?
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
Again, the Bernie you present is not the Bernie that speaks.
But his solutions are ... and you know THAT.
Again, for the (seemingly) millionth time ... no one, except you and Bernie supporters, has said that Bernie has "dismissed police violence and institutional racism" ... what has been said is that Bernie's economic primacy theory t:eats police violence and institutional racism as secondary issues. There, still, is a difference.
Tell me ...
How does:
Address that? Or, police violence, or institutional racism?
No ... That is NOT exactly what Dr. King and/or Brother Malcolm said in the sixties ... no matter how many time you say so.
I have no problem with those men's economic policy; but, know ... they were PRIMARILY talking about social equality and when they talking about economic equality, they were PRIMARILY talking about INTRA-CLASS equality ... that's WHY Dr. King was in Memphis and WHY Brother Malcolm remained a racial separatist until his death.
So stop fucking lecturing me on Dr. King and Brother Malcolm ... you only hear from these men, what advances your "economic universalist" agenda.
I'm tired of typing this shit ... over and over and over again to your deaf ears.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Their growing economic radicalism never deprioritized the fight against racism.
And I always learned from them first about the need to defeat hate and oppression.
BTW, all Bernie said was that MLK was in Memphis to support strikers. He never denied that the strikers were black, or that they were driven by the misery of racism. He never implied that white sanitation workers in Memphis had it just as bad as black sanitation workers. He just related the particular to the universal. You can do that without saying the particular isn't particular anymore.
(Malcolm. while staying a passionate opponent of white supremacism, did not remain a rigid black separatist at the end. He was reaching out to build broader alliances for more deeply radical change. At the time of his death, Malcolm was scheduled to meet with Che.)
And the quotes you think damn Bernie on race didn't call on the AA community of today to deprioritize racism, or prove that he did. There is no contradiction between calling on people of all races to unite for economic justice and still clearly being deeply committed to rooting out institutional and grassroots racism. He raises economic issues because, while economic justice is a distinct set of issues from what is now being called social justice(a term that always had an economic component before 2015)they are related and both forms of justice have to created for either to triumph, for any progressive change to prevail and survive. Social justice and economic justice are distinct, BUT CONNECTED. They intersect, and neither justice movement can possibly endanger the triumph of the other.
The Thirties proved you can't have a sustainable economic justice program without addressing racism. That's why the Southern Democrats were so adamant about excluding blacks from the New Deal and from full voting rights: If blacks had been included in both, the power of Southern landowners and the Northern industrialists who both depended on the preservation of cheap labor would have been broken, and the political base of those Southern Dems would have collapsed.
The Sixties proved you can't defeat racism without ending the fear of want and the fear of lost ground. That's why the Republicans then were determined to stop the War on Poverty and especially to prevent any possibility of POC and working-class whites ever making any form of common cause...they needed poverty and the fear of people being driven back to poverty to survive to keep people disciplined and divided. That's why property values were used to fan the white backlash.
The Obama era also proves this: that's why the Right is still so obsessed with getting rid of the ACA...even with its flaws and limitations, the ACA one way of easing fear of want. The right knows that if fear of want dies, grassroots racism will die a natural death. Corporations know that if fear of want vanishes, they won't be able to manipulate working-class whites into supporting the hard-line law enforcement measures that are necessary to maintain corporate power.
In this era, there is no way an administration dedicated to creating economic justice and changing who makes the major decisions in this society would ever let police violence slide. It simply isn't possible. There isn't any situation in which that trade-off would even be a possibility.
It would be an equal part of the program of change.
And ANY economic justice program would inevitably take the effects of racism strongly into effect, because it would focus automatically on who has been hurt the most by both forms of oppression.
A country that has egalitarian economics is always going to be an easier country to defeat all forms of racism in, because racism largely hangs on at the grassroots level due to the manipulated fear among working-class whites that any gains for anyone else in life are going to be losses for them.
That's why Bernie did mention that jobs program-NOT to push racism off to the side as a priority(no one on the left would ever do that) but as part of the anti-racist program too. It addresses the particular AND the universal.
It has always clear that Bernie, while working for economic justice would work with equal passion to defeat institutional racism. He had seen harassment of POC right in front of him. He had seen police violence against POC. He had experienced police violence as a member of an ethnic minority(the mainly-Catholic Chicago PD were clearly rougher with him because he was Jewish than they were with white Catholics or Protestants in the freedom movement, although obviously not as rough as they were to blacks in that movement)
And his own relatives had been killed by Nazis as a result of institutional racism.
When it is that close to you, it is going to make you commit to fighting racism for life.
All Bernie has argued is that you can't defeat racism by addressing it in complete isolation, by treating it as something that is completely disconnected from any other form of injustice. He never said that working-class whites have it just as bad as POC; he never said we were done with racism(his comments about Obama's election were simply an observation that one partial victory had been scored in that moment, not that racism had vanished.)
The Johnson Administration thought that racism could be ended without restructuring the way this country is run. Everything that has happened since 1965 proved he was wrong about that. fifty-one years of unending manipulated backlash politics is proof of that.
Bernie is simply saying, in response to that, that we have to change the universal TO address the particular.
It's still equally about ending institutional racism, and still about ending it just as quickly.
Why difference does it make HOW we end institutional racism, so long as we do end it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)boiling down to nothing that refutes what I have written ... Bernie's economic primacy model treats social issues (i.e., racism) as a secondary concern.
BTW, you are far more articulate on the intersection of racism and economic injustice than Bernie ... Perhaps you should run for office because your understanding of what "Bernie simply means" is well beyond what Bernie has said.
Also, Malcolm did, in fact, remain a Black separatist, until his dying day.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)You have to address economic justice to have any chance of defeating institutional racism. Bernie gets that and O'Malley and HRC didn't.
What you want is for him to ONLY talk about racism, which would have essentially have made him nothing more than an enlightened conservative. Talking ONLY about racism would have actually made it harder for him to fight racism as president(as it will make it harder for HRC to do so, having totally ignored economic inequality and the way it nurtures racism) because when you deal with racism as though it exists in isolation to everything else, you do nothing to prevent white backlash, and if you don't prevent white backlash, you haven't defeated racism.
You and I and Bernie are all agreed that racism is a massive priority.
And Malcolm remain a black nationalist and a Muslim, but he was moving beyond separatism. Given that moving beyond separatism was going to make him a more effective combatant against racism than people like Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan, why is the statement that he was moving past separatism so threatening to you? Separatism, while an entirely justifiable response to Jim Crow and things like what his teacher said to him as a child and the barbaric way that insurance company treated Malcolm's mother, was never an effective way to combat racism. It didn't address power relations. It didn't change who controlled the major decisions that affect POC. He was looking for better ways to fight for the AA community at the end. How is that a bad thing?
Sorry if I write too much. Your posts make me want to respond attentively and in great detail. I hope you can at least take that as a sign of respect.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Just as important, maybe, but secondary in priority.
NO ... HE ... FUCKING ... WASN'T ... AND, NO HE DIDN'T!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And neither did Bernie.
AA people are not the only POC who have ever experienced oppression in this country. It was just as bad for indigenous Hawaiians, and nearly as bad for Asian Americans(the difference between slavery and how Chinese railroad workers were treated, and Jim Crow and Chinese Americans and Japanese Americans being barred from leaving their own neighborhoods is not that significant. Racial oppression is racial oppression).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Just leave it alone.
I'm embarrassed to see people here suddenly so interested in native Hawaiians. It would be comical except is reminds us how much of this consideration is nonsense. If respect and care for AAs was actually there, we wouldn't be reading about how weak minded so many of them are in your estimation.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)None of that is new.
And I wasn't calling AA's weak-minded...just deferential(in the south)to their leaders. That has been the case in other ethnic and racial communities(look at machine politics in Chicago, for example). And if the leaders didn't matter, why was the Clinton campaign so adamant about deploying them to, in effect, send the message to southern AA's that Bernie was officially unacceptable?
Bernie hadn't done anything to actually deserve the hatred and dismissiveness that was orchestrated about him in that community. He had never betrayed AA's, never once been on the wrong side of any issues. It's frustrating that the southern AA community
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And I think that this points to a huge problem. There is must projection that someone must be "hated" and it is not at all close to the truth.
Everyday I read nasty posts accusing other people of hating or being angry when they are not.
It feels blindly hateful, and difficult for many of us to relate to.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)posts personally blaming Bernie for the 'bros(when he had nothing to do with them),posts treating Bernie as if he treated racism as secondary to economic issues(which he has NEVER done), posts acting like he was insulting AA voters by not campaigning in the South, then posts implying he was insulting AA voters BY campaigning in the South, posts desperate to prove that he did nothing that mattered in the freedom movement, then yes, that looks like hate.
It has looked as though somebody was desperate to make sure that AA voters didn't switch to Bernie, if nothing else.
I don't personally hate HRC-I find her too conservative, establishment, and militarist on the issues, too dismissive of activists and idealists, to contemptuous of the idea of change...but I don't think she is personally a monster.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Speech- I'm not sure why you are pretending that is not the truth when you know better.
The vast majority of posts about the "bros" say it is not Bernie, but some out of control condescension from some supporters. There is universal
Agreement to vote for Bernie, should he be the nominee. There is however, a great deal of very personal nastiness toward Hillary- and condescending crap toward her voters. Despite pleas to stop marginalizing her supporters you are all still doing it. Honestly I have to wonder if any of you have worked on a campaign before. I've never seen such and ugly cluster fuck and so many people gleeful to parrot RW sources- all while claiming integrity is what really matters. Not seeing a lot of integrity.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's enough that I accept that HRC won the South. And I do accept that.
What I don't accept, and what no Sanders supporters accept, is the implication that what happened on Super Tuesday settled everything. Why should we accept that?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)"HRC carried the AA vote in the South largely because that vote in that region tends to do what its leaders tell it to do."
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"because that vote in that region tends to do what its leaders tell it to do."
Why can't you see how problematic, even condescendingly asinine that is?
Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #128)
Ken Burch This message was self-deleted by its author.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It wasn't. But even if it was, she could because of the decades she (and Bill) spent developing the relationships to get their ear.
The rest is even MORE rubbish ... But you know better.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Bernie's criminal justice and antiracist proposals are just as strong as hers if not stronger (O'Malley's may have been better, but he was never going to get broad national support no matter what-good guy, but doomed to stay at Kucinich-level support even if Bernie hadn't run). And no Democratic president elected in the time of Black Lives Matter would ever treat institutional racism as a secondary issue. There wouldn't be any time in which the choice would be achieving economic justice OR ending police violence The forces fighting to preserve the economic status quo are also going to be the forces defending "stop and frisk", "zero tolerance" "three strikes" and "broken windows".
The 1% support "the New Jim Crow".
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and unaffected opinion.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)But that just represents what AA voters in that one region on that one day. It isn't the end of the story, and it's time for the4 "Bernie is only supported by white folks" narrative to be retired.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)So stop promoting it ... That is not what PoC have been saying ... ever.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)I'm being kind here in the small town Southern way I was brought up in. To call it what it really is would probably get me a hide. You'll probably get a hide for your honesty 1SBM, but I fully support you!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and a braying donkey to a well known African-American poster doesn't warrant a hide; but rather, hardy and spirited defense ... well ... I give zero shits about DU's new community standards.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Holy shit, is Stormfront invading ?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)just the community standards have changed to correlate to the conduct of the most enthusiastic supporters of a certain candidate.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Either you don't grasp what you just said and you're just astoundingly tone-deaf, or that was entirely intentional and you're just as bad as WillyT.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)"HRC carried the AA vote in the South largely because that vote in that region tends to do what its leaders tell it to do."
Where do some DUers get this absolute BS? I am black and in the south. But, this is the second time I've had to say...I do not get marching orders from a leader. I sure has hell hope this is not what is spread at some home dining tables. And, if it is, I sure hope the children who receive it grow up to be...more sound of mind. Black people DO NOT have collective leaders who tell them what to do. Where do you get this? Why do you think it? I don't think you have a group of white leaders who tell you what to do. I can't even count Bernie Sanders as one...because I think he would be insulted to know that you post (in his stead) as assuming that there are community black leaders running around telling black people what to do. And, then black people go and do it. Because...apparently, we can't think for ourselves.
I'll have you know, as African Americans, we are doctors, layers, teachers, construction workers, homemakers, mothers, fathers, we operate in our sphere of influence like you do in yours. And, if no one stopped by your house to tell you what the hell to do. No one stopped by mine.
This is just backwards. This is just as backwards to me, as people who wonder if black rubs off. If we need less anesthesia because we handle pain better. Let me help you here. We don't have black leaders who tell us what to do. What happens when the PoC who support Bernie Sanders along with you...one day disagree on some minor or major issue? Will it be because they had a private visit with some black leaders...otherwise, they would agree with you. It's just a matter of time...since EVERYONE disagrees sometimes. Is this the tripe, you'll tell them. Or, are they safe from this garbage...as long as they go along with the appropriate leaders...apparently you.
Why can't it just be...we just happen to disagree on presidential candidates? Now, there's a novel thought. Have you any idea how utterly repulsive your sentence was? I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Well, yes, I do. I should cry. Because supposedly you're what we have as an ally. Thankfully, you are not representative of the Sanders supporters I know in real life. In a world of wolves and foxes, real allies are hard to find. But, please let that meme die here on DU.
Black people think for themselves. Say it three times, if it helps. Say it until you realize how insulting that crappy sentence is. Maybe some AAs vote for HRC because of her foreign policy stance. Perhaps others, because of her early support of healthcare for children. And, others because of her gun policy. But, if anyone seriously asks you (why they would, I simply could not fathom) why black people vote for anyone...you tell em it's because we're free and get to do what we damn well please, without apology or explanation unless we feel like it...
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Why would you prefer HRC on foreign policy, though? Her foreign policy is basically to keep fighting as many wars as possible.
The gun thing I can understand. The healthcare for children thing maybe(the SCHIP thing would have happened if Bernie had been president, too). But foreign policy?
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Aw...it's as if it pains you to "give" on that point. I understand.
Regardless, you missed the best part, Ken! Free people don't have to give an explanation.
Response to onpatrol98 (Reply #162)
Ken Burch This message was self-deleted by its author.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)
Influence of black leaders...
I wake up, prepare my child for school...and myself for work.
I work.
I check on my parents...they're getting older.
It's possible that I may have some grocery shopping to do...
Time to cook...got to feed the family, you understand.
I go home and prepare for the next day...
Now, I left out a few things from my day. No doubt. But, I assure you...at no point, is there an email, phone call, meeting, etc. where someone lets me know who I should vote for. Ken, is there a white leader that you check in with? Black people don't have a set of leaders who give us marching orders. I'm not sure if you made the statement, simply to be insulting. Or, if you actually believe it. Either is disappointing. Perhaps it's just the frustration of the primary season.
We have republicans who say, black people vote democratic because, we have some plantation mentality. We now have some democrats, who have said things about black people because some of us...not all...simply picked a different primary candidate. Think about that for a moment. How dare we simply choose someone different? We should explain.
Apart from my children...actually three are grown...now. Only the 10 year old, would I walk up to and demand an explanation from. I just don't possess the hubris for that. But it is definitely a symptom of an unhealthy relationship.
I would never suggest you have nefarious, or unreasonable reasons for supporting Bernie Sanders. As a free adult, you simply look at your choices and pick the one you prefer. No one marches up to you and insists you explain your actions. I want nothing short of that, Ken. I want the same. Complete freedom. Nothing less.
I can't wait until this primary season is over.
Number23
(24,544 posts)It really does make you want to weep and never, ever stop.
That the people who love to scream and holler the loudest that they are our allies can be in many cases, every bit as ignorant, insensitive, clueless and yes bigoted as the folks that make it crystal clear that they despise us. It makes you want to weep, but it is actually not in any way a surprise.
Hell yes.
We are not mindless tools that do what our leaders tell us.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Cause I see a whole bunch of white people supporting her.
So that makes you a pathetic liar too.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)But I think it is absurd to claim, as the OP does, that "privilege is what allows Hillary supporters to continue to back her," when it is well known that African American voters constitute a significant part of her constituency, and nobody would make a credible argument that they enjoy "privilege" in the states I referenced. Of course lots of people from every ethnicity support her, as do people from many different positions of privilege and lack of privilege.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Your claim is that Hillary's supporters are not privileged because they are oppressed blacks.
You jumped all over the OP with that. And it is a fact that HRC has a lot of white voters. In fact she has a lot of white supporters with lots of privilege. Or do you feel that her corporate masters are all oppresed too?
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)with reality. The premise of the OP remains absurd.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)so give it up and move on to the next faux outrage on your agenda today.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)that has NEVER been addressed for their benefit. They need to try another choice and see if its better because I don't recall those two states improving under Clinton in the past.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)there had been a primary rather than a caucus.
Second, the issue is not how well Bernie did among Asian and Native Hawaiin voters. They issue is that it makes no sense to call Hillary's black and Latino supporters "privileged," given all the struggles their communities have endured.
Then again, it is a disgusting thing to say about all Clinton voters. People who vote for Hillary have decided that they like her as a candidate and want her to be president. Same for Bernie voters. We all have to vote for our preferred candidate. Privilege has nothing to do with it.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)more informed and better educated voters make better decisions. Bernie voters are better informed and better educated., therefore make better decisions.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That all of us supporting Hillary are just too freeking stupid to know better. It's a winner argument for sure. Those youngsters you're hanging your hat on have the most abysmal voting records I've ever seen. I'm sure they'll continue to show up....if their facebook page doesn't need updating.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)than Bernie supporters? That absurd.
Tell me ... How is not voting for anyone other than your first choice candidate, knowing that it increases the likelihood that your (presumably) last choice candidate carries the day, a display of this higher informed, better educatedness?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)To Sanders. Hence his steady rise in the polls and her steady decline.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Eventually, people become informed and switch.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)eventually and inform you of such.
Silly person, thinking you knew something.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I might have to use my two under-graduate degrees (Political Sci and Economics), my graduate degree (MPA), and my professional degree (Law), and several national Expert-level Certifications to figure stuff out for myself ... though, I understand, all those designations bring me on par with a white high school drop out; but, I'll have to give it a shot!
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Would love to know more details, what pray tell can I use you for 
I need experts with free help and advice all the time!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
snooper2
(30,151 posts)For example,
Some folks read "counterpunch" and "naturalnews" and think they are really informed and educated. Unfortunately, filling ones brain with information from those sources can make you a fucking idiot.
Kind of like right wingers that listen to Limpnuts every day or Wiener Savage. Yep, they are informed- with bullshit.
riversedge
(70,186 posts)not familiar with naturalnews.
pampango
(24,692 posts)better. I would support him even if polls showed him to be a weaker candidate against the GOP. If Hillary were more 'electable' because of her appeal to independents and crossover republicans, I would still prefer Bernie because of his policies.
And I will not stay home in November no matter what because "
t)here’s no question that a Trump win would be a disaster. It would give a vain, unstable, and completely unqualified man great power and fan the flames of racism, violence, and xenophobia."
synergie
(1,901 posts)the states that are derided and dismissed by the privileged Bernie folks, as "just the Confederacy", and the people in Ohio and Detroit and Flint are somehow being accused of the things that best describer the college students and multi millionaires who support Bernie no matter what reality, math and the popular vote tells them?
Yes, the lead addled people of Flint are so privileged, that must be why they overwhelmingly chose the candidate that actually paid attention to their plight and not the out of touch privileged white male who STILL has no clue what's even going on, much less what's been done or needs to be done about it. So, your defense of the weaker candidate, the one that cannot sustain even the mildest of criticism, and who cannot even manage to convince those in his newly adopted party to vote for him, says a whole lot about the privilege of those who even now support him no matter what. It says a lot about one's privilege if they can listen to the Republicans, any of them and still cling to their internalized hatred created by right wing smears, deny pretty much any evidence of reality and still stomp their feet about their failed and failing candidate.
Bernie has no demonstrated competence to run a country, get anything done, convince others to join him or even weather a candidate that will actually oppose him. Even without Clinton laying a glove on him, he's failing this badly, what level of privilege does it take to deny that reality, and cheer on the revolution as revenge for not getting their way with the weak candidate?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)He was mayor of Burlington, Vermont and an US Senator. Hillary was a First Lady, Senator, and Sec'y of State. She ran the State department. She got the Iraq War in the face of better judgment on the part of Senator Sanders. So much for getting things done. And I don't know what "weathering" a candidate means. You might have to explain that one. Seems to me Sanders is the one who wants debates and does interviews. So, you lost me on that one. Do you really want to stand behind that statement? if you do, I'd appreciate a little evidence that it is true.
The article is comparing privilege between Clintonites and Sanders people. If Sanders' supporters don't vote Hillary in the GE, they are exercising 'privilege" because they might turn the country over to Trump. Clinton supporters are exercising "privilege" because they are supporting what polls show to be a "weaker candidate." What a stupid argument. I will exercise the only privilege I actually know I have and that is the privilege of choosing to vote at all and choosing for whom I will vote. Period. If you all want to extrapolate this out to some totally meaningless generality about the south and diversity, so be it. But it isn't relevant at all.
Finally, had anybody taken the time to read the article, it goes on to itemize why the author believes Hillary's record to be worse than that of Sanders. If you want to argue, at least argue about the issues that separate them. That part of the article is far more interesting and relevant. It would be nice to hear some real discussion between of the issues separating the two candidates.
sheshe2
(83,729 posts)
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts) cosmicone
(11,014 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)
It's always interesting to watch the "I'm for Bernie because he's for The People!" types admitting that The People can go fuck themselves if Bernie isn't the nominee.
brer cat
(24,556 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Staying home and making waffles on Election Day, then hopping on the Internet to brag about it.
THAT's privilege.
Tanuki
(14,918 posts)even while acknowledging that "a Trump win would be a disaster. It would give a vain, unstable, and completely unqualified man great power and fan the flames of racism, violence, and xenophobia." What an unthinkable, unconscionable display of privilege, and what a big "F you!" to everyone else in the country and all over the planet who will reap the consequences, not just for the next four years, but on down in to the future for generations to come.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Election. Ha ha.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Enabled to do so by the Republicans.
Don't talk to me about Privilege.
As an example Governor's grocery bill is covered by taxpayers. You know the plate or luncheon for state senators to cut a deal at.
Jindal with a family of three had a yearly grocers bill of 242,200.00
He went in to LA as a Governor net worth about a half million. Eight years later has a net worth of 16 million plus.
Take your Privilege and shove it.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)OK. If you insist. Where do you wish the shoving to be carried out?
Sidebar:
I fail to see what Gov. Jindal's corrupt excesses have to do with the so-called privilege of Clinton supporters. Connection unclear...
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)in turn by Clinton supporters
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Funny that the only people who get labeled as a monster or get less attention by MSM (or totally dissed as happened to Sanders last night by the three trolls: maddow, korny, and toad) are the self-funding candidates. Do you ever think about that? Cruz is far worse than Trump in my opinion but all you hear is Trump, Trump, Trump! I have no evidence he will be any worse than Cruz. But the establishment/bureaucrats/Kochs et all must be scared to death that either of them wins. Can't have someone in the Presidency not beholden to big money. That must not happen.
Trump? A media- made monster who says anything that comes to his brain. What other candidate has been given the time to make so many stupid remarks Perhaps its time to give the same micro lens to Cruz and Kasich but then they are more acceptable to the corporatists and financial interests to whom they are beholden that Trump so lets turn him into a monster. We know all about Trump! He's no friend to unions but he's been moderate on other issues. With so much press time, he has to keep repeating and even bearing down on what he says. It is amazing he says anything sensible at this point since his desire to win a despicable base is always being tested.
Anybody who looks and learns about Trumps history knows he's not the monster. He's not my candidate and just like most of them who run, he'll forget half of what he said. They all do. My vote for Bernie is based on his absolutely pure past in that department so i am going to trust him just like I did Obama and hope Bernie turns out to be what he says he is and what his history has shown he is.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)"Trump --a media made monster" No evidence he will be any worse than Cruz--right!
"maddow, korny and toad last night "-- gloating like a pack of jackals around the bits of Sanders flesh they had gleaned to twist and spin. Anything to trash Sanders.
The whole spectacle is so grotesque. This country is a tragic mess.
MSNBC 
no more
LexVegas
(6,058 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Harry Belafonte included? Ellison incuded? Coates included? and many others. Why do you include yourself in some select voting base? Who said "privileged minority voters." People who read fast often make incorrect assumptions.
LexVegas
(6,058 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)What does it have to do with the article and privilege? Do you understand the comment?
LexVegas
(6,058 posts)And spare me that "low information voter" dog whistle shit.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Cherry picking and nit picking do not change the facts or message of the post. Have you read the article? That would be a start.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.
The poster rebutted Clintonites calling Bernie supporters "privileged." You call us privileged and she calls you out on privilege. So what's the damn big deal? Or are you so sensitive that you take every little nip ever when you don't really understand the point of the post? If you don't like being called "privileged," quit using the term to attack others.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)People of color are exponentially more oppressed. That's what it has to do with privilege. It's astounding that has to be explained to anyone who claims to be liberal/progressive, Democrat, or whatever it is you call yourselves. African Americans, and black women in particular, are the population that most reliably votes Democrat. That makes them the base, and their votes are not worth less than those who threaten to support the GOP when the majority votes for a different candidate for the nomination.
Additionally, the notion that the votes of the young matter more than others is deeply antidemocratic Everyone gets one vote. As much as Sanders supporters think their 2.5 million fewer votes matter more than the majority, that isn't how it works. Ultimately what they oppose is democracy and the notion that other people's rights actually count. One person, one vote. The rest is just more efforts to force the majority into doing their bidding. It hasn't worked so far, and it's not going to work now. Candidates need to figure out how to EARN votes. The majority vote holds. If people can't accept something that basic, who becomes the Democratic nominee is the least of their problems. I'm beyond sick of it. Looks to me that there are a collection of people who are having trouble coming to terms with the fact that other people in this country besides themselves actually have rights. It's well past time they learned.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)That doesn't address the poster's point.
Poster's point: Because you are choosing, right now, in this moment, to support a candidate who is deeply disliked by independents, has historically bad favorability ratings, is under investigation by both the FBI and the NSA, and is running much worse in head-to-head polls with the Republicans than Bernie Sanders.
In other words, you are choosing to put the country at risk by supporting the far weaker and far more vulnerable candidate. And then telling me I must support her. What does that say about your privilege?
You may not agree with the authors point of view but she is arguing that both sides are "privileged." Nobody disagrees that whites are privileged. Her point is that disregarding a superior candidate who has a greater chance of winning the GE is showing privilege as well.
I don't want to overstep a fine line, but if blacks in the south voted for name recognition and out of loyalty, that is a kind of privilege because emotional loyalty votes affect the interests of the country and may affect the outcome of the GE which affects all of us.
The effect of the southern strategy created huge blocks of emotional voters (white and black) who do not choose to educate and inform themselves intellectually. They revert to loyalty, name recognition, and belief systems that have dogged the South for generations. It is their privilege to vote based on loyalty, name recognition and/or belief systems but we are all affected by their votes.
No matter your perspective, we all have ways of showing privilege. To me, this is a pretty abstract kind of privilege but it is privilege nevertheless. At the cost of being bashed myself, I will exercise my personal privilege to vote outside the two parties. That is my privilege; that is my choice. And it could affect the outcome of the general election. Again, that is my privilege.
Her point: bashing Bernie supporters for "privilege" is pretty unfair. We all exercise privilege.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 1, 2016, 04:36 AM - Edit history (1)
I support the FAR more competent candidate, and 2.5 million more Americans agree with me. I choose not to turn the country over to someone woefully incompetent in every conceivable way, who has the single worst record of legislative accomplishment and bipartisanship in the senate and has run a campaign that has more FEC finance violations than anyone in history. You are entirely within your rights to support whomever you like, but you do not have a right to browbeat me into submission based on empty claims of superiority.
There is NOTHING superior about Bernie. NOTHING. His record of legislative accomplishments is virtually non-existent.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
#1 worst record on bipartisan legislation.
#2 lowest leadership score of those serving 10 plus years
Highest 10% of missed votes
0 bills out of committee in 2015.
It's so bad as to be an embarrassment.
His one piece of successful legislation was a veterans bill. One bill in 25 years in congress. That puts him at the very bottom of the Senate. Look at the score card linked above.
To call Clinton weaker is ridiculous in every conceivable way. She was Secretary of State, a SUCCESSFUL Senator for 8 years, a public advocacy lawyer, the first public figure to work seriously at bringing about national healthcare, has a long history of instituting reform (like LGBT benefits in the State Dept, elevating LGBT and women's issues to points of official priority in assessing human rights conditions around the world), working to bring about healthcare for millions of children. The list goes on and on. She has productive relationships with congress and advocacy organizations, community groups, and unions across the country. Bernie has been a no-show whenever those groups tried to put together coalitions to enact some sort of reform. He is known to be MIA to all progressive advocacy groups in DC. He simply hasn't bothered. When now that the cameras are running, he talks a big game, only he has no track record to show for it. Sanders is all talk and no action.
That is when he isn't flagrantly breaking federal election law. The FEC has cited him for over $23 million in illegal campaign contributions and the press has barely mentioned it, while his supporters have repeatedly refused to as much as acknowledge the situation. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/
Anyone who actually believes the polls showing Bernie doing better mean anything is willfully ignorant of politics. The man hasn't faced a single negative ad. Clinton has faced billions of negative attacks by the right and their like-minded allies on the left. A few GOP ads about his being a socialist, his campaign's financial misconduct, and repeated false claims about super pacs and he'll be down to the 30 percent mark. While I personally don't have a problem with socialism (and I do NOT consider him one at all), most Americans despise it. The GOP will have him indistinguishable from Stalin and Pol Pot within a month. Look what they did to Kerry, whose record is far more distinguished.
What you call "my privilege" is my constitutional right as an American, which is not subject to your control. That you think you have the right to control my vote reveals values antithetical to democracy and equal rights. If you want your candidate to win, make an argument on his merits. Volunteer. Get off the damned internet and do something about it. Claiming Americans who have the nerve to vote based on competence and thoughtful policy are overly "privileged" for refusing to vote as you demand is completely obnoxious and the kind of counter productive stunt that has driven off one former Sanders supporter after another.
Sanders supporters are not better educated or better informed. In fact, at least some of the exit polls show that Americans with advanced degrees are more likely to support Clinton. In your post you didn't point to one way in which Bernie is "superior." No accomplishment or relevant experience. You simply asserted it. There is no evidence to support that claim but rather a great deal to refute it.
Clinton is more qualified than anyone seeking the presidency in generations, if not ever, and Sanders has fewer accomplishments than most. He talks. He makes a lot of speeches, but has no track record on bringing about reform or change of any kind. He has absolutely nothing to show for all those speeches.
There certainly are uninformed voters. Just look at how Sanders supporters repeatedly refuse to as much as look at any of Clinton's policy positions and instead just plain make up whatever they feel like projecting on to her at the moment. They have absolutely no interest in how their candidate plans to make good on the many promises he makes. They ignore the FEC violations, the disclosures about his super pacs, and just plain don't care that he has repeatedly made one false claim to the public after another. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881
I will not support someone like that, and I thank god that I won't have to vote for him in the general election.
Besides, which, I already voted on March 1. You're wasting your time. I'm sick of telling you people what it takes to get someone elected. The campaign should be telling you how to go about doing that, but it seems they have instead decided to get their supporters to harass super delegates in the futile hope that Bernie can seize control of the nomination without actually winning a majority of voters. Even they don't believe they can actually convince voters to support Bernie on his merits. Instead, they are counting on intimidation to carry him to power AGAINST the will of the people. Devine has even talked about overturning already decided elections by flipping PLEDGED delegates. http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452
I don't support people who willfully seek to overturn elections. I respect democracy and the rights of the people. Unless he can earn the majority of votes on his own merits, he doesn't deserve the nomination. Articles like the one in the OP and the statements of his own campaign make clear that even they don't believe he can earn the support of the majority of voters.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)As for all the rest of your post, it isn't relevant and I don't have time to read it. I don't care who you vote for. It is your privilege to do as your please even if that puts at risk an election in some peoples' eyes.
Response to LexVegas (Reply #28)
Post removed
Number23
(24,544 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)sheshe2
(83,729 posts)Poster above you.
On Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:00 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Because they are suckers like most voters have been since Reagan?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1618771
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
This is another over the top slur on Hillary supports to stupid to make an informed decision. This poster suspects it is "I suspect the Stockholm syndrome or ignorance" WillieT got banned for this shit, IT DOES NOT belong on a Democratic board. Please do what is right. Hide it.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:14 PM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I cannot believe yet another Sanders supporter is bringing up the Stockholm Syndrome again and calling POC ignorant. Just stop, please.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Gawd, enough of this ugly shit. Enough.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I would have left it since it's just an opinion (and everyone is entitled to one even if I vehemently disagree) until I got to the Stockholm Syndrome line, this is such an over the top characterization that I have to vote hide. WillyT got banned for it, so clearly admin agrees. -Agschmid
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In a right and proper world, folks used to use little tongs to transfer the sugar cubes to their tea cups. Thanks god we've progressed beyond those days.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: truth does not require alerts, it is getting pretty lame around here if that is the best anyone can find to bitch about
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)
Dem2
(8,168 posts)I would be embarrassed to post such a pile of s*** logical fallacies and insulting stereotypes.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I don't think you understand the article either. But our comment certainly can apply to the whole discussion and its emotional posters.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Looting they rely on for long vacations, mall shopping and having nice dinners.
As long as they can continue killing it all for everyone, forever, today and for only themselves, they are content.
beaglelover
(3,465 posts)
Also watching people of various levels of privileged arguing over which of the privileged candidates is privileged is would be hilarious black comedy if it wasn't true.
Both Hillary and Bernie are wealthy and white. While the Clintons are worth millions, Bernie is worth somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000. For most Americans they are wealthy, for the rest of the world, they are astoundingly wealthy. They both move freely in circles of power and they both have access to things the rest of us will never see.
Ace Rothstein
(3,160 posts)beaglelover
(3,465 posts)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)correct?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hillary gets more minorities and Bernie gets the white votes. Don't know how you could attempt to make this spin.
Haveadream
(1,630 posts)Working to elect an unelectable candidate to go against Trump would be a disaster.
The reality is, all Democrats are seriously thinking through this exact scenario and are coming to a very different conclusion than the one you have reached. The 'facts' on which you are basing your belief are demonstrably false. Ignoring all the reasons one might argue Hillary would be the best person for the job, she is also showing she is the most 'electable' candidate in either party.
But if you are helping Hillary Clinton win the nomination, please don’t talk to me about privilege. Because you are choosing, right now, in this moment, to support a candidate who is deeply disliked by independents, has historically bad favorability ratings, is under investigation by both the FBI and the NSA, and is running much worse in head-to-head polls with the Republicans than Bernie Sanders.
Hillary currently has by far the most votes of any candidate, Republican or Democrat, in the race. That is an incontrovertible fact. It may be one some don't like but it is one that simply doesn't support your narrative. The majority of people are getting up, going to the polls and voting overwhelmingly for Hillary.
Reputable sources are debunking the drama surrounding the email 'scandal' as just one of a long series of fabricated RW attacks on HRC to undermine her. In terms of electability, facts prove that the vast number of actual voters are not buying the fauxrage, which has been proven not just by their opinions/polls but by their actions/votes.
You mention polls and demographics to support your opinion (as well you should) but there are others that you need to include in the evaluation to reach a well reasoned conclusion.
To that end, every single recent poll (Bloomberg, Fox, Quinnepeac, NYTimes, CBS, Monmouth, CNN) shows that Hillary will not just be competitive with Trump, but will crush him in the General Election by double digits. Bloomberg has her decimating Trump 54 to 36.
The largest single voting block (by far) is women over the age of 35 who vote at rates of over 70%! Polls are showing that women, in both parties, are overwhelmingly against Trump. That is a huge number of active, reliable voters and an incredibly important demographic to consider when measuring electability in the upcoming General. The same can be said for the minority vote which is virtually unanimous in their rejection of Trump and their overwhelming preference for Hillary.
Swing states are often the critical deciding factor in a general election. By that metric, in head to head match ups, Hillary is trouncing Sanders. The states that are currently in that category include Ohio, where Hillary won (and Trump lost, btw), Florida where Hillary beat Sanders (and garnered more votes than Trump), and Nevada, Virginia and North Carolina, all of which Hillary won. That leaves upcoming Pennsylvania which HRC is predicted, again, to win handily.
You are right, electability is a crucial component in deciding the best candidate to select in a match up for the general. Weighing all the facts and the proven results, Hillary is well in the lead.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)knowing that whether the Democratic pro-oligarch or the Republican pro-oligarch wins, your finances will NOT be taking a hit, and that you'll be better off after 8 years of yet another neoliberal, even if the middle class continues to get squeezed and shrinks or disappears entirely.
obamneycare
(40 posts)The generational divide is probably what most categorically defines this primary race. Boomers side with Clinton, young adults side with Sanders.
Recent research has shown that young adults are struggling at a historic level.
[img]
[/img]
It is likely to be the first time in industrialised history, save for periods of war or natural disaster, that the incomes of young adults have fallen so far when compared with the rest of society.
Experts are warning that this unfair settlement will have grave implications for everything from social cohesion to family formation.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/revealed-30-year-economic-betrayal-dragging-down-generation-y-income
... and these increasingly low-income young people are, at the same time, facing increasing costs of living, leaving them unable to afford housing, food, and transportation:
[img]
[/img]
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11330832/low-income-households-cant-afford-basic-needs
... to say nothing of their crippling student loan debt, which has increased 84 percent, just between 2008 and today...
This angle of Clinton supporters calling Sanders supporters "privileged" is really rich, indeed.
Response to Katashi_itto (Original post)
felix_numinous This message was self-deleted by its author.
MFM008
(19,804 posts)I don't question the preference of Sanders supporters and wonder how you could vote for a man who may DIE of old age before he is sworn in,or WHERE hes getting all the money to pay for free stuff or guarentee he wont have to deal with a gop congress to go along with him. Its a good thing were all democrats.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Touted by a Clintonista
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Sounds like you guys get it free and I pay for it.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)heard in a long time. But hey it's a Clintonista. They are one-step away from being a Trump supporter. The only difference is the Letter they vote for.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)When Bernie's plan would cost me over $10,000 in additional taxes even AFTER considering health insurance savings, I have an issue. And no, I am not in the 1%.
quantumjunkie
(244 posts)
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)On Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Privilege Is What Allows Clinton Supporters to Keep Supporting Her
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511614873
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
The topic is riddled with supposition. That this person is claiming any HRC supporter is putting the country at risk is flame bait.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:44 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not against TOS
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a political opinion. I am supporter of Hillary Clinton and find nothing wrong with this post. This is an inappropriate alert.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This Citizen Agrees With This Post Completely.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: stop this bullshit alert stalking, if you can't argue the OP with fact or logic then shut up.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Silly alert.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)not privileged -- just a middle class widow.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)who voted for and still support Hillary. Once again...not all votes matter according to Bernie supporters...just the ones who came in from the Independent cold and those others who crossed over to vote for Bernie.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)are going for Hillary by high percentages.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)is never going to fight harder for the poor.
In any casem there isn't anything Bernie stands for that is only good for the privileged, or better for the privileged than the less-privileged.
Free public college would benefit everyone. Just improving educational and secondary schools(Bernie is just as committed to improving those schools as he is to free public college) helps no one if going to college continues to mean graduating with massive student loan debt.
You can't do anything that matters in life with just a high school education.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)my candidates chances.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I accept that they voted how they wanted on Super Tuesday. But there's no reason for Super Tuesday ever to be brought up again in this campaign.
We're past that now.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)sure I know who is who.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's a whole deference-based region. People tend not to defy "leaders" down there, whoever they are.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)That is some fucking privilege.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)StevieM
(10,500 posts)Everyone has to decide for themselves who they think is the right candidate to support.
Hillary's poll numbers may be down right now, but they were a lot higher in the recent past. And that didn't stop Bernie supporters from supporting him.
Also, many people believe that once the GE heats up Bernie will be destroyed over the Socialist label. We may or may not be right, but it is a sincere attempt to decide who we think is the most electable candidate. And it isn't exactly a crazy conclusion, given that it has been very hard to get people elected simply because they are labeled as a liberal.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)They know she's a walking time bomb, but yet they still want her. I don't want to see the first female president go down in flames. And Hillary will.
Hillary supporters have privilege, Bernie supporters have principle.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Most Hillary supporters will vote for Bernie and get out and vote if he is the candidate.
But a significant number, that is a number that could make a difference between a win or a loss in November, are supporting Bernie but will not get out and vote for Hillary.
This is especially true of independents and cross-over voters from the Green Party or other such parties and also for young people many of whom are first or second time voters.
It's just the reality.
Don't blame me for saying it.
If you disagree with me, explain why.
I am asserting what I am saying based on the fact that Hillary is not addressing the concerns of Independents, Greens and young people who are supporting Bernie primarily because they do not trust Hillary and because Hillary is not speaking adequately to their issues.
What issues am I talking about? Hillary's stance on Libya, Syria and war in the Middle East. She makes many people feel uneasy about just how ready she is to fight in those areas such as her call for a no-fly zone in Syria when Russian planes were in the air. Lots more to talk about there. We are told that Hillary persuaded Obama to support the action to depose Gaddhafi in Libya. We see the chaos that resulted from that action.
On edit, the environment is a big one for Green voters. They voted for Nader in 2000. We see what happened after that. Hillary's stance on fracking worries these voters.
Health care is not the trigger issue in my experience that some of these other issues are.
But Hillary is not responding clearly and decisively to the problems that young people (and not just kids from poor families who might qualify for aid) and middle aged people who lose their jobs due to automation or our trade agreements to the fact that a college education is a near necessity today in many fields but far too expensive for families already in financial trouble due to our insecure economy to pay for outright. Personal debt is a huge burden especially for middle class families. Student debt is just an unbearable burden on young couples just starting out, often having trouble finding a decent paying job.
Breaking up the big banks is not in itself an emotionally gripping issue for many people. But the fundamental unfairness of the bank bail-out that left the banks with money but not much willingness to turn around and bail out homeowners in over their heads in the declining housing market.
Hillary is a little vague about just what she would do to reduce the number of people in our prisons. Bernie is very clear on this.
Hillary is not showing the compassion and determination that Bernie is showing for the many American citizens whose jobs have been lost or are in danger of being lost due to the trade agreements that WE ALREADY HAVE. And she has a history of supporting trade agreements including the TPP that alienates a lot of voters on the West Coast.
As I am out campaigning and talking to people, I am finding many, many Bernie voters that will not be wooed by Hillary.
This is something the Democratic Party needs to thinkg about and act to deal with in some way. Polls of likely Democratic voters will not turn up the extent of this lack of vital support from Independents and new, often young, voters.
Maybe I am just finding this in California, but . . . . it sure is a reality out here. Bernie says he will support the nominee even if Hillary. But getting out the vote among Bernie's supporters who do not have a history as committed Democrats could be a big problem.
There are many more issues like medical marijuana and immigration as well as Kissinger's heavy-handed, intrusive activities and Hillary's support for those and similar actions in Central and South America that could defeat Hillary or narrow the margin for her candidacy.
This is a serious question that voters should consider.
I suggest that people watch the video at the Bernie rally of Residente, who spoke on issues that concern Puerto Ricans in the US and other Spanish language citizens of the US.
If this post is removed, it will be because some DUers do not want to face a reality, a truth but would rather suppress discussion of it. But if you watch the video of Residente, perhaps you will understand that my concern is not some fictitious problem but is very, very real in America today. Two primary groups: Independents, Greens and others who will cross over to vote for Bernie and new voters including young people who do not yet identify strongly enough as Democrats to vote for a candidate that is not responding to their issues or who does not excite them to vote.
What do Hillary supporters propose to do about this?
Move their candidate to address this problem?
Deal with individual voters on a personal level as well as they can?
Try to win without these voters? That is just forget about these voters?
What?
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)People have the right to vote for their candidate of choice.
Watering down the issue of white privilege is not cool.
Both sides should be calling this out as racist rhetoric.
Go Bernie Go!
