WhaTHellsgoingonhere
WhaTHellsgoingonhere's JournalBlow Back: Trolls aren't just found on the internet, Capehart
After taking a beating on his Twitter feed, Capehart whined like a little 
that he was going to have to prune his account of trolls.
My first thought was, "Isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because it is." Matthews and Capehart, on national TV, did what they do daily: trolled Bernie Sanders and his supporters.
For some reason, the media believes they have a special place in commentary that makes them immune to trolling. For instance, to them, Capehart laughing with Matthews while describing Bernie's mannerisms as "jazz hands" is critical analysis when in fact, it's pure trolling.
Instead of retracting his lame piece, he played victim and accused others of trolling him. Capehart is a troll, Matthews is a troll, these guys need to understand what trolls do before they point their finger at others.
I kept hearing about the firewall and loyalty to Clintons stuff and couldn't accept it
The first thing I found was Michelle Alexander's article, which details the devastation the Clintons have wrought on the black community. She writes that Hillary doesn't deserve the black vote. I've also read that blacks feel like they are being taken for granted and find it insulting; I'm sure they do!
But word is, Bernie is like a professor with abstract ideas and doesn't give specific responses to their very specific questions and needs. You can't say, "My policies will lift all boats." They want specifics and detail, and Bernie isn't delivering it. Further, the polls are what they are and not budging.
I liken it to Rahm Emanuel's re-election. I had to know the demographics. Believe it or not, poor blacks voted overwhelmingly for Rahm. An article explained that black leadership (establishment) failed its constituents and re-elected Obama's mayor. Since I've seen it with my own eyes, I'm more inclined to believe the narrative that Hillary will win the primary because the black vote will carry her.
Of course, hoping I'm wrong. However, I think 60% or more of the delegates will be decided by Super Tuesday.
They have a greater incentive not to confirm Obama's
They know the Dems are at war with one another over electablity. The salient point is Supreme Court appointments. It's being framed as, "We have to have a Dem in office, and _______ is more electable."
The Rs are likely thinking that Hillary will be our next POTUS. Taking away a 3rd justice from Obama, not as big a deal as knee capping Hillary's presidency from Day 1. Hillary will not be able to accomplish the singular most important task she was elected to do: appoint a liberal (minority, woman, etc..) SC Justice. So much for being effective, getting things done, and proving she can work with Rs. If it's Hillary, the Rs will pick the next justice.
Obama getting his nomination confirmed is a BFD to Hillary
She's promoting herself as the pragmatic, realist, who will reach across the aisle and get things done. But on January 21st, her Presidency will get torpedoed. She'll prove from Day 1 that she cannot accomplish the singular task she's been elected to do: put a liberal (woman, minority, etc..) on the SCOTUS.
Unfortunately, that's not universal
Blacks have different priorities and they really are creating a firewall for Hillary. According to the article, white Dems tend to be more liberal than black Dems.
"Linked fate, in a political context, suggests that black voters approach elections with one simple question: Which candidate is better for the African American population? The analysis begins at the most fundamental level by ascertaining which party or candidate is most likely to protect civil rights and support equal access to economic opportunity for blacks. Everything else is secondary. For example, a politician’s stance on renewable energy, free market economics, abortion, immigration, national debt, and role of the military in regional conflicts all pale in comparison to basic considerations of liberty."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431215/black-voters-clinton-sanders
I've said that. She'll prove she can work across the isle by compromising
And by compromising, I mean giving the Rs what they want: an end to welfare as we know it, the end of Glass-Stegal, NAFTA, TPP, the bailout of banksters and Wall Street, disenfranchising black men with crime law (based on all of above, I'm still at a loss as to why blacks are solidly behind Clinton).
That's pretty easy to say.
Bernie, on the other hand, won't do any of that Third Way bullshit.
But this only matters to Progressives. Third Wayers couldn't be happier with more of the same capitulating Democrats.
As a Sanders supporter, it's not going to work because it's too abstract
he has no tangible relationship with blacks like the Clintons, even though their policies were disastrous for blacks. Michelle Alexander noted that a better way to count unemployment among blacks is to count those incarcerated. When you do that, unemployment is 42%. Maybe that's the unemployment number Trump "heard."
Can he get it? vs Does she deserve it?
Hi bravenak, I believe this article, which argues Hillary doesn't deserve the black vote adds "nuance" to the discussion.
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
As I said earlier this morning, Bernie isn't tangible like Hillary is because they don't know him. I'm going to elaborate on that. Bernie is a young, white sensation because he's a social media and YouTube phenom. Bernie is heavily dependent on this medium since he's got to spend a lot of time in every state introducing himself then explaining his platform. I just can't imagine many blacks of any age or gender are turning to social media or YouTube to learn about Bernie. Nina Turner, former Ohio state senator and former Hillary supporter, makes a compelling argument for why Bernie would appeal to black voters. But, like me, her conclusion is the same: it's a heavy lift to convince them. If you haven't heard Nina Turner stump for Bernie, you can find her on YouTube 
Lest I forget, the establishment endorsements. They typically do the heavy lifting for their constituents and their constituents rely on them for that.
Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote
Is this article about nuance? ("nuance" cites an earlier discussion)
"What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?
No. Quite the opposite."
..."Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
Both Clintons now express regret over the crime bill, and Hillary says she supports criminal-justice reforms to undo some of the damage that was done by her husband’s administration. But on the campaign trail, she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue. So what exactly did the Clinton economy look like for black Americans? Taking a hard look at this recent past is about more than just a choice between two candidates. It’s about whether the Democratic Party can finally reckon with what its policies have done to African-American communities, and whether it can redeem itself and rightly earn the loyalty of black voters.
* * *
An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate."
http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
This is identical to Chicago. Despite the fact that Rahm notoriously neglects the southside while spending his time rubbing elbows with deep pocket businessmen and building up the northside around the clock, black leadership (the establishment) threw their support behind him and poor blacks overwhelmingly voted for him. The similarities go further. Just as the challenger, Sanders, is an unknown commodity, Rahm's opponent, relatively unknown Chuy Garcia was never introduced to the black community. Only 7 months after his re-election, those who overwhelmingly supported him in April have been calling for him to resign since November.
It's a bit too early to rely on Nate Silver
Nate introduced his model in March 2008. A lot had transpired between 2007 and March. His model would have predicted Hillary to win, then flipped to Obama after early results. In other words, his model never captured the groundswell that propelled Obama to victory. What's 100% certain, Nate would have picked Hillary for a long time, then switched to Obama. Since we never see the flip, we believe his model is infallible.
I said this a couple of times, Bernie's greatest obstacle is that he's unknown. He really needs to spend a month in SC. Interestingly, I just read that that's what inspired Silver to create his model; the polls are off because nobody knows who Obama is.
“What you heard on television was, Hillary was inevitable, she’s up 20 points,” he said. “She’s up 20 points because people had heard of her. They hadn’t heard of Obama.”...
In March, he introduced FiveThirtyEight.com, and it quickly became a go-to site for readers whose interest in raw numbers...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10silver.html?referer=
Profile Information
Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 10:00 AMNumber of posts: 5,252