Is the Democratic Party Losing the Black Vote?

[Q]

What We Must Overcome
Lani Guinier

The American Prospect
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/5/guinier-l.html

"They could not get a single Democratic senator (from a body that includes not a single black representative) to join their objection."

Excerpts:

The anger over what happened in Florida has only been reinforced by the failure of the Democratic Party leadership to move quickly and seriously to engage the legitimacy issue. Right after November 7, when the perception first emerged that the election was being hijacked, the Gore campaign actively discouraged mass protest. On January 12, when Al Gore presided over the counting of the electoral college votes, it was only members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) who rose, one by one, to protest the filing of Florida's votes. They could not get a single Democratic senator (from a body that includes not a single black representative) to join their objection. The silence of the white Democrats in Congress turned the CBC demonstration into an emphatic recapitulation of the election drama. As the presiding officer, Al Gore overruled the protests. The moment was especially poignant, because the Black Caucus members, in speaking out for Floridians whose votes were not counted, were speaking out for all Americans, while even their progressive white colleagues sat in awkward silence. E.J. Dionne, a columnist for The Washington Post, watched the drama unfold on television. Turning to his eight-year-old son, seated next to him, Dionne explained, "They are speaking out for us too."

"It was the Black Caucus, and the Black Caucus alone," James Carroll wrote in The Boston Globe "that showed itself sensitive to ... what is clearly true about the recent presidential election in Florida." That truth is the gap between what the rules permit and what democracy requires. Florida made it obvious that our winner-take-all rules would unfairly award all of Florida's electoral college votes to one candidate even though the margin of victory was less than the margin of error. Yet our elected officials in Washington are committed to those rules and, even more, to maintaining civility between those adversely affected by the rules and those who benefited. As Carroll wrote, "Those who sit atop the social and economic pyramid always speak of love, while those at the bottom always speak of justice."

Unfortunately, in pursuit of bipartisan civility, the Democratic Party leadership appears to be marching to a false harmony: Charmed by compassionate conservatism and conscious of middle-of-the-road swing voters' aversion to conflict, top Democrats have ignored issues of justice and the troubling disenfranchisement of many of the party's most loyal supporters. If we learn anything from the Supreme Court's role in the 2000 election travesty, it must be that when the issue is justice, the people--not the justices of the Court or the Democratic leaders in Washington--will lead. And if anything is true about the fiasco in Florida, it is the need for new leaders who are willing to challenge rather than acquiesce to unfair rules. New leadership will not come from a single, charismatic figure orchestrating deals out of Washington, D.C.; nor will it be provided by a group devoted only to remedying the disenfranchisement of black voters. What is needed instead is a courageous assembly of stalwart individuals who are willing to ask the basic questions the Black Caucus members raised--questions that go to the very legitimacy of our democratic procedures, not just in Florida but nationwide. These are likely to be individuals organized at the local level, possibly even into a new political party that is broadly conceived and dedicated to real, participatory democracy. Such a movement could build on the energy of black voter participation, which between 1996 and last year went from 10 percent to 15 percent in Florida and from 5 percent to 12 percent in Missouri..."

-----

"We choose to stand up and speak out when 
others choose to sit down and remain 
silent. We are the voice for the voiceless . . . "
-- Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Chair CBC

-----

- Comments?

[Q]

1. As Carroll wrote,

"Those who sit atop the social and economic pyramid always speak of love, while those at the bottom always speak of justice."

[FlashHarry]

2. Er... no.

As a group, blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic--somewhere in the range of 90%. There is, of course, the danger of apathy--that the party could alienate them to the point where they don't vote at all. I hope we're not that stupid.

However, there's virtually no chance that we'll see a significant swing towards the GOP. In fact, the GOP may actually be losing some of the Hispanic vote, even in Florida, where first-wave Cubans tend to vote Republican.

[Q]

3. I think you're sadly mistaken...

...in that Democrats have ALWAYS expected the Black vote. I believe that's no longer true after the 2000 election when NOT ONE DEMOCRATIC SENATOR stood with them to seek justice for civil rights violations in Florida and other places.

- You're making the assumption that Blacks simply wouldn't vote if they didn't vote Democratic. We could see a trend in the future where Blacks and other disenfranchised voters seek a third party.

- It's time that the Democratic party stop taking the Black vote for granted.

[Nlighten1]

9. It is time for them to stop...

taking our vote for granted too.

[qanda]

12. You're absolutely right

And the new generation of black voters are more proned to register as Independents than Democrats (myself included).

I listen to C-SPAN in the morning and I notice more and more black people calling in for support of Bush's policies, especially when it comes to abortion and gay marriage.

I don't think blacks are going to continue down the path of just voting for a party because it claims to be for them. They are going to want to see actions that prove the rhetoric. It's unfortunate when any party just assumes one block of people have their vote, and it's just as unfortunate when a block of people just give away their vote and get nothing in return.

[xchrom]

4. treatment of the jim crow actions

taken by jeb by our white senators were shameful -- and african americans have noticed.
they suffer from the disesae the rest of america suffers from in certain elections -- they don't vote -- especially if nothing relevant is being addressed to them.
the 00 election and what happened to african american voters in florida and else where still rankles.
now you can tell your selves it won't make a difference -- but you would be lying.

[Lefty48197]

5. You've got to be kidding

Every action taken by Republicans seems geared toward disenfranchisment of Black voters: The Florida voter roll purge, The census which refuses to count a certain percentage of Black citizens... The list goes on and on.

[Q]

10. Did you even read the article? I have to wonder...

- If only ONE (white) Senator had stood up with the Congressional Black Caucus when they called for the rejection of the certification of the Florida electors...the Senate would have been forced to debate the matter and perhaps hold hearings.

- Below is what COULD HAVE taken place if one Democratic Senator had stood with the CBC:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND FEDERAL PROCEDURE
FOR CONGRESSIONAL CHALLENGE
OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS


Prepared by Mark H. Levine,
counsel for Democrats.com

with the assistance of Michael North
member of the Advisory Board of Democrats.com

Available on the Internet, at
http://www.trustthepeople.com/


http://democrats.com/images/brief-1-6-01.html


VIII. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF REJECTION OF FLORIDA'S UNLAWFUL ELECTORAL VOTES; PRECEDENT

The Twelfth Amendment is clear: the candidates for President and Vice-President with the most votes win, "if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed." The number of Electors appointed does not include those appointed in violation of law. As 3 U.S.C. § 6 makes clear, appointments are only valid if done pursuant to state law. If electors are not appointed pursuant to law, they are not appointed at all. Thus by majority of the 513 appointed electors, if the Florida electoral slate is excluded, Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. would win the Presidency, and Senator Joseph Lieberman would win the Vice-Presidency, by a margin of 267 to 246 votes in the Electoral College.

There is a precedent for not counting states' electoral votes. In the Election of 1864, during the Civil War Between the States, eleven Southern states failed to appoint electors. Even following the War, in 1868, Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas were denied re-entry to the Union, due to their failure to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and were thereby denied the right to participate in the choosing of Presidential Electors. Despite the lack of duly-appointed electors by these Southern states, President Lincoln was re-elected in 1864 and President Grant was elected in 1868 by "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed." U.S. Constitution, Amendment XII.

 

IX. PROCEDURE FOR REJECTING UNLAWFUL ELECTORAL VOTES

A. Place and Time

The procedures in the 1887 Federal Law on Presidential Elections are quite explicit, with even the exact seating of the officials ordained by law. 3 U.S.C. § 16. Both the Senate and House shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives precisely at 1:00 p.m. on January 6, 2001. 3 U.S.C. § 15. The President of the Senate (the current Vice-President) shall preside and shall open all ballots in alphabetical order. Id.

B. Procedure for Written Objections

Upon reading each of the states' ballots in alphabetical order, the President of the Senate is required by law to "call for objections, if any." 3 U.S.C. § 15. "Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received." 3 U.S.C. § 15.

"While the two Houses shall be in meeting as provided in this chapter, the President of the Senate shall have power to preserve order; and no debate shall be allowed and no question shall be put by the presiding officer except to either House on a motion to withdraw ." 3 U.S.C. § 18.

C. Consideration of Objections

"When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision." 3 U.S.C. § 15. Note that all objections must be presented at the same time to each slate of electors. Thus, e.g., all objections to Florida's slate of electors must be submitted at once.

"When the two Houses separate to decide upon an objection that may have been made to the counting of any electoral vote or votes from any State, or other question arising in the matter, each Senator and Representative may speak to such objection or question five minutes, and not more than once; but after such debate shall have lasted two hours it shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each House to put the main question without further debate." 3 U.S.C. § 17. In other words, each objection shall have its own debate, lasting up to 2 hours for each objection. Then the question shall be put to a vote. Then the next objection shall be considered, and so forth.

As noted above, "the two Houses concurrently may reject" any electoral votes when they agree that the votes have not been "regularly given" by electors whose appointment has been certified in accordance with Florida law. 3 U.S.C. §§ 15, 6.

D. Duration of Consideration of Objections

"Such joint meeting shall not be dissolved until the count of electoral votes shall be completed and the result declared; and no recess shall be taken unless a question shall have arisen in regard to counting any such votes, or otherwise under this subchapter, in which case it shall be competent for either House, acting separately, in the manner hereinbefore provided, to direct a recess of such House not beyond the next calendar day, Sunday excepted, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon." So, the joint session may be continued to Monday, January 8, 2001. "But if the counting of the electoral votes and the declaration of the result shall not have been completed before the fifth calendar day next after such first meeting of the two Houses , no further or other recess shall be taken by either House." 3 U.S.C. § 16.

Respectfully submitted,

MARK H. LEVINE
California State Bar No. 162934
attorney for Democrats.com



APPENDIX 3:

 

PATTERN OF ALLEGATIONS
OF IMPROPER PROCEDURE IN THE
CONDUCT OF THE FLORIDA ELECTION

compiled by democrats.com

1. Before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris spent $4 million of taxpayer funds to hire a firm to purge voters who were allegedly felons. The list of "felons" included 8,000 American citizens -- mostly minorities -- who committed only misdemeanors, and thousands of innocent people -- again mostly minorities -- with the same names as felons. By this action almost 58,000 U.S. citizens were denied due process and the right to vote.

2. Secretary Harris unlawfully certified the election results from 20 of Florida's 67 counties without requiring -- as mandated under Florida law for elections decided by one half of one percent or less -- that they conduct automatic machine recounts.

3. Secretary Harris unlawfully accepted and certified the results of hand recounts in six Florida counties that produced an additional 400 votes for George W. Bush while rejecting the results of hand recounts in other counties.

4. In Duval County, a pre-election purge of the voter rolls unlawfully removed 22,000 voters -- mostly African Americans -- who voted in the primary election in August but were denied the right to vote in November. Another 27,000 votes cast on election day were discarded, primarily in African-American sections of Jacksonville. This represented one-fourth of the votes in certain precincts. The Supervisor of Elections unlawfully withheld these facts from local Democrats until the deadline for requesting a recount had passed.

5. The county canvassing board in Lake County rejected all ballots in which the voter not only correctly penciled in his or her choice in the appropriate oval beside the candidate's name but also emphasized that choice by writing in the candidate's name, just below a line that carries the instruction "WRITE IN." This is a violation of the state of Florida's election law directing that ballots be counted where the clear intent of the voter is evident.

6. Investigations by news organizations in Miami-Dade County have uncovered several hundred ineligible persons, including Cuban citizens, who were permitted to vote on election day. These investigations of only a fraction of the Miami-Dade election districts suggest a total number of ineligible persons being allowed to vote numbering in the thousands. In addition, the methods used to secure and vote absentee ballots that were found by the Florida Supreme Court to be unlawful in 1998 were repeated in this election, resulting in an untold number of fraudulent ballots.

7. There is persuasive evidence in Broward County of the introduction of pre-punched ballots into certain precincts, the creation of false absentee ballots, and unlawful activities to suppress voter turnout including the purposeful assignment of non-working voting machines to precincts that have strong African-American populations.

8. Election supervisors in Seminole and Martin Counties have admitted to providing favorable treatment for Republican voters who requested absentee ballots that was denied to Democratic and independent voters. Republican election workers were permitted to correct incomplete absentee ballot requests, and those requests were honored even when the Republican election workers failed to correctly complete the forms.

9. The election supervisor in Okaloosa County directed that optical scanning machines be programmed not to reject erroneous ballots, resulting in an inflated number of uncounted ballots.

10. Examination by democrats.com of ballots in four other counties is producing evidence of post-election ballot tampering, intended to reduce the number of overvotes (Jackson County), a massively inflated number of overvotes in only the presidential race (Gadsden). We have also discovered, and continue to investigate, statistical anomalies in the election results (Liberty and Calhoun Counties).

This catalog is not intended to be complete or definitive; other allegations of improper procedure have been made, especially the many examples of possible discriminatory action aimed at African-Americans, set forth by the NAACP and other civil rights organizations.

 - There at least could have been a debate and perhaps an investigation into the illegal actions of GOP operatives in Florida.

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. Well they aren't voting GOP ....

although I think many of them sat out the last election because Liebermann was the VP candidate. There's a lot of anti-Semitism in the black community. There's a lot in the white community too, but I figure most of those jerks voted GOP any way so it's not really a lost vote.

The last election, with Gore clearly winning the popular vote but narrowly losing the electoral vote shined a spotlight on the problem with the system. The electoral college was created to take power AWAY from the people. The number of electoral votes is based on the number of representatives in Congress, which is more or less based on the population of the state. It is NOT based on the number of people who care enough to cast their vote.

All the electoral votes in Texas will go to Bush candidate, even if the votes cast are 49% Democrat and 51% Republican. Even as much as Texas is thought to be a slam dunk for the GOP, in the last election it was 59% for Bush and 31% for Gore. How many people who might have voted for Gore just stayed home?

[keta11]

33. You say

"There's a lot of anti-Semitism in the black community."

Please substantiate.

[TexasBushwhacker]

46. Well it started with Farrakhan ....

although I think he probably just verbalized what some in the black community felt. The same goes for Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" comment.

I didn't just come up with this idea myself. Google "Blacks Anti-Semitism". You'll come up with over 42K links, including this one:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/36/story_3663_1.html?frameset=1&storyID=&boardID=4764

[Cocoa]

7. got anything more recent?

a lot has happened since March 2001, don't you think?

e.g. the candidacy of Sharpton, among many other things.

[ShaneGR]

8. Election results from 2000 on don't show this.....

In 2000 92% of African-American voters cast their ballots for Democratic candidates. In 2002, this figure rose to 93%, though turnout was lower (Turnout was low in 2002 with everyone, not just blacks). The November 03 elections showed turnout increasing, particularly among Democratic voters and urban communities. Some good examples are the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan where urban voter turnout increased as much as 10% in cities like Cleveland and Detroit. In addition, the Democratic Primaries saw record urban turnout in over 15 states.

So, no. There are problems in Florida though, but not enough to warrant some sort of third-party attempt by any of the members. You're not gonna find one CBC member who would ever say something like that. Good luck though.

BTW, why the rehash of a 4 year old dispute?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. I don't think it's a matter of color. Dem leadership is alienating

much of it's base in it's quest to become the Centrist Party.

[Q]

16. You're right...

...but the reason for this thread is that I've been hearing a lot of anger directed at the party from those who feel the party abandoned Blacks and others before, during and after the 2000 election. Many Democrats seem to think the party could have done more ( as outlined above) to fight for civil rights and Democracy in 2000.

- Contrary to what many 'moderate' Democrats seem to think...civil rights are still very important to many Americans.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Where are Blacks going to go for representation?

(I'll reiterate that I don't see this as a "Black" issue. It's a liberal progressive issue or an economic issue. I hate categorizations by race because I think there are other denominators that are more accurate and less emotional. E.g., "Class" and "Ideology.")

The real question is "Where are the economically and ideologically repressed going to go for representation?" The answer is nowhere. Like past elections the economically and ideologically repressed are going to vote for the Dem Centrist candidate out of a lack of a viable alternative. The economically and ideologically repressed will not vote Republican.

Tens of millions have been abandoned. I see the problem as less one of neo-conservatism but that of neo-liberalism (centrism). It's slowly suffocating us all. By breaking down the economically and ideologically repressed into sub-categories we dilute our political power. And this is just the way that the Establishment wants it. Divide and conquer. They're outnumbered a 100,000-to-one, what else can they do?

[Kanary]

19. Yes, it's the way the "Establishment" (RW) wants it

But, for crying in a bucket, do the DEMs have to cooperate with it???

"Like past elections the economically and ideologically
repressed are going to vote for the Dem Centrist candidate out of a lack of a viable alternative."

Possibly. But, if you read my post, more and more are saying this is the last chance. After this, they leave. I fear it will take that before the DEMs really GET IT.

When will the Dems really start working for the votes of the millions who've given up and dropped out?

Kanary

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. In response to a recent McCain thread I wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1776401&mesg_id=1777696

The time is coming. I can just as easily have no representation without my vote going to the Dem Centrist as I can by it going to the Dem Centrist. I'm willing to take small steps to the left and that requires being to the left of Clinton (flowery rhetoric aside).

[Kanary]

34. You've summed it up well, and you're *not* alone

I have many friends who are saying much the same thing.

We've been roundly dismissed right here at DU (so much for how "librul" it is), and told outright that we don't matter, and not to le t the door... etc.. So, I sadly suspect that you are right.......the Party isn't gonna get it until we, in hugenumbers, simply aren't there anymore.

I also know there are many places where more traditional Dems are taking back the party, to the consternation of the DLC. I hope that tnednecy is a strong one!

Kanary

[Bandit]

13. Well if things don't change when Kerry takes office I'm going to be right

there with them in establishing a third party. I'm sick and tired of the Status Quo and these gutless Representatives we currently have in power. It may take fifty years of Republican control before a real third party can have power but I'll be patient. This is a last opportunity for the Democrats to be Democrats or I'm gone.

[Kanary]

14. To Answer Your Question.... YES, that vote is being lost

I watched the Black Muslim leader, whose name is escaping me at the moment, when he gave his speechon C-SPAN, and he clearly said that this is the last chance for the DEMS to get it together. AFter this election, if there isn't support for Black issues, their loyalty, and their votes, will go elsewhere. I have no doubts that other leaders will voice the same thing.

There have been many discussions here at DU about the loyal left, and everytime it's suggested that if issues aren't adressed, the votes will evaporate, there are loud cries on DU of "Let 'em leave... who needs 'em". So, I suspect the Party will have to learn the hard way that it can no longer take for granted and dismiss the left, minorities, poor folk, and other disaffected people.

No need to flame me....... I'm only the messenger. Flaming me won't stop this exodus from happening.

Kanary

[Q]

15. Thanks for your honest answer...

...realizing that it may be difficult for any Democrat to admit that they're losing a vote they've always counted on in the past.

- Part of the reason for this concern in the party's 'full steam ahead' push to win over the 'swing' votes at the risk of alienating the 'traditional' Democratic voter.

[playahata1]

25. Louis Farrakhan.

n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. DLC stench all over this campaign.

They assume that they can take the black vote for granted. They assume they can take the "left" vote for granted. So, they again move the party to the right. And, again, we are stuck with a "moderate" candidate with a legion of apologists right here on this board, shouting, whining, and threatening the same old sorry tune of "He's not as bad as.."

The ONLY way that we can get the party to move to the left is to withhold our votes. To make them come to us. Don't believe it will work? Kerry and the DLC are doing nothing to garner the Black and leftist vote because they think that they are "safe". But, look how they are courting the Hispanic and "moderate" vote. They are not considered "safe" so the DLC "compromises", "concedes", and tries to buy them with moves in their direction.

It's past time for a real alternative to the conservative and "not quite so" conservative parties we have now.

[Kanary]

20. Agree completely! Another option........

Another option would be for all of us different factions to actually Come Together (Imagine....), and support each other in our issues, so that we can be a strong voting block, and therefore *force* the DNC to pay attention.

Splintering ourselves, fighting among ourselves, and not supporting each other has helped to get us in this position. Are we desperate enough yet to change that?

Kanary

[wyldwolf]

24. Give a few examples of "moving the party to the right."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. How about "sending more troops to Iraq"?

How about calling for "finishing the job" in Iraq?
How about supporting "Free Trade"?
How about supporting "Welfare Reform"?
How about supporting "Government Funding of Religious Institutions."
How about voting for and supporting the "war" (if the invasion and subjugation of a prostrate country can be called a "war) in Iraq?

Would you not call those examples of moving the party to the right?

[wyldwolf]

31. Using historical context, how are any of these "moving the party to ...

...to the right?"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Historical context.

The Democratic Party, from it's earliest days, has always had a conflict between the left and the moderate/right wings. This is just a part of that context. Do you deny that Kerry and the DLC are not attempting to appeal to the "moderates" by moving to the right? Do you consider his statements about "more troops" for Iraq, and "finishing the job" reflective of the left wing of the party?

To anyone but the stubbornly myopic, Kerry's vote for the IWR was made so that he could appear to be "tough on defense". His vote for Welfare Reform can only be explained as a political ploy to appeal to the "moderates" as being someone who wasn't going to allow the "welfare queens" to get away with it.

I call it moving the party to the right. After all, Kerry is the soon to be nominated "standard bearer" of the Democratic Party. Just as Clinton was for 8 years and also moved the party to the right - at the expense of the left and minorities. He called it "triangulation". Some of us saw it as betrayal.

[wyldwolf]

45. hmmm

The Democratic Party, from it's earliest days, has always had a conflict between the left and the moderate/right wings. This is just a part of that context.

OK, I'm with you so far, except I reject "moderate" and "right" being lumped into the same category. They are not. And, to add, whereas the party has always had a left fringe, the party has - for most part - always been moderate as a whole (except, perhaps, from around '72 to circa 1988 when the "McGovern" wing of the party had more influence than they do today. Is that the era you pine for?

Do you deny that Kerry and the DLC are not attempting to appeal to the "moderates" by moving to the right?

"Attempting?" I'd say they are appealing to the moderate base of the party. Which is why they are winning. The term "right" is subjective. By saying the party is "moving to the right" you must first prove that the party has been grounded in the far left which, for the most part, it has not.

Perhaps a more accurate description would be "moving the party BACK to a more moderate position." But that would only be so if we were having this discussion circa 1988. The party has taken an increasingly moderate position since then - after having it's moderate stance temporarily interrupted around '72 by the McGovern movement.

Do you consider his statements about "more troops" for Iraq, and "finishing the job" reflective of the left wing of the party?

No, but again, the "left wing" of the party is not the controlling wing and, by all indications, won't be anytime soon. Sure, anything that denotes war to the reactionary anti-war left is "rightwing," but sending more troops to finish what we started, clean up that damn mess, and try to avert a three way civil war would now be the humanitarian thing to do.

To anyone but the stubbornly myopic

that would mean the reactionary far left...

Kerry's vote for the IWR was made so that he could appear to be "tough on defense".

You have proof of this? No. Just the interpretation you made to make all your theories fit together.

His vote for Welfare Reform can only be explained as a political ploy to appeal to the "moderates" as being someone who wasn't going to allow the "welfare queens" to get away with it.

You have proof of this? No. Just the interpretation you made to make all your theories fit together.

I call it moving the party to the right. After all, Kerry is the soon to be nominated "standard bearer" of the Democratic Party. Just as Clinton was for 8 years and also moved the party to the right - at the expense of the left and minorities.

You know, at this point, you have done nothing to show Kerry is moving the party to the right except give your opinions as to what policies and issues should bear the labels of left and right.

And you comments on Clinton betray your lack of knowledge on the subject.

But you gave no historical context. Give me historical dates and situations where a democratic administration did the opposite of what you are complaining most about, namely, the Iraq war.

[MisterP]

30. and of course, while trilling that the black and labor vote is not to be

courted and should be fled from, they demand absolute loyalty. With * as a boogeyman, they can yell "You don't want Bush-lite? Then you want BUSH!"

[wyldwolf]

21. Q, do you seek out old stories to drag back up to discredit democrats?

Seems that way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Q. Do you consider the question irrelevant?

Seems that way.

[wyldwolf]

26. I won't answer for Q, but I will answer..

No, the question isn't irrelevant but it has been covered here several times.

Which is why, for example, critics here of Howard Dean don't continuously repost the same articles that bashed him. Been there, done that.

Q has shown himself to be only a fringe supporter, if that, of the democratic party.

You have to wonder why he and those like him aren't posting in a more dem-unfriendly message board.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Well, I'm a Democrat.

And, as I see it, the question posed by Q is extremely relevant to the direction that the party is taking.

That Kerry is doing nothing to garner the votes of Blacks and is alienating the liberal/left of the party is of prime importance to those of us that believe that the party should move to the left rather than pandering to the right.

Just call me a "fringe supporter".

And, I will be voting Democrat in November - for my Senator and congressman, who both voted against the war in Iraq.

[sangha]

32. Typical propoganda

with not one fact cited to support it's basic premise that blacks are not going to vote Dem, adn that Kerry has done nothing for black people. Some people want to pretend there's a problem for the Dems, and pretend that they care about the Dems, in order to bash Kerry

[Bandit]

37. Look to the 2002 election for proof of Q's supposition

Black turnout was absolutely abysmal and the GOP walloped the Democrats.

[sangha]

52. Turnout was up in 2002

Nice try, though

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Typical DLC propaganda

With not one fact cited to support the basic premise that Kerry is ignoring the black/left voters in favor of the rightwing agenda of the DLC. Some people want to pretend that there are no problems in the Democratic Party, and pretend that they care about Democratic ideals, in order to bash the left.

And, here is a site you can check if you can take the time away from defending Kerry's every move.

http://www.rense.com/general48/kerryvoteslikelieberman.htm

[sangha]

53. giggle

Like I believe rense's characterizations. I believe there's a chance rense won't vote Kerry, but I know that blacks will.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

23. Blacks will vote over 90% for Kerry

They remember Florida.

[shanti]

35. losing it to WHO?

that's my question...

[ibegurpard]

36. To apathy and cynicism

which means they'll just stay home.

[Cocoa]

38. did you contact the DNC about your concerns?

if so, what did they say.

There's a page on the DNC website about the black vote, it seems they have a number of programs, none of which have been mentioned by anyone here.

http://www.democrats.org/aa/index.html


I wonder, how much of this thread is actual concern about the black vote, and how much is ordinary dem bashing?

[ibegurpard]

41. How nice it must be to have a knee-jerk excuse for uncomfortable truths

yep...I'm just a Dem basher.
I can tell you that based upon analysis of state house districts while working on redistricting that the districts with the highest percentage of African American residents had the lowest voter turnout. Now the reason for that is debatable but there is no denying the fact of it.

[Bandit]

42. Maybe you should poll the Black DU members as to how the DNC

programs have impressed them. Ask what presence the DNC has in the Black communities. I woul;d venture a guess that you will get an answer that you would not like. The DNC as well as the DLC has been and is taking the Black vote for granted and they better be forwarned the minority communities demand better.

[Cocoa]

44. go ahead

that's why I posted that page, I wanted to hear what people thought of it. If you or anyone has experienced it personally, please share your impressions.

At least the discussion would be based on something the DNC is doing now.

[wyldwolf]

48. yeah, right

How many white anti-DNC/DLC types would "freep" the poll?

[Cocoa]

50. why don't you just tell me?

answer all those questions, I want to know.

[kwolf68]

43. Black Vote shows a budding problem

And that is their more socially conservative views. I think its also worth a note that the Latino population is also socially conservative.

Black people are not gung-ho about abortion, have a strong faith-based community, and are definately for school choice...as are Latinos in many polls.

Of course, black and latino views on economic justice, guns, and the death penalty is clearly Liberal, but the Democrats are going to have to find creative ways to advance causes of interest to the black community while still holding fast and hard to the core progressive views of strong public education, choice and secularism.

It's a fine line and not easy to play. For the time being, blacks and latinos should continue to support Dems, but we will have to find some alternatives for unbridled abortions, complete restrictions from kids moving to other schools and a more "religious" spin on our politics, which ironically would fit perfectly, but the Dems choose to placate the atheists too much, which will drive many very religious black people looking for alternatives. If the Republicans weren't such a horrendous bunch on death penalty, affirmative action and tax cuts for the rich then blacks would be in their camp as strong as our camp.

[playahata1]

47. I am black, and I will vote to get Bush out office in November.

However, I am a registered -- and left-leaning -- independent, because not only do I think that the Democratic Party takes the African American electorate for granted, but also that it has drifted too far to the right. Kerry and others would do well to understand this.

[wyldwolf]

49. 2001 article... 2001 stats

National turnout in the 1998 midterms was down from 1994. According to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, overall turnout declined from 38.8 percent in 1994 to 36.1 percent this year (1998). African American voters turned out at somewhat lower rates than in 1994, principally reflecting the overall decline among the general population. According to exit polls, the black share of the 1998 vote was 10 percent, the same share as in 1994. Thus, there was no decline in the blackshare of the vote nationally.

In 2000...

There were several important developments in black politics in November 2000. The presidential election (as well as the elections for the U.S. Senate and House) was among the closest in U.S. history. The media paid an unprecedented amount of attention to the black vote and there were unprecedented efforts by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Democratic National Committee to bring black voters to the polls. Black turnout in the election did increase, and although exit polls showed that the black share of the national vote was the same as in 1996, in many states it increased dramatically. African Americans were even more Democratic in their partisanship in 2000 than they were in 1996.

--- Source: Joint Center for Ecnomic and Political Studies

Would someone please post the percentage of African American turnout in the 2002 midterms?

Here is a start:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1776855&mesg_id=1777058&page=

In 2000 92% of African-American voters cast their ballots for Democratic candidates. In 2002, this figure rose to 93%, though turnout was lower (Turnout was low in 2002 with everyone, not just blacks). The November 03 elections showed turnout increasing, particularly among Democratic voters and urban communities. Some good examples are the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan where urban voter turnout increased as much as 10% in cities like Cleveland and Detroit. In addition, the Democratic Primaries saw record urban turnout in over 15 states.

All the above info pretty much debunks the myth obviously being cultivated by the reactionary 1 percenters the the Dem party is losing African American voters.

[Senior citizen]

51. The Democratic Party is losing the democratic vote too

Those of us who believe in democracy do not want a government run by big corporations. That's fascism, not democracy.

Only one white Democrat, Rep. Bob Filner (D)CA, stood with the BCC to protest the Florida fraud, and unfortunately he isn't a Senator.

But Filner isn't alone all the time. We are a majority in many areas, and we have elected liberal and progressives to Congress in spite of the Democratic Party leadership. They may be few in number, but if we got rid of the electoral college and stopped the expensive media marketing campaigns by bringing back the Fairness thing to the FCC, we'd be the majority.

The U.S. has a lot of racists, and a lot of zealots, and a lot of morans, but they are minorities.

I think anything calling itself or being labelled as a third party is as doomed as anything that calls itself or is labelled as socialized medicine, no matter how good an idea it is.

I'd go for a Democracy Now movement, that resists being called a party but does whatever it needs to put Amy Goodman up for president.

[Q]

54. The Democratic party is the oldest in the nation...

...and has a proud tradition of fighting FOR the people. What happened?

[Senior citizen]

55. It became beholden to big business.

There's a post by seventhson that probably explains it best. You can read it here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1764817#1764817

I bookmarked it and printed it out for future reference.

Added on edit: For specifics on how the two major parties became the two faces of an evil god, there's the book, "Indispensable Enemies," by Walter Karp.

Basically, the way things are now, you can't both stand up for the people, and stand for election, at the same time.

I have contributed to and am voting for John Kerry, and I pray that he wins. As soon as he is in, I am changing my voter registration back from Democratic to Green, unless there's a better choice. I intend to tell both President Kerry and the Democratic Party that they will never get another contribution or vote from me unless some real, basic changes are made. I suspect that I'm not alone.

On 2nd edit: Lani Guinier ROCKS! :bounce: