When they see one

than other groups, I think.

All but one of the dug-in BS supporters I know IRL, have never struggled or faced the structural barriers that almost all AA's do. They might work hard as activists, but they will never know what it is like to be boxed in the way our society does to AAs. These non-AAs think they can afford to lose and go backwards for awhile. Well, hopefully some of them are getting an inkling of just how far backward they can go. But unfortunately I'm not seeing that realization dawn on many of them.

Warren has work to do as the newest figure among the big 3 to national politics.

the black women activists endorsing Warren.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/elizabeth-warren-endorsement-black-women-activists/index.html

Good call.

Last edited Sun Jan 12, 2020, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Even here at DU, most are unaware of this event.

women with some cis support. Certainly the group has a range of political interests, but they do not represent the majority of black women she is yet to get support from.

and you surely find it important to minimize their influence and marginalize their role as black activists exposed to many levels of discrimination and even malice.

represent the political will of the majority of black women, who are not trans, non-binary, gender
non conforming? I am not minimizing the importance of their cause or the significance of their supporting Warren. I applaud her for championing civil rights and progress for all groups.

to marginalize them as if their voices aren’t worthy enough to matter? That’s what you’re doing whether you realize it or not. My guess is that you DO think they should be seen as unimportant because it suits a narrow political purpose for you that trumps what empathy you may have for their issues outside of politics.

Please stop with your accusations. Thank you.

political needs here. But, there was no reason for her to post about the group in order to dismiss those it represents.

I certainly would never do that if the roles were reversed, and you know it.

these accusations but you're not.

the posts about the group if it was NOT to marginalize the makeup of its members. Not me or the article asserted that this group spoke for all black women, yet that was the reason stated in the reply.

solid support would be a contender. They didn't choose any using skin color as the main criterion.

About their being "the foundation" because they're black? Uhuh. Reliable Democratic voters, like me and most of them, are the foundation. The VOTE, not the skin color.

I say most, btw, because some of course were not reliable in 2016 and 2018. Those couple percent could cover themselves with 5 coats of flat black engine paint and they wouldn't be "foundation."

They would be unstoppable. They are mathematically correct.

And they have some natural advantages; it's a myth that black voters are a monolithic liberal block. Many are fairly conservative/religious.

But the gop is brain dead racist. Rather then try to appeal to them, they would rather discriminate against them and use voter suppression to limit dem gains.

overthrow of democracy to integration, and Christian domination to secularism, both of which passions can be harnessed to get and keep them in power.

And probably close to half of all AA are conservative by nature, same as other races, but voting with Republicans is not acceptable. Still, a few inevitably do instead of holding their noses and voting Democrat.

Reminds me of Charles Krauthammer asking after Obama was reelected if the Republican Party needed to integrate, bring in AA conservatives. Rhetorically as it turned out. His answer was a flat no, the nation "doesn't need two Democratic Parties." In very different words, their agenda was incompatible with even conservative AA interests.

And of conservative David Frum's:

“Maybe you do not care much about the future of the Republican Party. You should. Conservatives will always be with us. If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”

"About their being "the foundation" because they're black? Uhuh. Reliable Democratic voters, like me and most of them, are the foundation. The VOTE, not the skin color."

Uh-huh. Certain people (usually, white people) always get offended when somebody says black people are the foundation of the Democratic party. Well, it happens to be true. Get over it.

Black voters ARE the foundation of the Democratic party. Just because there aren't as many of them, and they don't always turnout, doesn't mean they're not as important. Black people are the foundation of the Democratic party, because they vote democratic in higher numbers than any other race, and are far less likely to vote for a republican, or a third-party candidate, than any other race. Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by less than a point in 2016, in part because of crappy turnout among black voters in cities with high black populations, like Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia. She most likely would have squeaked out a win in those states, if more black voters had turned out.

If almost 90% of whites, and about 30% of Hispanics didn't for vote republicans, democrats wouldn't have to rely so heavily on black voters. Therefore, the skin color, DOES matter! Other races can paint themselves with 5 coats of titanium white, chocolate brown, fire-engine red, and lemon yellow, and they still won't be the "foundation" of the Democratic party!

Not black and I come from a very homogenized place.

As an adult, particularly in the mid terms, I attended rallies in primarily black neighborhoods.

I have seen and felt the power of their vote and enthusiasm for Democratic Politics.
It’s really quite thrilling as compared to a rally in a more diverse venue.

If we all harness that will power we would win every election. I’m sure of it.

Biden and Sen Hatch ushered through the Crime Bill in the mid 90's which caused a great deal of harm to blacks,
60 different felonies resulted in an inmate being placed on death row. Fortunately, Brian Stephenson, (lawyer and author of the book, "Just Mercy&quot went before the US Supreme Court and successfully had the court overturn cases where teenagers (with and without homicides) were being placed on death row.


Biden may have been a friend of Obama's and his VP, but he isn't a friend of the blacks. Here is a couple of articles which might help

1) From 2015 which shows Biden's involvement

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/politics/joe-bidens-role-in-90s-crime-law-could-haunt-any-presidential-bid.html



2) Today still dealing with the aftermath of Biden's Crime Bill....
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2019/05/10/469642/3-ways-1994-crime-bill-continues-hurt-communities-color/

And less than a year later he was pushing to make the 1995 crime bill STRONGER, raising the penalty for powder cocaine to the level of crack cocaine.

because powder was a white drug, right?

I mean, personally, I wish he would have pushed for decriminalization at that point, but at least he realized that the cocaine laws were racist as fuck.

...cocaine to the level of powder cocaine. Sanders did not, he wanted to RAISE the penalty for powder cocaine to that of crack cocaine.

There were two ways to skin that cat, and Sanders chose the most painful.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-bernie-sanders-conventional-politician-called-for-still-more-mass-incarceration

during his long political career? And remember Joe voted for that crime bill.

For example, I remember a lot of black support for the bill. It wasn't at all apparent at the time that it would be abused and result in real problems.

House: 235 Aye, 195 Nay
Senate: 95 Aye, 4 Nay, 1 NV

It was a bipartisan bill passed with a large margin in the House and an overwhelming margin in the Senate.

But Booker’s implication that the law was simply a cynical sop to fearful white voters is at odds with the political realities of the time, when the bill passed with bipartisan support, including the votes of more than two-thirds of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and with the backing of other black leaders beyond Capitol Hill. This is the second straight presidential election in which the crime bill has loomed as a loaded issue—Hillary Clinton was excoriated from the left in 2016 for her past support—and it will doubtless continue to surface as long as Biden is in the race. The current furor over the law is an object lesson in just how short the American political memory has become, and in how, in hindsight, complicated policy debates get flattened into stark shades of right and wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/joe-biden-crime-bill-and-americans-short-memory/597547/

And many more stories. Why not google it yourself?

has had to endure for years and years.

If you think Bernie's campaign is surging now, you haven't seen ANYTHING yet, not until Joe is finally properly vetted and their two voting records, and Bernie's progressive vs. Joe's moderate policy positions, can be compared side by side.


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

Sure, 538 has a model hanging on them, but its flawed.

Look, in 2016 hillary won iowa and got 23 delegates. Bernie got 21. Woo, a 2 vote advantage.

Bernie won nh and got 15 delegates vs 9 for clinton. A net 4 delegate advantage.

That was out of ~4700 delegates.

On super tuesday, hillary got over 520 and was solidly in the lead.

Yet, there was such hand wringing between nh and super tuesday. The media was concerned. Hillary was done. Bernie was surging.

It didn't mean anything then. It won't this time. Stop focusing on tea leaves. They don't mean anything.

This year, there are about 5400 total delegates. And there are at least 5 strong candidates, so delegates are going to be all over the map. It's going to give the larger states an outsized impact. Almost all the states are proportionately divided.

Only two people who won IA ended up in the White House: Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008.

Bill Clinton did not win either.

Yet, these two states carry an out of proportion influence. This is where all the candidates and the media spend their time and money. And, no doubt, the States of Iowa and New Hampshire quadrennial budgets are very much dependent on this.

Let's get rotating primary system. Yes, it is in NH Constitution that its primary should be the first. And if, starting in 2024 it is not then, what, it will secede from the Union? The future of our country, of the world, really, is at stake.

Is it ok because iowa is a caucus, so technically the first primary election is still nh?

Whatever will i do without knowing what dixville notch thinks first?

The dnc should simply say no orimary elections or caucuses before super tuesday.

and I am not sure how it was resolved.

Caucuses, by definition, disenfranchise voters who cannot be at a specific place at a specific time for the duration of several hours. And often at a cold snowy winter evening. Thus, Iowa wanted to let voters vote earlier by phone. Or something. NO! decried NH. This will make it a primary and we are first! With fists pounding their chest.

So Iowa gave up but am not sure how it ended.

Yes, have several multi states primary once a month. March, April, May and June.

Also, you seem to think that if older Democrats chose a moderate, that the Democratic Party will lose younger POCs for a generation? You are basing this on what? Did the Democrats lose younger POCs for a generation when they chose Moderates like Hillary and Kerry?

In 2018, when all of those seats were flipped, and young people came out in big numbers, including young people of color, most of the seats that were flipped were by moderate Democrats flipping Republicans. Now, you seem to think that a moderate candidate will mean that the young and young POC won't be able to handle it and will abandon the Democrats. Again, where are you getting your information?

....they won't be lost even for one election cycle.

mainly because he is well known by the demographic. But as they get to know Bernie better I think that his support will increase. Most polls already have Bernie in second place among AA's, and he leads among younger AA's.

There's a reason Bernie is surging... and his campaign has only STARTED to catch fire!! The devisive attacks on Bernie, here and in the corporate media world, merely confirm "THE SURGE OF THE BERN" and the fear it instills in those who seek to maintain a more moderate incremental approach.

We The People, however, will not stand for anything less than a "Full Monty" progressive agenda that addresses the horrific wealth inequality, racial Injustice, and healthcare crisis that has hit the middle working class and poor folks the hardest. Joe's moderate, incremental agenda simply won't inspire voters to turn out for him.

Bernie, OTOH, has consistently shown Democrats the way forward his whole political career by touting progressive issues that better people's lives. As Bernie likes to say: "it's not about me, it's about US”!!!


Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!