2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLessons learned: How Bernie Sanders lost black voters
"Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic primary in large part because he failed to win the hearts of black progressives. It didn’t have to be that way. But his campaign never explained how black people fit into his vision of a radically changed America. And, according to a series of Fusion interviews with former staff members, campaign leadership didn’t really see the point in trying.
Those former staffers described a campaign that failed to give its black outreach teams the resources they needed, that never figured out how to connect to black audiences, and that marginalized black media.
In the process, the campaign missed a chance to capitalize on a revolutionary message that otherwise might have appealed to black voters frustrated with the current political order.
Instead, Sanders was clobbered by Hillary Clinton among black voters in state after state after state, including some where Sanders either won white voters or lost them narrowly. The gap made it all but impossible for him to win the nomination."
http://fusion.net/story/323539/how-bernie-sanders-lost-black-voters/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mass
(27,315 posts)It is not pleasant to read, but it is notable that the reporter names her sources (except for one). I wished this was a standard most main stream media adopt.
For the rest, read and make yourself an idea whether it is the usual post-mortem or whether there is more here.
Demsrule86
(68,861 posts)Respectfully, I don't see this post as helpful. The primary is over. Rehashing old drama will lead to disunity...time to join together and beat the 'Trump-shlump' like a drum.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Demsrule86
(68,861 posts)There was a post earlier that was just wrong, I did say it should be deleted but did not alert on it even...someone did though because it is gone. We need to beat Trump.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They were pretty far in the Clinton camp from beginning to end. He never really gained with them. I think his real difficulty was in the fact he has been an excellent representative for his constituency for decades. His constituency is pretty monolithic. He hasn't been building relationships with POC across the country like Clinton has.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)He lost them by not winning them. Isn't that edifying?
But most or all Democratic voters were Clinton's by default. What might be more educational is a look at how his message won some deoographics, but not others.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)realmirage
(2,117 posts)Right? Because that's the reality.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...whatever her own work would have gotten her. I firmly believed that there would be no Obama surprise... but Sanders' late arrival on the scene was one, sorta-kinda.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)of all the work she's done to build a relationship with people of color and the democratic base?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...with decades of name recognition advantage in addition to the relationships she has built along the way. Everyone but everyone expected her to cruise to the nomination and eventually to the presidency, and so far she has. I think Sanders made a fine showing--mostly--but his candidacy was always a long shot.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)that she had a lot to do with the Clinton name getting recognition. You think she was just some useless wife who played no part in Bill's career and had no political voice of her own? Hillarycare? Women's rights? As I said, do you need a list?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I don't discount her accomplishments, and I recognize the context in which they occurred.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)the First Black President."
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bill-Clinton-fondly-referred-to-as-the-First-Black-President
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)others since young, I am ashamed I bought into so much of the garbage. Clinton kicks all our ass in serving the oppressed, the non represented. To suggest she only is where she is in name only really ignores fact.
Put his work up against anyone, and she would stand strong.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)It's hard for a campaign less than a year old to beat a candidate who has been running for fifteen years and is pretty popular within the party... probably the reason so few Democrats had the courage to challenge her for the nomination.
pnwmom
(109,026 posts)voters and concerns. Admittedly not a "natural politician" who shines at rallies, she had dedicated herself to building a network of supporters all over the country -- supporters who were there for her when it counted.
That will be HER legacy.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)...are sexist, as they by and large disqualify her accomplishments. Sec. Clinton had a unique way around them. Her last name is the chief reason we finally get to have a female president, IMO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)And one day we will all be glad she did. She will make it possible for other women to get elected via more and different avenues.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)How she triumphs over it--some of it, at least--will be less important in the future than the fact that she did.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)The women who could have been household names long ago, but who were stopped or hindered by the notion that a woman can't do the job, or any other job.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)I think it stopped some candidates cold.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)thru her world avoiding the sexism.
Mind blowing.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The sexism Hillary Clinton has faced at every step of her career is both greater and less than what other American women face. She's been reviled for decades by millions, but loved by millions more, and with the support of the party establishment, she looks to be the woman who they finally couldn't stop.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)But to suggest she has not had to be strong in the face of sexism is just wrong. She put her time into communities for decades and no Sanders did not do the same.
One of the very real issues with sexism is the dismissal of work that any man would get praised. Another would be a loser thru out a primary where she never once lost the lead of all the candidates.
Regardless of money or name, obstacles are continually thrown in her way, and she continues to move forward.
We do not get to ignore or dismiss this accomplishment. Most women in the U.S. at our ages, recognize this and something that we women respect in Clinton.
I have read thru your posts, and I know you are respectful of Clinton, but no.... she gets credit for her accomplishments regardless of the sexism she faced.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...who might have tried, or did try, for the presidency. Because of her, other women will face fewer such obstacles and will do so with more and better-equipped allies.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I never would have thought in those terms.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)We live it. I know my upper middle class white position has much less. We are not fools. I know those women in the U.S. have it less than women in the middle east and Africa.
So?
What the poster is missing is we do not see it as a com[petition or refuse to allow it to be used as dismissal of experience, even though that is the reality.
Any woman studies have already had this conversation.
Anyone dismissing sexism has already used that argument to ignore our voice.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...and that's not accurate. She's been rich, well-connected and famous for a long time, but that's not how she started out.
At every step of her national career, probably, when she became both a focal point for cultural sexism and shielded from some of its effects. It's nice not to have to worry about being unemployed, but the strain of having to stand for all women is a unique burden.
ismnotwasm
(42,030 posts)She has fought sexism through her husbands political career and her own, both private and political. She fought it through her schooling. She has fought it since the day they said "it's a girl"
No, not less, if anything, it's much more--look around and see what she faces and will continue to face. As a candidate. As a wife. As a mother. As a grandmother. As a world leader. As commander in chief. She will be subject to sexist analysis after she retires--and she will be subject to historical sexism after she's gone, she will be subject to sexism Until we no longer need to use the word "sexism" to describe the social pathology of gender inequity.
In fact, when the dust settles, and If Hillary is ever looked at objectively, Hillary Clinton may just have experienced more sexism from more directions than any other woman alive. It's not easy busting through glass. You get cut deep.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Of course not....
Orsino
(37,428 posts)
calimary
(81,610 posts)Granted, her last name is significant, but she indeed COULD have "just stayed home and baked cookies" - a statement she made back during Campaign 1992, that got her in trouble for being an "uppity" woman not content merely to sit back into her "proper" "wifey/woman should be seen and not heard" role. She certainly could have done so. But she chose to recognize that her talents could be put to work to help people, and she chose to roll up her sleeves and step INTO the fray and get her hands dirty and do the hard day-to-day work. Fortunately for us, she had a husband who recognized this and gave her opportunities - some really bigtime, risky opportunities - to contribute.
Anybody remember the harrumphing and whining and complaining people did, OUTRAGED at the NERVE of her, Mrs. Who-the-hell-does-she-think-she-is, who became the FIRST First Lady to have an office in the West Wing because of the HIGHLY prominent sit-at-the-big-table-NOT-the-kiddie-table work she was expected (and expecting) to do? Mrs. Who-the-hell-does-she-think-she-is, who was the inspiration for the "buy one, get one free" campaign slogan in 1992. The FIRST First Lady who did more than just pose for pictures with visiting Girl Scout troops and supervise the flower arrangements for the state dinners and pick out the new curtains for some big-ass but merely cosmetic plans to redecorate the Blue Room. Her husband put her in charge of overhauling America's health care system forcryingoutloud. No small task by ANY stretch of the imagination. And Mrs. Who-the-hell-does-she-think-she-is simply rolled up her sleeves and laced up her work boots and hunkered down in the weeds to try to sort through the mess and get something DONE, and some problems SOLVED.
And for all that, she was widely condemned, trashed, denounced, criticized up one side of the room and down the other. She got nothing but negatives, NOTHING BUT GRIEF, thrown at her from all sides, even from those who should have been defending and helping her. And all she ever did was work to try to effect positive change - to help people.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)But I am confident that she will win the presidency.
pnwmom
(109,026 posts)instead of in the kitchen with the cooks.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)The hating started Years before that in Arkansas. I was there. Most people first saw it in the 90's but they had been after her for years before then.
pnwmom
(109,026 posts)But I remember that Arkansas voters were incensed, for instance, that she was trying to use her maiden name instead of Clinton.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)And denigrating bullshit like no other. And because she has gone through so much fire, she has become strong as steel. She is a force to be reckoned with, for sure.
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Thank you!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)As if we vote on name recognition, not issues.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Really?
Cal33
(7,018 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Is that why she did whatever it was she did?-- to 'get their support.?'
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)good works and efforts out of pettiness.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I read it; I found it quite interesting.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Celebrating with the black community, grieving with the black community, testifying in black churches, building bridges and coalitions, etc.
The real question is: where was Bernie over those decades in regards to the black community?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Sanders was not on the teevee, and not particularly close to any president. Hell, he wasn't even a Democrat.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The issues there generally don't veer towards the issues that affect blacks and latinos.
His closest advisors were older white men, which didn't keep those issues in front of him.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)He didn't opt to stay in either of the multi-cultural communities in which he grew up and was educated - he decided to live in one of the whitest areas in the country. And when he chose whom he would represent, he chose to represent a very homogenous demographic. Fully his right. But it made it difficult for people to take him seriously when, after 3 decades, he suddenly decided to emerge from his lily-white enclave and present himself as the Great Savior of people of color.
And the "if only blacks would just get to know him, they'll feel the Bern" mantra only made it worse since if Bernie was really all that, we wouldn't have to "get to know him." We'd already know him.
Just like we already know Hillary because she's been there, through thick and thin.
This is an important lesson for politicians moving forward. You need to toil with us in the vineyards if you want to drink our wine.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Gothmog
(146,006 posts)I believe that there is some merit to the observation made by this article. I admit that I am impressed with the amount accomplished by President Obama in face of the stiff GOP opposition to every one of his proposals and I personally believe that President Obama has been a great President. It seems that this view colors who I am supporting in the primary http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-obama_us_56aa378de4b05e4e3703753a?utm_hp_ref=politics
On one side of this divide are activists and intellectuals who are ambivalent, disappointed or flat-out frustrated with what Obama has gotten done. They acknowledge what they consider modest achievements -- like helping some of the uninsured and preventing the Great Recession from becoming another Great Depression. But they are convinced that the president could have accomplished much more if only he’d fought harder for his agenda and been less quick to compromise.
They dwell on the opportunities missed, like the lack of a public option in health care reform or the failure to break up the big banks. They want those things now -- and more. In Sanders, they are hearing a candidate who thinks the same way.
On the other side are partisans and thinkers who consider Obama's achievements substantial, even historic. They acknowledge that his victories were partial and his legislation flawed. This group recognizes that there are still millions of people struggling to find good jobs or pay their medical bills, and that the planet is still on a path to catastrophically high temperatures. But they see in the last seven years major advances in the liberal crusade to bolster economic security for the poor and middle class. They think the progress on climate change is real, and likely to beget more in the future.
It seems that many of the Sanders supporters hold a different view of President Obama which is also a leading reason why Sanders is not exciting African American voters.
Again, I am not ashamed to admit that I like President Obama and think that he has accomplished a great deal which is why I do not mind Hillary Clinton promising to continue President Obama's legacy.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)The divide discussed here has a long history of better and worse phases, but the American left has never been as wholeheartedly supported by communities of color as leftist theory and rhetoric would predict, as commentators have noted and worried over for a century.
Crudely it comes down to whether you see racial oppression and structural racism as caused by class domination or as false consciousness in service of class power, or as a specific primary phenomenon that is complexly interrelated with class but either causally separable or actually a primary logic of domination partially enacted through class domination.
African American (and Native American and Latino/a/Chicano and Asian Amerixan) intellectuals from DuBois to Wilson and beyond have seriously pondered and studied this, as have Marxist theorists from Marx himself (who saw slavery as a pre-capitalist mode of economic exploitation of labor by and large) to Stuart Hall and beyond. Ta-Neishi Coates has been lately very eloquent on these matters for a general readership.
Whatever your theoretical or ideological commitments might be, a coalition politics that necessarily includes communities of color cannot fail to embrace a direct critique of racism as something more than and beyond class domination in American history, no matter what one believes to be the ultimate causal explanation in Marx's famous "last instance" that never comes because it already happened.
Similar arguments could be had over inequality and oppression based in gender and sexuality vs. rational actor economic interest if one were so inclined, and played a role this year as well.
ETA Black Lives Matter is an acid test for the Democratic Party and the American left. Our coalition requires white progressives and class-based activists support this movement in its moment. We cannot pander to white power.
thucythucy
(8,139 posts)Thank you.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)It's my strange luck to have once been student leftist and passionate about the theory. I didn't notice at the time how white guys (like me) were privileged to be able to treat freedom as a theoretical matter in the first place.
Then my world began broadening slowly. Somewhere in the later 90s, watching my daughters grow up in a misogynist culture and becoming more and more aware of what my friends of color or lgbtq identity were going trough (especially as a college professor you learn so much from students that keeps you on your toes).
In fact I remember the NYPD torture of Abner Louima incident as the moment I was lost my Marxist faith. I think that was 1997.
I'd say now I'm pretty close to fully woke, and I think the basic story of our county's current malaise is racist backlash against our first black president and a seething culture of white resentment that's been authorized to speak in public by Fox News and Trump and a violence-loving rape-loving racist media culture online, especially.
I no longer see capitalism as the cause of the problems. I see colonialism and ethnic nationalism as the forces driving inequality, and class domination as an expression of racism more than vice versa. The working class is now comprised of a plurality if not majority of people of color and women, in the US and internationally. Globalization is here to stay. I think a class-focused politics must go beyond the white working class as the archetype of theoretical models.
We will not solve class inequality in America until we confront and ameliorate the consequences of slavery and genocide on which this nation was founded and whose effects are still obvious, and until there is no more gender/sexual orientation/able bodied privilege.
We are so far from that. I was moved by the Dallas police chief pointing out that structural racism is the root problem behind police violence -- he didn't use the words but he said society was asking the police to solve the problems created by segregation and inequality.
Anyway thank for the kind words!
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)Both this post, and the post you made just before this, are very well thought.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think that he clung to that old school marxism that states once income inequality is fixed, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc will sort itself out.
There is still all of that in Europe.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it fell on deaf ears.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Yet I think the breakdown between only Sanders and Clinton is much more simple. Much more.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)There is no denying the Clinton campaign saw the opportunity to blast Sanders from day one (not good enough, Bernie) just as they saw the opportunity to blast him on guns.
That is nothing new and, frankly, it is hard to see what Sanders could have done to break into the POC demographics. When you are under siege you are more likely to go with the person you have a long time relationship with. In this case that was obviously HRC.
I'm sorry it played out that way, and if Sanders had intended to run in the first place there probably would have been a much more effective campaign on his part.
So, you have a Senator who was coy about running (and wouldn't have stepped up if Elizabeth Warren had run, as she was asked to) as opposed to an individual who has been anything but coy, and who has spent years working up her campaign.
Its sort of like matching the local football team against the Super Bowl winners. You could win but the odds were heavily against the locals from the beginning.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Or perhaps even earlier.
As many of others have said, there is no revolution without the black and latino communities, and if you want them in your revolution they have to be an integral part of it from its earliest incarnations and by that I mean from early in your political life.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Bernie needed to be laying the groundwork for his run a decade ago, which of course didn't happen because a decade ago he didn't know he was going to be running for president.
As tRump has shown us, running for president on a whim and winning the nomination is possible, but that's because he ran in the Republican Party where you never have to worry about appealing to people of color. In a party with a diverse coalition (ie Democrats), that doesn't work out so well.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)a mile away, having seen them leveled at their communities, and dismiss them as such.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)rehashing this. It was pretty obvious to a lot of us.
But Sanders supporters--those who want his candidacy to morph into an enduring movement--would be very, very, very well advised to pay heed to this kind of thing.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)pure in the wilderness. Working with others is more important than purity.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)But if you would like to, I have no objection to you explaining that, or the moon landing, or chakras, or alternative medicine, the Illumaniti, or what not.
Please proceed.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm glad that had nothing to do with it 
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)There was a lot of information in there.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
brush
(53,978 posts)political mistake. Naming West as a surrogate doomed Sanders from the start.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)as a whole doesn't like that. Obama has a difficult path to walk, and has been doing so with great grace. West wants something far left and radical. Something that a practical politician can not do and still govern.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)People told him that, but he didn't listen
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)go short shrift from the Sanders campaign. I have read that he didn't return repeated calls from the leaders of the Green Party and from Ralph Nader and his people, just brushed all their attempts to connect off. This is a pattern of years, but there were very possibly others during the campaign as he tried to ignite his "revolution" by focusing on relatively narrow but giant socioeconomic reforms.
And, of course, in the beginning he didn't expect to have a chance to win the nomination. This must be a huge factor as he certainly would have realized he needed the black vote to win. By the time he knew just how big a vein of support he had tapped into, it was too late.
Btw, discussing issues important in the primary and continuing to be important is not at all the same thing as "fighting" the primary
George Eliot
(701 posts)Spot on in my opinion.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)assumed a stronger Democratic passivity, or whatever, and asked the wrong questions or none.
I thought my frustration was, not unusual, but not exactly usual either. I mean, look what happened in the 2010 midterms. Pathetic turnout was taken for apathy, not to lack of a call to arms from candidates who'd played it safe, as directed by the consultants being paid for by their funders.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Gothmog
(146,006 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Camille Paglia is feminism.
SaschaHM
(2,897 posts)There were clear issues with African American outreach and if they're going to coexist with the Democratic "establishment" on a state level (which is good for democrats in the long run), then they need a post-primary campaign autopsy that doesn't demear on reach issues and blindly believe that Clinton's establishment cred is the thing that caused them to lose black voters.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I hadn't heard about the Morehouse thing though...
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The only reason it was even competitive was due to Independents who generally went strong for Bernie. Democrats (white and black) overwhelming went for Hillary.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)It was a generational divide. In many states Bernie won the black youth vote, bit not the overall black vote.
We're there miscues at times? Yes, but not to the degree this article makes it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)As he hoped the would. Hillary won them almost everywhere - in some places almost 2::1.
Their votes mattered more than ever.
pnwmom
(109,026 posts)of the end for him.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)He's the best choice for VP, Mrs. Clinton. He has the trust of a great majority of the under 30 crowd.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I think that he would be happier in the Senate, where he can get work done, and being a gadfly can do some good.
George Eliot
(701 posts)I love Bernie but I think he'd find it difficult to work along side Mrs. Clinton. Their hearts are simply not in the same place. Her centrist views may be more aligned with the country right now. His will never be. I'm looking forward to their joint appearance. I'm interested to see how they find commonality.
Besides, I think Bernie's very independent and would feel limited by vice presidency. I"m hoping both he and Warren remain in Senate.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)I believe Secretary Clinton has earned a title that conveys more accomplishments than her marital status.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)the way it's done with EX- SOS. Haven't really paid attention to how Mrs. Clinton signs her name on stuff.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)as I said in my previous post. As you've now deliberately used MRS again in order to be deliberately provocative, I'll leave you to it.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I've always called her Mrs. Clinton for decades. Besides Senator Sanders as VP, our current SOS, John Kerry would also make an excellent VP. 
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)And future progressive candidates definitely need to look at both what Bernie did right and what he did wrong. For starters, anybody who thinks they even might run in 2024 should be making preparations right now. And if the absolute worst happens, that also leaves them better prepared for 2020.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I think today when both stand together, there will be a very noticeable positive energy boost in the Clinton campaign. Much stronger together.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)SkeleTim1968
(83 posts)I see it as Hillary Clinton winning their support because the Clinton's have done a lot for black communities.
President Clinton appointed many black people to cabinet positions and other prominent positions.
They've shown the black voters that they do matter and that they will not only stand with them but help their communities have paths to better education and therefore better jobs.
brush
(53,978 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)runaway hero
(835 posts)Why re-litigate the primary?
aikoaiko
(34,186 posts)We know.
Too much income inequality and not enough social justice.
Too much tide raising all boats and not enough about closing gaps.
Too many white people who drive Volvos in his audiences and not enough Black people.
Too many vague promises and not enough jobs in the State Department or funding of initiatives through the Clinton Foundation.
Too many missteps and no love from President Obama or President Clinton.
Too many Bernie Bros and too many Bernie Bros and too many Bernie Bros and too many Bernie Bros.
Did I forget anything?
Oh yeah. How could I forget?
Bernie was such a worthless piece of shit he shouldn't be permitted to speak at public assembly as an invited speaker.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You had a man, and more importantly his supporters, talking extensively about how the system was "rigged". An impression was left, especially by his supporters, that they were just coming to this realization, or that it was some "new" aspect of politics and the economy. The minority communities were a bit on the "no shit Sherlock" side of this, as in "we've been saying this for 50 years". Early comments suggested that the primary problem was an economic one, and these communities were ready to explain that it was vastly more than economic, it was ALSO a serious bias problem on all levels.
Whether these perceptions were true or not, or an accurate representation of Bernie and his supporters, once it was out there, it was hard to reverse. This article explains that the attempts to reverse it failed, but I do wonder if it was even possible to reverse it at all. As many have suggested, this is a community that is used to having to deal with "Johnny come latelys" and one has to start VERY early working on building relationships.
