General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: It tells us nothing at this point that HRC beats Bernie among women and poc. [View all]Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)I'd have said the same thing about polls showing HRC getting 87% support from anybody else.
My point was simply that it's early days...and that well-known people do better in polls than less well-known people. In ANY group. Why is that statement offensive? And how does it reflect white privilege? I'd have made the same comments(and I'm pretty sure I did)about Jesse Jackson doing poorly in polls of white voters(and I AM a white voter) in early 1988.
What meaning do you take from that figure? That the discussion is already over?
Why does it matter where HRC's support is based when Bernie just declared last week?
Can you think of any good reason for AA voters to prefer HRC over Bernie on their personal merits on anti-oppression issues? Other than the at-this-point-meaningless concept of "electability"?
As you see it, does "electability" automatically trump everything else? Even a far-worse record on any number of issues that both poc and LGBTQ voters are concerned about?
If it isn't "electability", than why would she get that support among AA and LGBTQ voters? It's not like she has a particularly good record on the issues both groups care about, and Bernie hasn't done anything to either group that comes remotely close to HRC's defense of DOMA and DADT and her support, while helping form the DLC, of the idea that poc, feminists, and LGBTQ people should be shunned by the party as "special interests".
African-American voters have the right to back whoever they want. So do LGBTQ voters. when have I ever said anything that contradicts that?