Disappointment in Obama leads some African Americans to ask: Is voting even worth it?

[Jesus Malverde]

During those two electric Novembers, the chance to elect a black president, and then keep him in office, seized Regenia Motley’s neighborhood.

Nightclubs were registering voters. Churches held fish fries after loading buses that ferried parishioners to the polls. A truck hoisted a big sign that said “Obama.” And residents waited in long lines at precincts across the community.

But as Motley and some friends sought shade recently under a mulberry tree and looked across the landscape of empty lots and abandoned houses that has persisted here, they wondered whether they would ever bother voting again.

“What was the point?” asked Motley, 23, a grocery store clerk. “We made history, but I don’t see change.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/disappointment-in-obama-leads-some-blacks-to-ask-is-voting-even-worth-it/2015/06/09/5922363c-052b-11e5-bc72-f3e16bf50bb6_story.html

[Egnever]

1. That Washington post always has the scoops!

I bet Ole Rupert had to do some real sleuthing to come up with that one.

[Jesus Malverde]

5. Its owned by Jeff Bezos from Amazon.

Written by - Robert Samuels is a national political reporter who focuses on the intersection of politics, policy and people. He previously covered social issues in the District of Columbia.

[Egnever]

12. Oh well Jeff Bezos

Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2015, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

It definitely was heavily researched.

After all his approval has llikely cratered to somewhere in the 70% range by now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/180176/blacks-approval-president-obama-remains-high.aspx

[Bjorn Against]

2. I wonder when the Washington Post is going to publish an article about whites who ask the same question

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. I could

I have heard this question a few times, from young people from all skin colors and backgrounds

[Bjorn Against]

10. Yes, there are lots of people from many backgrounds who ask that question

The Washington Post singled out black people who ask the same question that has been asked by people of all races and backgrounds. Frustration with the political system is certainly not limited to blacks, there are lots of people who don't vote from all races. The Washington Post article focuses on black people though, it almost seems as if it is meant to discourage black people from voting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Or it could be they are honestly pointing out the frustration from a minority

[Bjorn Against]

19. I will believe that when I see them print the headline...

"White people ask: is voting worth it?"

There are certainly plenty of white people who do ask that question yet I don't think you will be seeing the Washington Post run that headline any time soon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Well I am far more cynical than you are

and I see nothing wrong since I agree with that cashier. I just vote to remain in practice, because it is a waste of my time, truly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. But that's just a coincidence ...

and has nothing to do with the 2016 wooing of the coalition the President Obama put together in 2008 and held in 2016.

[INdemo]

59. If Bernie Sanders would win the nomination

those buses that were filled to travel to the polls would again be full and the Democrats (liberals) that didn't vote in the last two national elections would return to the polls in 2016

[RobertEarl]

3. Bummer

That is bad news.

Of course voting is the only voice most of us have. If we fail to exercise that voice then "THEY" win.

The real problem is the big money in elections. We have a chance for real change being presented us. Lets vote for that.

[merrily]

6. Feel the Bern.

[Hekate]

7. Sounds like whoever the reporter talked to has no idea how politics works. Or at least....

.....that is how he decided to spin it.

[BeyondGeography]

8. Intent to demoralize noted

[Cha]

17. Yes, and many around here are only to happy to oblige corporatemediawhore's intent on just that.

WaPo didn't ask anyone involved with My Brother's Keeper if there's been any "change"..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6808443

[treestar]

55. Yep.

You got it.

[still_one]

9. Maybe West, but most African Americans know exactly what Obama has been up against, and realize what

what he has done against such adversity has been remarkable

[SidDithers]

11. How's he doin?...

Sid

[Cha]

20. Hilarious! Welcome back Sid!

[SidDithers]

23. "Christian Laettner?"...

Thanks, Cha.

Sid

[Cha]

26. I don't know who that is but those people cracked me UP.. I just love that skit!

Thank you

[lovemydog]

85. Christian Laettner was a white basketball

player for Duke when they won back-to-back national championships. He was the only college player on the 'dream team' US Olympics basketball team. He had a pretty good NBA career. A lot of people didn't like him for a variety of reasons, partly 'cause he played for Duke, who many love to hate.

[MohRokTah]

62. .

[lovemydog]

84. 'Have you ever seen a white person at a hotel

when they're told the room isn't ready yet? They act like there's been a death in the family.'

[Cha]

13. Why doesn't the WaPo ask African Americans involved in My Brother's Keeper if Obama has made CHANGE?

"My Brother's Keeper" Feb 27, 2014



Youth Guidance: President Obama Invites BAM Program Back To The White House

President Obama has invited Youth Guidance’s Becoming a Man (B.A.M.) program back to Washington D.C. to kick off a new White House initiative called “My Brother’s Keeper.” Three B.A.M. students from Hyde Park High School, along with B.A.M. Lead Supervisor, Marshaun Bacon, and Youth Guidance Board Member, Stuart Taylor, will visit the White House Thursday and Friday. The President’s initiative will support young male minorities by bringing foundations and companies together to find ways to keep young men in school and out of the criminal justice system.

http://www.youth-guidance.org/president-obama-invites-bam-program-back-white-house/

"Yahoo: Obama Embraces A Lifelong Cause: Helping Minority Boys Succeed"

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-embraces-a-lifelong-cause--helping-minority-boys-succeed-164019997.html

President Obama speaks at the launch of the My Brother’s Keeper Alliance May 4, 2015

And, that's what he's said he's going to do when he leaves office, too..

"Obama’s Retirement Plan: Help Black Kids"

After he leaves the White House, friends say the president will return to his passion: helping African Americans through his My Brother's Keeper Alliance.

What is in Barack Obama’s heart? Underneath that cool exterior, it can be hard to tell. When he leaves office in 2017, he will be a fit 55-year-old with decades of productive life likely ahead of him. How will he use them?

I went to the Bronx on Monday with a hunch that Obama was about to tell us; and I wasn’t disappointed.

MOre~
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/05/how-obama-will-spend-the-rest-of-his-life.html

[Jesus Malverde]

18. I think this is more about pocket book issues

And the renaissance of Americas urban areas, that have not improved the black community. In liberal SF POC are being forced out due to gentrification. The population of AA in particular has declined marketly during the last decade, and there is nothing to reverse that trend.

I think the riots in Baltimore are symptomatic of that dynamic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I think you are correct

based on what we see locally in the inner core.

[LittleBlue]

50. A photo op?

Doesn't begin to address the question of why people in black communities have seen little change. When loyal AA voters wonder why they bothered to vote, speeches and photo ops lose their luster.

[frazzled]

15. Wow, that's some impressive ju-jitsu reporting

One 23-year-old wonders "what good will it do" (23-year-olds tend to have a bit less long-term perspective than the 65-year-old quoted) and the Post reporter extrapolates an entire doomsday scenario.

Pretty neat trick.

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. Losing the House in 2010 killed the chance for more change.

Real change requires legislation and Republicans control all legislation.

What I find sad is the notion that the President can do it by himself.

[jeff47]

22. And that happened because our 2010 campaign theme

was "OMG!! I'M SO SORRY WE PASSED THE ACA!! WE'LL BE MORE LIKE REPUBLICANS FROM NOW ON!!"

[Agnosticsherbet]

25. Emboldened by the tea party fonder by the Koch brothers

In a low turn out election, Republicans won big.

We have a government elected by a majority of those who vote. Democrats did not vote, so Republicans won and we all lost.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

63. And we'll keep getting low turnout elections as long as our candidates keep disappointing voters

who voted for them.

There is no easier way to discourage voters than to constantly offer up candidates who don't do what we need them to in office.

[Agnosticsherbet]

72. Then Republicans will be electeded, and those who don't vote deserve what they get.

If voters get discourage and don't vote, they wanted the worst that can be done to them.

Voting in our system is not like shopping for candy. People will either go the polls and make the difficult choices to elect a government that is a little better, or they will stay home and elect a government that is much worse.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

73. Republicans will be elected because they deliver on their promises.

Those promises may be hateful, cruel, anti-government, anti-democracy, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-human... but they actually deliver on their promises, so their constituents have a reason to vote for them.

And the people who whine that everyone should choose the lesser evil rather than standing up for good candidates, who draw people out to vote will also 'get what they deserve'.

[Agnosticsherbet]

76. If they promise that, and Democrats/liberals/progresives don't vote, then they want what Republicans

promise. We have a government elected by a majority of those who vote. So people who don't vote don't care and have no right to complain about the "hateful, cruel, anti-government, anti-democracy, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-human" because they allowed it to happen.

I never choose the lesser of two evils. That lesser of two evils argument is voter suppression in action. Every time a Republican hears some Democrat use they argument, they laugh all the way to the bank.

I look at the candidates and choose the best of the available candidates. So, I always choose the best candidate on the ballot.

[jeff47]

70. And Democrats did not vote because candidates gave them nothing to vote for.

Candidates are not entitled to votes. Candidates have to earn votes. If a candidate fails to earn enough votes, that's the candidate's fault. Not "lazy stupid voters".

[Egnever]

88. Completely dissagree

People get the government they put in place. There are clear differences between democrats and republicans, hell there are clear differences within each of the parties.

The idea they need to sell you to get you to make a decision on what candidate would be a better fit for you is silly. Government affects your life in very real ways. You should care and get informed and vote regardless of being catered to.

Pretending the candidates need to be flashier or more to your liking in order for you to bother voting is what gets us a billion dollar campaign season.

[jeff47]

91. We do not line up behind leaders.

That's the point in a democracy - leaders have to represent the people. We don't line up behind them and do as they say just because of their position.

Which means it's messy. Politicians have to wrangle the people into backing them. They do not get automatic backing except among a small portion of the electorate.

Government affects your life in very real ways. You should care and get informed and vote regardless of being catered to.

The fallacy of this argument is that people are not lining up because they are uninformed. They are failing to line up because they have been informed that they will not get what they want.

There are nuances in how they will be hurt. But they know they will be hurt and not helped.

Pretending the candidates need to be flashier or more to your liking in order for you to bother voting is what gets us a billion dollar campaign season.

The public at large is not nearly as vapid as you believe when it comes to politics. They see the last 40 years has resulted in shredding the safety net and shitting on everyone with less than a million in the bank. And those acts were accomplished by both parties.

"Vote for me or the demons will get you" does not work for Democratic candidates. Because the voters terrified of demons are in the other party. Democratic candidates have to give a reason for someone to vote for them, not only give reasons to vote against their opponent.

[Egnever]

93. Nonsense

You are responsible for the choices you make and you alone.

Again the people elected to office have real impacts on your life if you can't be bothered to figure out which of the choices you have available is the better choice for you ,that is on you not the politicians.

The idea that it is some sort of sales event is nonsense.

Vote or don't vote it is up to you but pretending it is the politicians fault you don't vote is nonsense.

[jeff47]

94. Not nonsense. Contrast is required to win.

You are responsible for the choices you make and you alone.

So when your choice is "get shit on" or "get shit on, but in a different way", which choice should you take?

Again the people elected to office have real impacts on your life if you can't be bothered to figure out which of the choices you have available is the better choice for you ,that is on you not the politicians.

It does matter if the politician actually wants to win the election. If they don't care about winning, then your strategy is perfect.

The idea that it is some sort of sales event is nonsense.

You've almost reached the 1800s. Keep going and you might arrive at modern politics.

JFK wore makeup so he'd look better in his debate with Nixon. Please explain how that has nothing to do with salesmanship, and instead demonstrates a policy position.

Vote or don't vote it is up to you but pretending it is the politicians fault you don't vote is nonsense.

The politician has a goal: To win the election. To win the election, they need more voters. If they don't get those voters, then the politician failed their goal.

Once again, politicians are not entitled to votes. The way voters fix getting two bad choices is to not vote for either. The solution to that is to give them someone they want to vote for, instead of continuing to give them crappy choices.

[Egnever]

95. More nonsense

So according to your theory the politicians that tell you what you want to hear are the ones that should be elected.

John Edwards was a perfect example of how that theory is tragically flawed.

Yes politicians put on make-up and other nonsense to try to sell themselves to you but if that is what you make your
Voting decisions on I am quite content with you not voting.

Again the people elected affect your life in very real ways.That is what needs to be driven home.

Your example of being shit on by both is nonsense as well. Even if both are shitting on you there are difference's. Those differences are important and can directly impact your life.

Aside from that the idea that a dem and a republican candidate are so similar as to be indistinguishable is yet more nonsense.

Again the idea that politicians are responsible for you not voting is so wrong headed it is difficult to do more than marvel and the absurdities of it.

I do think the fact that people would buy that sort of theory is a perfect indicator of what a pitiful job we do here of educating our citizens on the importance of voting.

[jeff47]

97. Yes, from you.

So according to your theory the politicians that tell you what you want to hear are the ones that should be elected

Nope. You also have to review their record. And when a contrast appears between what they've said and what they've done, the politician is going to need to explain that.

Your example of being shit on by both is nonsense as well. Even if both are shitting on you there are difference's. Those differences are important and can directly impact your life.

When the claimed goal is "bipartisanship" to "get things done", the differences shrink significantly. When both parties want to ram through the TPP, does it matter that Democrats are asking for more "retraining" money? When "retraining" utterly failed with NAFTA and CAFTA? And there's no particular reason to think the TPP would be different?

Yes, Democrats are better on some things. But in the broad picture, anyone without a million in the bank has lost the last 40 years. Losing slightly less makes a marginal difference, and isn't sufficient to get people to the polls anymore. There have been too many broken promises, like "retraining" after NAFTA.

Again the idea that politicians are responsible for you not voting is so wrong headed it is difficult to do more than marvel and the absurdities of it.

People are not voting.

You say you want to change that.

Finding out why they are not voting might be kinda critical, instead you yell "DO YOUR CIVIC DUTY!!!!!!"

The not-voters say they see no difference between the parties - they feel unrepresented whoever wins. Your response it to call them uninformed idiots. My response is, "We need better contrasts between our candidates and the Republicans".

Which one do you think will actually get those voters to the polls so that we can actually win elections, and enact the policies you claim to support?

[Egnever]

98. Still missing the mark

Pretending a single issue defines all candidates is ridiculous.

There are many more issues than the TPP. It is one of hundreds.

As far as the public not being informed well that has absolutely nothing to do with the candidates themselves and much more to do with our American idol media. Laying that at the candidates feet is just not realistic.

A candidate could guarantee a million dollars to every citizen and if the media didn't report on it no one would know.

Pretending Republicans and Democrats are anywhere close to the same on the issues because you can point to something they agree on is willfully ignoring the many issues they don't.

[jeff47]

102. Do I need to link the definition of "example" for you?

As far as the public not being informed well that has absolutely nothing to do with the candidates themselves and much more to do with our American idol media.

Believe it or not, candidates can actually steer the interviews they take. If you'd like an example, take a look at the "dual-citizen" interview Sanders just had.

Pretending Republicans and Democrats are anywhere close to the same on the issues because you can point to something they agree on is willfully ignoring the many issues they don't.

I'll just copy-n-paste part of my last post here, since you haven't bothered to read it yet.

Yes, Democrats are better on some things. But in the broad picture, anyone without a million in the bank has lost the last 40 years. Losing slightly less makes a marginal difference, and isn't sufficient to get people to the polls anymore. There have been too many broken promises, like "retraining" after NAFTA.

But keep yelling at non-voters. Democrats have been doing it since 2000. Hasn't worked yet, but I'm sure it'll start working very soon now.

[Egnever]

103. You keep claiming I am yelling at non voters

I most certainly am not. If people don't want to or can't be bothered to vote that is certainly their prerogative.

Complaints about the government they get when they don't vote is another matter.


As far as the Bernie example goes feel free to point to the legion of potential voters that saw that and cared.

Here's a clue you could walk down the street today and start asking people who Bernie is and more than half of them won't have a clue hell more than half don't know who Joe Biden is and he has been VP for 6 years.

Again the idea that it is the candidates fault we have a clueless uniformed society is nonsense. Our country puts a higher priority on what the kardashians are doing than it does on politics.That is why people don't vote it has little or nothing to do with the candidates or their policy

One need only look at the last election where time after time people voted for liberal balot measures then turned around and voted for people who outright opposed those measures to realize voting in this country has little or nothing to do with candidates and their positions.

[Betty Karlson]

53. True

That was some expert MESS-age.

[Scuba]

58. /\_/\_This_/\_/\

[delrem]

34. No. The Republican right ALWAYS sets the agenda.

Big corporate money RULES.

And people are pissed off. The Dems have to provide an antidote, and as yet they haven't.

And your posts suggest that you want more of it!

[Agnosticsherbet]

36. Read my post again, because you are 100% wrong about what it suggests.

I disagree.

Democrats in charge of he House would have set a different agenda than Republicans. They would not have passed all liberal bills, or progressive if you like that word better, but things would have been different.

There would certainly not have been 56 attempts to repeal the ACA.

Had the voting rights act met the same fate, they would have made changes to the act that would keep it intact.

Those people who did not vote got what they deserved. The rest of us must suffer.

Again, we have a government elected by a majority of those who vote. Those who vote, even if we lose, are responsible citizens who cared to try.

Those who don't vote deserve what they got.

[delrem]

37. You say they would have.

But Dems let themselves be filibustered to death in a way that the Republicans have NEVER experienced.
And there's a reason for that, Agnosticsherbet.
What I don't understand is why you want more of it.

eta: I mean e.g. the TPP. The NSA mess. Just about every damn issue of consequence.
(I guess I just don't share that warm gooey "purple space&quot

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. I don't expect elected members of the party to do everything I think they should.

Elected members are individuals and have different points of view, so any bill is a compromise, even if we have a filibuster proof majority, which is a rare thing.

(Republicans are better disciplined when it comes to that. I think that ideological discipline is a character trait of Conservatives. Democrats are more like a heard of cats.)

I don't share your view of government, which is not warm, gooey, or purple.

[delrem]

42. OK. I see. n/t

[treestar]

56. Yeah wonder if they bothered to vote in midterms

Those who say these things, that is.

[Agnosticsherbet]

74. I have voted in every election since I was old enough to vote.

I look at the candidates, and to the best of my ability choose the best available candidate. My first general election was 1972. I voted for George McGovern.

I never expect to see the best possible candidate on a ballot. I only expect to see those that have applied for the job. I choose the best candidate from the list.

To me, that whole argument of the worst of evils is voter suppression.

[treestar]

90. Amen, voted in every election every two years

since I could, 1980.

[Agnosticsherbet]

92. I also vote in all special elections. Often, in specials, turnout

is under 15%. That low turnout pisses me off. In my district, which is about 53% conservative Republican, that means that means that those issues are dominated by conservatives, and the people who set up special elections know that. It is bad enough when midterms have about 38% of the voters at the polls.

Historically, Conservatives and older voters turn out in midterms and special elections. Sometimes voters get angry enough that they show up. Most of time, the usual suspects vote and we elect Conservatives and Republicans.

Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, and others from center left to far left need to be reliable voters. We cannot manage to elect a good government when we only show up in the General election.

[DJ13]

27. It worked as they expected

Get people excited enough to come out in numbers sufficient to win, then create disillusionment by purposely abandoning large chunks of the platform, and you never have to worry those unneeded people will vote again.

Isnt this a pattern we've seen repeatedly over the last 40 years?

[gratuitous]

29. So it is

I'm just surprised (though a little gratified) that this many posts in, nobody has explained to the benighted disappointeds from the story that if they'd only listened to all the things Candidate and then President Obama said and not just the stuff that gulled them, they wouldn't be quite so disappointed after all; they should have seen it coming. Stoopid 18 year olds!

[delrem]

30. Oh c'mon "... it will be hard to justify the effort of turning out and voting next year

when so little has changed — and some things feel worse."

Voting is an "effort"???
How long does it take? What exertion is there in it?

There's a difference between Barrack H. Obama and George W. Bush just in the FEELING TO BE ALIVE, that makes such a tiny exertion totally "worth it".

Let's not be so passive, people.
And Robert Samuels, jeez man, there's a world out there beyond Hillary and the corporate candidates. Learn and report about it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

31. re: How long does it take...

Long Lines at Minority Polling Places

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/opinion/long-lines-at-minority-polling-places.html?_r=0

[delrem]

35. Yah, I heard about that.

It astounds me. I'm Canadian and there's nothing in my experience similar to the US voting mess, so I guess I wasn't fair.

Still, IMO the election of Barrack Obama was THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
How can people "forget" that??? I haven't a solitary doubt on that, no matter what disappointment set in when the Clinton team seemed to take over putting in their people and make a smooth transition by keeping so many Bush people, and so on and on up to this '16 election when I hope people still have a few hopes and dreams and can learn from the experience?

I dunno. Put in some time for Bernie or for O'Malley, listen to Warren, don't just give up because we all aren't in the smug self-satisfied always winning condition of a supporter of the corporate big money party. Like, this guy Samuels didn't seem able to think beyond Hillary Clinton. What's with that?

[Bluenorthwest]

65. I live in Oregon, we have no voting mess, no lines, no ID requirements, automatic registration and

a two week voting period with paper ballots. Our election turnout in the last election was roughly twice that of the national average.

As a Canadian, it is understandable that you might not know that the States run their elections individually, and the States with lines and voter access problems have those issues entirely because that State sets it up to work that way. They are not required to do so. They do so out by choice.

[Marr]

68. And they do it in extremely targetted ways.

You'll have a well to do, white county with the easiest voting access imaginable, right next to a working class black community with long lines at the voting booths.

[bettyellen]

32. People are sooo weird sitting out the local and pinning their hopes on on branch....

And forgetting their senators and congressmen matter so much. I never understood that.

[betsuni]

33. I ate some cheese and now I have a stomachache. Is cheese even worth it? Thanks, Obama.

[Number23]

38. ...

[Number23]

39. An interesting read. Thanks for posting that.

[uponit7771]

41. Obama has a 84% approval rating among black folk and they find 6 folk who don't pay attention

... cause they think none of us pay attention

[JoePhilly]

77. + 100

[Jesus Malverde]

80. The poll that matters is are you better off than you were ten years ago.

My intuition is 84% would say no.

[uponit7771]

89. Of course not, Bush fucked up the economies of Earth... what does that have to do with Obama?

[akbacchus_BC]

43. Personally, I feel President Obama tried his best

to make the changes he ran for, hence he got elected a second time. Blame the Rethugs for keeping him from doing what he advocated. Those wipes only were interested in making President Obama fail to the detriment of the most vulnerable people of America, the poor people.

President Obama will go down in history in advocating change, the republicans stalled him every which way. Nobody should be disappointed in him, the republicans are the disappointment. I just wish they will take take their white hoods and go away for eternity.

[delrem]

44. I think the major problem was that Obama ran smack into the Clinton machine.

That machine was waiting.
Then Obama appointed HRC as SoS.
That clinched a synthesis of Clinton/Bush war ethics at highest level.

The same thing happened on the economic front.
The Clinton's never left politics, when not actually in office. For example Bill Clinton's speeches to promote free trade with Columbia were always supremely political and had a direct political pay-off. In case you're wondering, yes the trade agreement went through smooth as silk. There's always a payoff.

I don't think the Clinton's have ever been on Obama's side. Not really. I don't think they have Obama's interests at heart.

[pnwmom]

46. Oh, yeah, right. The Rethugs in Congress, the ones who vowed that their only

legislative priority was to defeat every piece of Obama's proposed legislation -- they had nothing to do with it.

It was the "Clinton machine" that stopped Obama from achieving more.

[delrem]

47. Yes. I think you got it. It can't all be blamed on "The Rethugs".

Not when the Dems have the DLC/Third-Way at highest levels working toward the same goals as these "Rethugs".

[pnwmom]

48. Yes, it actually can be blamed on the Rethugs. They were the ones with the votes in Congress,

they were the ones filibustering everything in the Senate.

The Clintons had nothing to do with that.

[delrem]

49. Oh ffs, yes, the "rethugs" who were the ones who stopped the Dems dead in the water,

in a shameful way that's never been seen before, by using the "filibuster".

I recall a Tom Tomorrow cartoon about Dems and "pre-emptively caving", it got so bad the Dems didn't even wait for the notion "filibuster" to enter the air before they "caved".
It was disgraceful.
Yes, I agree, it didn't all have to do with the Clintons.
So ya got me there.

[pnwmom]

45. She doesn't see enough change. She sure would have if Obama had lost to Romney

and they controlled Congress.

[ucrdem]

52. Yep. Bad changes.

Way bad.

[ucrdem]

51. If she's 23 she would have been 16 in 2008 and the voting age is 18 in Florida. FUD fail. nt

[Romulox]

71. Um, there was an election between then and now. But excellent work, otherwise! nt

[JustAnotherGen]

54. Within the article

This article appears to be less about Obama - and more about Clinton.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released last week found that 75 percent of African Americans thought that Clinton understood the problems of “people like you,” as opposed to 91 percent who felt that way about Obama in a survey last fall.

“At least with Obama, he gave pride to our young men and was a good role model,” said Daniel “Happy Jack” Cobb Jr., 73, the owner of Happy Jack’s Grocery and Market on Jacksonville’s north side. “Hillary needs to prove to us that she’s genuine and really true. And I’m not even sure that would help. We’ve been snakebitten too many times before.”

Far from the palm-tree-lined, trendy corridors of this sprawling city in the northeast corner of Florida, some roads on the north side have no sidewalks. The major thoroughfares are home to Family Dollar stores and bail bondsmen and crab shacks that sit between large, fenced-in lots full of shaggy grass. In one area, contaminated soil from a trash incinerator put off plans for a redevelopment project.

Before 2008, many here felt singed by the contentious 2000 presidential election, when thousands of votes cast in the city’s black neighborhoods were among those nullified amid the legal battle that led to Republican George W. Bush’s narrow victory in the state.

Fast Forward to summer 2016 - Cruz has selected Santorum as a running mate . . .

The Democratic leadership committees and PACS start sneaking out there "blah people" commentary -

The Democratic candidate wins.

HRC, Sanders, O'Malley - doesn't matter.

I know there is resistance at DU to the idea that foaming at mouth bigotry came back in January 2009 - but it did. A black man rose to the office of the Presidency and it shattered them to the core. That's why the Right has ran on racism and sexism and homophobism the past few elections. They've won the House and the Senate on taking the country back (from the black man in the White House).

They were rewarded.

We all have a better chance of meeting the tree fairy in the next five minutes than them not using what has worked for them the past 6.5 years in 2016.

Their hatred is our strength.

And I'll be out doing what I always do in Camden, Newark, Irvington, Elizabeth etc etc - and I'll be doing it with 8 years of quotes from the two candidates on the Right. If its Pataki - it's going to be tough. But Bush - I can go all the way back to to 2000 and show he was complicit in the disenfranchisement of black people in Florida.

Don't under estimate the power of being vindictive when GOTV.

This article gives Republicans false hope. The GOTV activists in the black AND Latino urban communities - we can be really vile when it comes to those people over there on the Right.

[MannyGoldstein]

57. LOL! I think once they see the awesome results of the TPP,

they'll be changing their tune.

At least the rich African Americans will.

[JustAnotherGen]

61. No - not the tpp

Foaming at the mouth racist bigots have secured the black vote in 2016. TPP isn't an issue - it's those hateful people that lost their minds because a black man beat two white guys twice.

The best thing any Democratic Candidate has going for them in 2016 is that 'those people' over there are hateful bigots who wipe their noses on their sleeves.

I've no kind words for bigots and don't care if I get a hide for calling the IndieTeaPublican racists out for what they are.

That should be acceptable at Democratic Underground.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. They could have left 'African' out of that title.

or changed 'blacks' to 'people' if that was the word they used.

It's obvious they went looking to write this specific story, sort of like all the 'black on black' crime articles. They wanted to portray it as 'blacks' losing faith in the President, when such disappointment spans all skin tones.

[JustAnotherGen]

64. One more step

It's about Clinton. This is insane.

They are SO certain she has it in the bag.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

66. Then it's rather pointless.

Clinton has been upfront about where she stands for decades. There are no real 'surprises' to disappoint voters. They might not be into her, but she's not going to magically morph from what she already is once in office, nor is she a 'blank slate' for people to project their hopes for change onto.

[JustAnotherGen]

67. Exactly - she isn't going to 'morph' into something new

But the 'they' - is WaPo - and the 'right'.

Every single person in that clown car over there on the right? They are already crafting their campaigns around running against Clinton in the GE. I just don't believe it's a 'given' that she wins.

[Hotler]

69. Hell I'm white and I'm asking myself the same question.

As long as the Wall St. crooks and the war criminals still walk free I have no hope. I see no future.

[Prism]

75. Ferguson proved voting is always worth it

The people got fed up, got out there, and initiated needed change in their community.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/ferguson-election/

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. Oh, lookey, they found the Cornel West constituency. I understand they're HUGE.

[lovemydog]

86. Ha!

Primarily snarky white folks who try to convince others not to vote. Weak sauce.

[Tarheel_Dem]

87. ^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^

[BlackClouds]

79. Not voting leads to no change

This idea that voting leads to no change, we can see the results from not voting and participation in the political system and that's seen in off year elections. The next election is always the most important, that's the audience politicians are working for. Far as progressives matters go, that off year electorate is whiter and more consevative, so you get more conservative policy. It really is that simple.

Basically, people are sold a lie that they don't matter, even given evidence that their vote does matter. Millions being spent to keep certain folks from voting should be proof enough that their vote does matter. Also the lie that the President does it all. All those American myths about the superhuman, iconic President has taken its toll. You can see that even on liberal blogs where FDR is spoken of as the ultra progressive, funny how his reforms weren't meant for Blacks, a political compromise rarely talked about, FDR has to be the perfect standard to bash president Obama.

This article is a fantasy though, hoping Blacks won't turn out. I'm not concerned about that in presidential elections, just the off year elections.

[BumRushDaShow]

82. ^^THIS^^

[davidn3600]

100. The more things change the more they stay the same

As the old saying goes.

America is run by the two political parties who are both controlled by the same class of people....the rich and corporations.

[BumRushDaShow]

81. They never ask the follow-up question

What have you done or what will YOU do to make change in the community in which you live?

There is an oft-played excerpt of an oratory by Fannie Lou Hamer from 1964 run by Joe Madison on his radio show that goes -

You can pray until you faint. But if you don't get up and try to do something, God is not gonna put it in your lap.

<...>

And there's no need in running and no need in saying 'Honey I'm not gonna get in the mess', because if you are born in America with a black face, you're born in the mess.

http://www.jsums.edu/hamerinstitute/resources/flhspeeches/ (also a youtube videos of her speeches)

It doesn't matter who is "in charge" at the top. YOU have to be "in charge" in the place that you live.

[Jesus Malverde]

83. Good point...nt

[Zorra]

96. The solution? Vote for Bernie Sanders, the candidate for everyone but the bad guys. nt

[Jesus Malverde]

99. It seems a good choice.

[YOHABLO]

101. In all fairness, Obama has had to deal with the dumbest set politicians throughout his Presidency.

Perhaps we are left scratching our heads on many of his decisions, but you have to give him some credit. People who think just voting for a President is going to bring some sea of change are fooling themselves. It's the voters responsibility to educate themselves about the issues and how they affect their lives. You have to participate more than just registering to vote. There are many who do not know who there elected officials are.