2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy do white men support Bernie disproportionately?
Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)
In New York, the one demographic Bernie won was white men (and one can guess especially straight white men), a group he won handily according to exit polls (61%-39%).
It's also my guess that some of the fiercest opponents of Hillary among Bernie supporters are white men. I think there are a variety of reasons for the disparity. One can't deny that JFK got some extra Catholic support because he was Catholic, that Obama got some extra black support because he was black, and that Hillary is getting some extra support from women because she is female. I got news for you: The same logic holds for white men. A lot of of them support Bernie because he's a guy, because they have mommy issues, or because they are sexist. There is no other logical reason for the disparity. Is there?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)Clinton have issues with Bernie's religion!
rock
(13,218 posts)I want to know.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Also remember the fact that they are frightened of going to hell if they don't vote for her. Most of her supporters are low information voters who do not understand that being a warmonger corporatist is not good for the country. So they end up voting for a Bush ally.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)If not, you are effectively claiming that on average women and minorities are lower information voters than white males.
Please tell me that is not what you just typed.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)this thread haven't you, not just my response?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)of a female President! Thanks for the information.
insta8er
(960 posts)1) Sexism. This was the biggest one we were supposed to push. We had to smear Bernie as misogynistic and out-of-touch with modern sensibilities. He was to be characterized as "an old white male relic that believed women enjoyed being gang raped". Anyone who tried to object to this characterization would be repeatedly slammed as sexist until they went away or people lost interest.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3rncq9/confession_of_hillary_shill_from/
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)We all know he's got a problem with diveristy. That's no news. Been discussed to death on this site. Tell me, can you guess why that might be? I'm wondering what you think?
And after you answer that, think about why women would tend to vote for a woman... My opinion would make a lot of people mad.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)Bernie doing far better, 52/48, maybe even winning NYS Primary?
Those exit pools? Okay, but if we are going to use those exit polls we should be ready to investigate why the vote got flipped.
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)The 52/48 number was not drawn by those who collected the data. That number was created by CNN and they were the ONLY ones who used that number.
Please look at the data sets. They are the same because all media outlets used the same exit poll data. The results were manipulated by CNN for the sake of drama and ratings. Other outlets used the same data set and somehow only CNN pulled that number out of their ass from that data set.
Coincidentally, they also had a cool new little light show on the top of the Empire State they wanted to show off when the races were called on each side. Not too impressive if they called them both (D&R) right away right? Also who's going to stick around and watch after both races are called? They drew it out until even a properly educated high-school graduate could look at the numbers and figure it out. It was ludicrous.
Again, please look at the data sets. Exit polling clearly indicated it was Hillary's night, easily, and not by any small margin.
NYT - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-primary-democratic-exit-polls.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
CNN - http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ny/Dem
52/48 is a number they pulled out of their ass because
1. Who would keep watching if they called the race immediately? Ratings.
2. They had their goofy lightshow thingy to show off on the Empire State. Coincidentally they turned it blue RIGHT BEFORE Hillary's speech. Very dramatic.
Anyone who has taken even one semester of statistics can just glance at the data and easily see the expected result. You don't even need to run the numbers. It was blatantly, in-your-face obvious that Hillary was going to have a stellar night.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Voting for or against someone because of gender is sexist. Voting for or against someone because of race is racist.
I'm a white man who voted for a black man is 1968 GE for president. I'm a man who voted for a woman for president in 2012 GE.
I will probably vote for a woman in the 2016 GE....but not because she's a woman, but because she's a progressive.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Otherwise, I do wonder why anyone would be a member of a forum called "Democratic Underground" yet not vote for the Democrat in the GE.
From the TOS:
Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)It says not to advocate for them on DU. So, unless you have some proof that the poster did just that, your post is meaningless.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, I do intend to vote for Democrats in my state for congress.
I'm not advocating that anyone vote for any party, or candidate. I'm advocating that they, like me, will vote for the candidate they prefer.
In my state, we don't register by party. Anyone can affiliate with any party, or no part, at any time they choose.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson (D)
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams (D)
moriah
(8,311 posts)But until we do have ranked choice voting, failing to vote at the top of the ticket in thenGeneralbs failing to cancel a vote for the GOP.
Your choice is your own, but until that change is made, it may be a vote based upon principle but is still likely voting against your own self-interest -- unless you already feel your vote is useless because of not being in a battleground state.
If Hillary wins the nomination my state (Arkansas) might actually be at play, but despite that I still work to do what I can to get our nominee voted in. I might not really have been making a huge difference when I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 in the General, but I did what I could by phonebanking.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)3rd party candidates typically have little to no impact. If you don't live in a battleground state (and the vast majority of people don't), a vote for Jill Stein isn't likely to have any impact on the results. I voted Green in '08 and '12 and will do so again in '16, not only as a form of protest but also because I'd like to see the Green Party candidate get a high enough percentage that the party can receive federal matching funds for future elections. Because that would make the political system healthier.
I live in a pretty solidly 'blue' state, so my not voting for Clinton isn't going to matter. In down-ticket races, I will no doubt vote for some Democrats.
Unicorn
(424 posts)Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Forget anything else in your background, only the color of your skin matters. You managed to hit multiple sickening racist tropes in the same OP and then decided that some name calling needed to be thrown in as well.
As a white male, I can tell you exactly why I voted for Bernie and do not like Hillary. I grew up poor. Not just a little poor, but homeless at times. We lived on food stamps and government food giveaways. I know to this day that I would have never survived if it hadn't been for the help our family received. Fast forward to now and the gap between those who have and those who don't have has grown extensively since my childhood and it has left more and more people in the same situation as our family, if not worse. Bernie supports the ideas and the policies that will help these people and allow them to succeed as I have been able to succeed. He supports the $15 minimum wage and he supports it now. He speaks to the economic justice this country requires to move us forward on many levels. Meanwhile, Hillary is the antithesis of this and will do nothing to help this group of people, in many cases even growing their ranks (see: TPP).
That's why I support Bernie Sanders. Why do you support Hillary? Because you love seeing murdered children in other countries?
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Race issues are created by the majority, not the minority. Race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. matter because those in power (white men) insist on it. Look at history if you want proof.
I am not saying that all Bernie supporters support him for the wrong reasons. There are many good reasons to support him, and many good reasons to support Hillary. And, it's certainly valid to ask why PoC support Hillary in large numbers, and it's just as valid to ask why white men support Bernie in such large numbers. Perhaps you should ask what you might be missing?
I barely support Hillary over Bernie, but support her because she actually has a solid liberal record, is marginally stronger than Bernie on minority and women's rights (he has a few better better votes, but she has a better record of accomplishment), and I think having a woman president would be a dramatically positive event for little girls, just as the election of Obama was so positive for young blacks.
insta8er
(960 posts)Model, they care too much about our environment and as such have a hard time understanding why someone would be promoting fracking. She has a lot more negatives , but this seems to be the one that they feel most passionate about.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Based on what?
Response to oberliner (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Over ten million voter, so far disagree...
And of course, there's this:
Most Admired Woman in World, Record 20th Time Gallup, December 2015
http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Americans again name Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama the woman and man living anywhere in the world they admire most. Both win by wide margins over the next-closest finishers.
And then there's this international poll...
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/these-are-the-most-admired-people-in-the-world--xJ9bGsWhje
Bill Gates and Angelina Jolie are the most admired man and woman in the world in 2015, according a new poll, with Barack Obama, Xi Jinping, Malala Yousafzai and Hillary Clinton polling closely behind them.
Despite what folks like you are posting all over social media, the world knows her worth!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107106898
Response to HillareeeHillaraah (Reply #42)
Name removed Message auto-removed
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)to post how little you think of anyone with an opinion different than yours?
Whoa, hope the rest of your day gets better...try reading some LOLcats ~ that always cheers me up...
Peace
Response to HillareeeHillaraah (Reply #44)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Bill Gates is famous for talking other billionaires into donating at least half their wealth to charitable causes rather than leaving it to their children
Try this -http://www.forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2012/09/05/the-real-reason-bill-gates-the-world-will-remember-bill-gates-hint-its-not-windows-8/#4f25f0c74f49
There's more to be done in this world than legalizing pot, IMO ~
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)My reading list is quite expansive. It covers everything from Aristophanes to Zelazny.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)i know he's become part of the solution ~
But he doesn't, what....pass your purity test?
Good luck with that, dude ~
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)That's funny. But I don't hang out with those that seek power for power's sake.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Your 'sinners and saints' was a little off topic in our back and forth.
Where are you going with this? Are you conceding the point that Bill Gates has done remarkable philanthropic work? That he's created something significant in getting billionaires to use their money - giving it rather than storing it or saving it for their children?
((Do you get much opportunity to hang out with "power for powers sake people" or is that just a claim of what you would do, given the chance? That's just my curiosity...no matter though. It's the Internet after all. Who knows what's real or not, right?))
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)You brought out "purity test"-that was my response to that.
I know enough about power trips, having seen and experienced it. There are things I've experienced that still haunt my dreams almost 50 years later.
When I see someone willing to say or do just about anything to get what they want they're no friend of mine.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Gates does not pass your purity test and as such his goods works are to be dismissed. How limiting an ideal you have there.
And power is bad. Got it.
You do get that elected leaders are by virtue of the republic in which we live, powerful people. One needs elected power to lead, to enact laws, to influence change.
So I guess you're not against power per se, you're just against anyone but Sanders having it?
Do you think if Sanders had managed to win the nomination and then the presidency, do you think he would find the role of the most powerful position on the planet to be a burden, perhaps disavow and dismantle the "power for power's sake" perks that come with it? Maybe start by gettting rid of the White House chef and make his own lunch? Or end the costly practice, pomp and circumstance of state dinners (talk about power speaking to power, eh?) maybe have, I dunno - pizza nights instead. I mean, that's a gesture of the people, right?
Do you think he'd find the mantle of having to travel on Air Force One to be burdensome and ostentatious or do you think he'd get a little bit of a rush from the power of it all?
Think he'd skype the state of the Union? It would save time and money. No, I'd bet he would have enjoyed all the cheering and the clapping, the power of holding all those powerful people's attention, simply because he held more power than them by virtue of the title he wanted, badly.
He certainly seems to be enjoying the power of his current gig. I mean, I can't take a bunch of my family members to Rome for an overnight on someone else's dime. I don't know anybody who can pull that off...
'Course now that was a hell of a power trip, amirite?
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)You got me!
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)billionaires and especially Gates operate their "philanthropy." It's hardly altruistic. I'm not surprised Clinton supporters would admire Gates' philanthropy. The Clinton Foundation operates the same way.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)Beowulf
(761 posts)of the Gates Foundation's work in education or long time health workers in Africa think about Gate's work on malaria. The money always flows back to Gates' friends and cronies - just like the Clinton Foundation.
I read Brock is paying $20/hr. Interesting. I thought Hillary thinks $12/hr is sufficient.
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)yeah, all I need to do is remember that Hillary has got this.
I read Brock is paying $20/hr. Interesting. I thought Hillary thinks $12/hr is sufficient.
Huh? You think I'm a paid troll.....well, that's expected. That's in the dudebro handbook for ending a losing debate, right?
I'm done. Good luck with the revolution. You can have the last word here.
Beowulf
(761 posts)but your delusions are going to saddle this country with precisely the wrong person to address our most pressing problems.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)For example, chemical giant Monsanto has partnered with the Gates Foundation, which reportedly works to suppress local seed exchanges and environmentally sustainable agricultural practices through its global agricultural charity work. Fraud-prone drug giant GlaxoSmithKline
is a partner in the Foundation's work to leverage its own relatively fractional contribution to vaccination efforts, so that it centrally controls enormous world funds for purchase, pricing, and delivery of vaccines for world public health. And in its U.S. education reform charity work, the Gates Foundation has increasingly shifted its funding to promote market domination by its British corporate education services partner, Pearson Education.
The Gates Foundation, and Gates personally, also own stock and reap profits from many of these same partner corporations. In addition, the Foundation owns a profit-generating portfolio of stocks which would seem to work against the Foundation's declared missions, such as the Latin American Coca-Cola FEMSA distributorship and five multinational oil giants operating in Nigeria. These corporate investments, now moved to a blind trust whose trustees are Bill and Melinda Gates, are collaterally supported by the Foundation's tax-free lobbying and advocacy activities.
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/07/the_gates_foundations_leverage.html
HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Despises her for that?
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Response to grossproffit (Reply #39)
Name removed Message auto-removed
insta8er
(960 posts)The mistakes from our generation. My 20 year old is trying to address this now as I am.
hack89
(39,171 posts)she is going meet a lot of people in life that disagree with her - kids need to learn at an early age not to personalize disagreement but instead to look for common ground. We are all in this together.
insta8er
(960 posts)kids are our future. While our generation keeps on making the same mistakes over and over and expect a different outcome, they will force that change.
hack89
(39,171 posts)insta8er
(960 posts)"grown" up ones can't. And by the way, she also doesn't think Trump is that much better...she has several Mexican friends and feels the need to stand up for them as well.
hack89
(39,171 posts)you have to hate someone before you can despise them. It is your responsibility to teach your children that they can oppose someone without hatred. There is too much hatred in the world.
insta8er
(960 posts)Individual who has been in trouble all of her live, while making excuses and blaming others for her failures. Please start taking a good look in the mirror before you come and tell me what to do!
hack89
(39,171 posts)I know it is falling on deaf ears - it would appear that apple didn't fall far from the tree based on the tenor of your replies. But I have to try.
I have said my piece and won't bother you anymore. Peace out.
insta8er
(960 posts)I will hone their skills so they can see them coming a mile away. I believe this to be an important live lesson as I do not want them to be abused by nobody!
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Does she know his position on fracking?
Unicorn
(424 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Lancero
(3,011 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Since a lot of Sanders's message is about wage stagnation, it makes sense that it would resonate better with the demographics it applies to than the demographics it doesn't.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)What's Clinton going to do for him?
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... since white men have had to compete in a more equal playing field that have not been automatically handed the plum jobs, so they are angry. The enlightened ones are supporting Sanders, the unenlightened ones are supporting Trump. Perhaps that also in a way explains the distrust that many minorities have for Sanders -- that in some ways he is appealing to the self-interest of white men.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, we've got people explicitly praising the economy of the 1950s... not exactly an easy sell to minorities.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...is not the way to bring about a much needed "political revolution." See post #15.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)death rates of white people. There's definitely some frustration out there specific to white people.
It's interesting because in absolute terms, economically white people are better off than minorities, but there's something about human psychology that doesn't just judge things in absolute terms. Like if you move from a small house to a medium house, you feel good about it, but if you move from a big house to the same medium house, you feel bad about it.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It's hard to feel happy, fulfilled and successful when your father could support the family (on 33% more income) while you cannot.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)To the extent that the pay gap has closed, it is entirely for this reason.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)...to deny that racial justice and economic justice are 2 distinct entities. They're probably more likely to either deny or underestimate white (male) privilege.
The Sanders campaign is and always has been a message campaign, and the message isn't wrong, per se. In fact, he's mostly right when it comes to matters of political corruption and the plutocratic nature of US government. Some of his supporters, though, have gone off into grand conspiracy land. And some of his supporters have suggested that a Trump presidency would be preferable to a Clinton presidency, which not only strikes me as insane but also insulting to persons of color, given Trump's bigotry.
But the truth in Bernie's message aside, there will be no comprehensive "political revolution" without persons of color at the forefront. And, though it may seem counterintuitive, millennials (who comprise a large block of Sanders' supporters) are among the most ignorant when it comes to matters of race and the history of race relations in the US. 2 articles on that topic:
1) "Millennials Are More Racist Than They Think"
2) "Is the Millennial Generation's Racial Tolerance Overstated?"
classof56
(5,376 posts)And thanks for the links.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)That anyone can be pro-war and claim to be a feminist at the same time, is fucking absurd.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Thank your grand-mamas later. Leslie Stahl on Maher this week: "She's the biggest hawk of all of them."
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Unicorn
(424 posts)men supporting Bernie because he is a guy.
So since you agree it's wrong - quit supporting Hillary because she's female and start supporting candidates on their record.
I'm supporting Bernie because of his record, not because of his gender. Hillary's record in inverted from Bernies. Her current campaign lies that she stands for all Bernie does and "always did" falls to pieces when you google her history. Bernie's holds up. That's why I'm supporting him.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... Just as white rights groups say that whites should have advocate for their rights just like blacks do, you are making the same point about white men. White men don't really need a lot of advocacy since it's built into the system. Women and minorities don't have that advantage. Didn't mean to suggest that every white guy who supports Bernie has some issues, just that the disparity to me suggests that Bernie is getting a good amount of support from white men who may not be supporting him for the right reasons.
As far as Hillary goes, if you look at the objective record, not the distorted one created by here left and right political foes, she has a pretty good record, certainly more activist than Bernie (who merely voted right), but not always as progressive.
Response to Onlooker (Reply #28)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)of his convictions, whereas others for some reason are running from the Trump monster and think for some reason that Hillary of all people can save them.
She can't. Bernie can. And he is saying and doing the right things so much that Hillary has borrowed practically all his platform.
Now, if she would stick with it, I might even be happy to support and vote for her. I don't trust that she will, and I am very disappointed in the rest of you that you probably won't care when she "pivots back towards the ever rightward leaning illusionary center". Even when and if she loses a good proportion of people who are attracted to the Progressive ideas that have gotten them this far.
Why oh why do people cling onto such false ideas as "the mythical center". We constantly underestimate how Progressive the views and beliefs and ideals of the American people are.
braddy
(3,585 posts)and it usually shocks people.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Not only did Nixon do better with women, he also did better with college-educated voters (by a lot), and independents (also by a lot).
braddy
(3,585 posts)PaulaFarrell
(1,236 posts)Have 'daddy' issues? Or are sexist? Your premise is many things, but logical is not one of them.
Response to Onlooker (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)Her approval here among White Women is shit.
They are either unimpressed with her or just don't like her.
The women in the Latino and AM communities support her but that is it.
Many would vote for Bernie but Not Hillary. The Latino and AM communities would vote Bernie if he wins the nod.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)I am glad I amazed you
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)How is it possible he lost?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)carpetbagger.
Never voted for Sec. Clinton in the primaries and never will!
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)The ones I know are mostly veterans.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Divide the nation by gender and race (ethnicity), and exploit differences and set them against each otehr. Make it all about what gender and race you are -- and downplay the commonalities people have in terms of economic and political power.
Because she is a woman, sell the message that you're a sexist Berniebro if you don't support her.
Because she is known among AA's and Sanders is not known, spread the meme that Bernie "has a problem" with AA's. Do likewise with Latinos.
Stifle the common interests all those "demographics share", and emphasize the divisions.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Bernie's coalition consists of demographics who are doing radically worse than their counterparts were doing 40 years ago -- and they're voting for the radical.
Hillary's coalition consists of demographics who, year by year, have been doing incrementally better than their counterparts were doing 40 years ago -- and they're voting for the incrementalist.
I doubt it's quite that simple, but I do think that's a lot of it.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)they're splitbetween demographics that are in both categories, and thus, their votes are split.
(It's important to note that this is the first generation in a while where 18-29 voters are economically insecure as a group as its own)
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)Squinch
(50,990 posts)due to institutionalized racism and sexism.
The Sanders demographic has lost SOME (certainly not all) of it's unearned advantages, and they think they are being persecuted.
I won't even say welcome to the world the rest of us have lived in forever, because white men are still unfairly advantaged. They are just less advantaged than they have always been. And they can't stand it.
In this sense, Sanders's appeal to the put-upon white man is not radical. It comes from Sanders's refusal to believe that social issues are not the same as economic issues which benefits these men while ignoring the challenges everyone else faces. And in that sense it is not radical at all. It is a complete throwback to an earlier, much more unfair, time.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)I certainly agree that what much of the Bernie demographic has experienced (myself included) has been a loss of relative privilege rather than persecution. But I think our support is motivated by a desire to (1) yes, have that privilege restored and (2) have it extended to all people. The progressive in me wants that to be possible; the historian in me has doubts.
Squinch
(50,990 posts)economic issues matter, and that all boats rise on a rising tide, works against the interests of women and people of color.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Squinch
(50,990 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In the last 40 years, they've lost ground by almost every metric; health, education, income, etc.
Squinch
(50,990 posts)men have lost ground because opportunities have opened up for women and people of color and now men must compete for those opportunities.
They still don't have to deal with what the rest of us have to deal with, but they do have to deal with more.
Your example: medium wage. Men do earn much less than they used to. They still, overall, make more than women and people of color in the same jobs.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Squinch
(50,990 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Squinch
(50,990 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)And a sense of humor is a helpful thing -- if you can distinguish satire from real life.
Svafa
(594 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)and white men, generally, aren't as concerned about the topics of racism and sexism as they are about economics - because they're not as affected by racism and sexism as POC and women are.
Sid
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)But it needs a candidate that is better at working with people, and compromising while disagreeing amicably, and it needs to understand that different marginalized groups experience class differently in a way that a politician must address.
Response to Onlooker (Original post)
Post removed
Squinch
(50,990 posts)randr
(12,414 posts)Do the math.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)you may as well come out and say it explicitly
I'm sure with enough name-calling all the white men will see the light and become Hillary converts
beedle
(1,235 posts)especially in NYS since they made it next to impossible for the 'bitter sexist' white male independents to vote at all.
I blame the Democratic party for cultivating this 'sexism' we are seeing from Democrats.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)kcjohn1
(751 posts)She is a woman? Maybe woman are disproportionally voting for her because of her sex and looking not past her gender.
Maybe men are voting her on the basis of her policies and that is why she is not popular with them.
I don't subscribe to this theory but this is just as likely as those suggesting that men are being sexist towards her and that is why she is not getting those votes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)SOME white men feel we have been focusing on everyone else and this is their turn.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)My son, also a feminist, is supporting HRC. A neighbor, a gay man, wants Bernie but will vote for HRC if Bernie doesn't make it, just like me.
We've got a mix here and yet we have no acrimony. Everybody gets along fine!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Lol. Thanks for breaking it down. All mine are all over and consistently going HRC. None Sanders. Youngest was Sanders for a moment. And I really do not talk about it with mine, so not about my influence.
But, that your guys went as they did.
For sure, Clinton does get men and millennium votes. It is not like Sanders gets a 100%. But, Sanders does have a demographic and What I hear is white, men, middle and upper middle, youth.
dmosh42
(2,217 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,974 posts)I've been wondering why women over the age of 60 support Hillary but I never realized there's an acceptable # of older women allowed to support her. Same with African Americans who also seem to support her in large numbers for no other reason than name recognition or "she's been with us from the beginning". While I've thought it strange that they support the Clintons not for any specific policy of theirs - I've never realized that this is a correct proportion they are allowed to have.
Things you learn on DU.
actslikeacarrot
(464 posts)And since this must be the place that we speculate wildly about a large groups of peoples motives, I can only assume that hillary supporters love war and actively support it. Armchair psychology is fun!
Last edited Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)
White men are simply smarter than everyone else.
Honestly, I don't see anything controversial here.
2banon
(7,321 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)But they aren't substantively the same, and we have to assume at least some people supporting these candidates are basing their support on the issues, and not skin or gender.
Throd
(7,208 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)and a black supporting Obama is racist.
Or all this is just intellectually dishonest name calling.
basselope
(2,565 posts)" Bernie won was white men (and one can guess especially straight white men)"
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)That's an extrapolation of data not a prejudiced assumption.
http://fortune.com/2016/04/19/poll-gay-voters-overwhelmingly-support-hillary-clinton-in-new-york/
basselope
(2,565 posts)"An informal, unscientific survey"
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)It's a 48-41 split in a very small poll sample.
Did the women in the poll go heavily for Clinton and the male go heavily for Bernie?
Just more assumptions on what "gay men" think and lumping them in with ALL gay people.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Onlooker
(5,636 posts)I do. I'm gay. And my comment was simply based on the fact that the most recent polls on the subject (from February) show Hillary leading among gays, and I know a lot of gay people, and they seem to lean more towards Hillary than Bernie. Also, I was born and lived for almost 30 years in New York. But, I had no hard data on how gays actually voted, that's why I took a guess.
And frankly, it's difficult for me to see how you could read homophobia into what I wrote, especially given the FACT that Bernie has not accomplished one fucking thing for gays while he was in Congress, but the Clintons, despite their missteps, accomplished a lot (asylum for oppressed gays, blocking Congress from banning gay adoption, end to discrimination in federal contracts, etc.). (Do you believe that Bernie supporters think his vote against DOMA was an accomplishment? Not only was the vote useless, he made no public statements about it at the time, except to indicate that he would have supported DOMA if gay marriage was left up to the states -- the same position Ted Cruz has today.)
basselope
(2,565 posts)And those polls (mentioned up thread) have already been debunked since it didn't break down by gender AND they were VERY close (41% for Sanders 48% for Clinton). IF the male/female vote split similarly as with the rest of voters, that means he is likely winning the white gay male vote. But, that is an IF. The assumption (and the homophobic statement) was ASSUMING that the people supporting Sanders are not gay.
Sanders was there for the gay community, LONG before the Clinton's came along. He was for gay marriage before them, gays in the military before them. He voted AGAINST DOMA and you couldn't be more wrong about his same sex marriage stance.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/29/chuck-todd/nbcs-chuck-todd-bernie-sanders-there-same-sex-marr/
So, please, save the homophobia for someone who doesn't know better.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)Sanders ONLY accomplishment for gays was ending housing discrimination in liberal Burlington, VT. He NEVER spoke out against DOMA though he voted against it. He NEVER supported gay marriage until the Vermont legislature approved it. He was irrelevant to gay history. Yes, he was pro-gay, but being pro-gay in VT doesn't take any courage.
The Clintons were pro-gay on a national scale in the age of the religious right, the Christian Coalition, Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, and state after state amending their constitutions to outlaw gay marriage. Consider the fact that Barney Frank, the first openly gay Congressperson, proposed an amendment to DOMA (which Bernie supported) to leave marriage up to the individual states. That's Ted Cruz' position today, so it just shows how homophobic those times were. But, in those times, Bill Clinton actively sought out gays in his campaign, dramatically increased AIDS research and education funding, outlaws discrimination in federal jobs against people with HIV or AIDS, outlawed discrimination against gays by government contractors, appointed 150 openly gay people including an ambassador, spoke about gays in a State of the Union address, and Hillary marched in a gay pride parade and successfully blocked Congress from outlawing gay adoption when she was first lady. Also, Bill Clinton proposed admitting gays into the military, but met such a backlash by Sam Nunn (the Democratic Chair of the Senate Armed Service Committee) that he was forced to accept DADT or else Congress would pass a measure outlawing gays in the military. The right-wing Newt Gingrich struck again by getting DOMA passed by vetoproof margins. Why did it pass by such numbers? Because the vote was 6 weeks before the national election, so in those homophobic times only liberals from liberal areas voted for it. The Clinton's were great on gay rights, and that's why so many gays support them. Yes, DADT and DOMA were defeats, but that's part of any struggle. Neither the Clintons nor Sanders played any role whatsoever in gay marriage. They all dragged their feet until the battle had already been won.
I'd also add something else that history seems to have forgotten: Bill Clinton was a vocal proponent of affirmative action, even though Congress and the Supreme Court were ripping it to pieces. That's one of the big reasons the Clinton's have so much support in the PoC community.
basselope
(2,565 posts)You just couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Sanders spoke out against DOMA. Sanders was pro-gay marriage BEFORE it was popular (I gave you the link to his history and Politifact finding it TRUE.) And being "Pro gay in VT" takes A LOT of courage, which is why Dean nearly lost his election after being forced to sign the civil union bill (done without ceremony and in the dead of night).
The Clinton's were responsible for DOMA, don't ask don't tell and the provision in DOMA was LESS RESTRICTIVE than DOMA, which forbid gay marriage on a national level.
So please, sell the Clinton's somewhere else, b/c they have certainly not been a friend to the gay community.
Svafa
(594 posts)I hang out mostly with artists and activists, so I know that my perceptions are skewed because the people I talk to most often are significantly to the left of the general population. But I know a lot of people in the LGBTQA+ community, and every one of them supports Sanders. Again, most of the people I know regardless of demographics support Sanders, but I wonder why you would assume that he has the straight white male vote but not the gay white male vote? Since sexual orientation and gender identity aren't actually addressed in the polls, what is the basis of the assumption?
apcalc
(4,465 posts)white men have to compete with everyone else now....
Is 'white male privelege'. disappearing?
The country is changing....for the better.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)White men are not losing money and power...in fact they have gained money under Obama.
The Koch Brothers (one of which practically endorsed Hillary, by the way) increased their wealth under this president.
Meanwhile the wealth of minorities has actually decreased under Obama. The gap between the rich and poor is increasing. So I'm not sure where you think "white male privilege" is decreasing. You will never reach your social equality goals without economic equality. The type of equality that Bernie Sanders knows is required.
Just because you put a black woman on the $20 bill and a black man in the White House doesn't mean the social hierarchy has changed at all. And this is something progressives are apparently going to have to learn the hard way. White men control the vast majority of wealth on this planet. That hasn't changed under Obama. And I guarantee you that it won't change under Hillary.
Response to apcalc (Reply #133)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Urchin
(248 posts)I'm a white guy, and I support Bernie Sanders.
But if Elizabeth Warren were running instead of Bernie Sanders, I'd support Elizabeth Warren.
Maybe the question should be why don't more women support Bernie Sanders--is it because he's a man?
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)Rob H.
(5,352 posts)along with preferring a candidate with consistent views rather than one willing to blatantly copy whichever of her opponent's positions are getting the most support from voters.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Because Obama only got 39% of the white men vote.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)That's my guess.