2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders tries to meet with Black leaders but nobody shows up: Only 6 CBC members attended
I saw a question on the bernie page and decided to provide a report on the attempt at a meeting held by Sanders with the Congressional Black Caucus http://www.salon.com/2015/09/11/bernie_sanders_ties_to_met_with_black_leaders_and_nobody_shows_up_only_6_congressional_black_caucus_members_attend/
According to Politic365, the meeting took place outside the Capitol Building so that the members could talk politics and election strategy in depth. And according to the invitation, the meeting was meant to serve as overview of CBC priorities and a conversation on pressing issues impacting the African American community.
Sanders, whose campaign has been beleaguered by accusations of racial tone-deafness, did address the systemic problems facing minority communities, according to one senior aide to a CBC member....
Although Sanders has seen his poll numbers surge in the first two early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, two states with a very small African-American electorate, hes hardly gained traction in the third primary state, South Carolina. A new PPP poll found Clinton leading Sanders 66 to 12 percent in the state with 78 percent of African-American voters holding a positive view of the former secretary of state. 27 percent of African-American Democrats support Sanders in the Palmetto state.
One of the CBC members who attended was Sheila Jackson Lee who is a strong Clinton supporter. She had representatives at the event that I attended a week or so ago.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Personally, I will just be ordering some more Bernie bumper-stickers.
Gman
(24,780 posts)It's that the do not want to support Sanders. It's not like they want to support Sanders. It's that they want HRC to be the next president.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)and on 6 show up. Something is going on that we are not aware of. Wouldn't at least his friends in the congressional black caucus show up for if nothin else support?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)BlueStateLib
(937 posts)bernie sanders was elected to senate in 2006 and is half way trough 2nd six year term
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)And no ambitious DEM politician wants to be on it!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bill-and-hillary-clinton-whos-on-their-grudge-list-and-what-did-they-do-wrong-9068208.html
Gman
(24,780 posts)You never back a loser. Because when you lose you have to go back to and will need something from the winner. So it's politically stupid to not go with the consensus winner.
And those in higher office generally won't get involved in lower races because regardless of who wins, the higher office holder will make some group mad and they will also vote in his race.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)No, the real reason that they aren't supporting them is that dark money is paying for people to endorse and support Clinton, and threatening to pay those to shut down those who support Bernie.
It's not really hard to see in the country of corruption that we live in now!
And polls show Bernie a lot closer now to Clinton in September of 2015 than Obama was to Clinton in September of 2007. Check them for yourself!
So, are you going to tell me that people should have stayed away from Obama then when he was losing worse than Bernie is now?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Hint: he moved to include the Hillary supporters
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)That can mean a lot of things.
There were a lot of divisions then too. What did Obama change to get VOTERS's support who supported Clinton?
Now if it was her corporate contributor "supporters", then I'd agree with you. He campaigned on "Hope and Change" for the voters that they wanted then, and Hillary didn't campaign as heavily on that message then. But he obviously worked with those that supported Hillary financially who supported him financially as well to do well for those at Wall Street, etc. by not prosecuting them in subsequent years and staffing the cabinet and other administration positions with more corporate friendly entities too, which perhaps was "including Hillary supporters" in that capacity? Well, if that's the kind of "including Hillary supporters" you think that Bernie needs to do to win, then I don't think that will happen this time around, and I think many current Bernie supporters and other voters don't want that form of "inclusion" either. They want to move away from politicians owned by special interests. Arguably even Republicans are having those concerns when supporting Trump, who's the only candidate on the Republican side who's not taking outside money to fund his campaign and funding it himself.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)Any establishment support.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Considering Bernie's recognition with AA voters is sub 50%, it's almost like starting a new campaign.
azmom
(5,208 posts)The establishment will change when the people put the pressure on them to change not one second sooner.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)And...
If hes serious about his candidacy, I expect that well have many more productive meetings like this in the future, the aide said.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Most of the absences were due to scheduling conflicts, as well.
This is a good thing - a step on the path to great things
stevil
(1,537 posts)Eh?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)stevil
(1,537 posts)"Most of the absences were due to scheduling conflicts, as well."
I guess we will see, I guess the revolution will have to wait a little longer.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I guess they are too busy to endorse Bernie. I love a good excuse.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)stevil
(1,537 posts)His support from the Black Caucus will improve when scheduling conflicts are resolved. That is all there is to it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)stevil
(1,537 posts)Schedule conflicts and all....
demwing
(16,916 posts)don't feed the stevils...
Carry the flame, Feel the Bern
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Pesky jotunn.
demwing
(16,916 posts)well stated...
demwing
(16,916 posts)...years longer...
jfern
(5,204 posts)So not exactly the most obscure members.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Never mind that is is entirely possible that the caucus selected which representatives would attend, not feeling it necessary to have 100% attendance. Their assumption must be that CBC members are not capable, or don't have the propensity, to communicate amongst themselves apparently.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She is hopelessly compromised from years in this system, dBaha said, while Sanders talks openly of a political revolution.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)WOW
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Some of her supporters like to think Hillary's got a lock on the minority vote but all Dem candidates have to earn it.
appalachiablue
(41,171 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They reported and left it up to us to decide.
Good thing we're smarter than the average bear/Fox News viewer!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Clinton isn't bothering to show up for her meeting with the CBC. She's sending staffers.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253448-hillary-staff-to-meet-with-black-caucus
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)She cares enough to send the help to talk to the black people.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and maybe a few more will be brave enough to tell the Clintons that attending a meeting isn't showing support, it's attending a meeting.
artislife
(9,497 posts)And we are.
So now we work on why they weren't interested.
imthevicar
(811 posts)Sanders is in a better position at this point in the election than Barack Obama was in 8 years ago. and the momentum shows NO signs of letting up. Sanders Will Be Potus!
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)At this time Obama had a ton of endorsements and was raising money like crazy.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)he represents.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Here is a listing of the endorsements for all of the Democratic candidates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Hillary_Clinton Sanders still does not have any endorsements from any of his fellow members of congress who know him best
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Response to Gothmog (Reply #34)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... than other more progressive sources of news. Does that make them better and a news source we should listen to?
frylock
(34,825 posts)that's how you know they're good!
frylock
(34,825 posts)do you cast all your votes based upon congressional endorsements?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Bernie is not even close.
Response to hack89 (Reply #44)
Name removed Message auto-removed
hack89
(39,171 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)the cheap in the 1&2 states shows that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Will definitely show that ultimately it is about money.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Every election there is the great progressive hope that will make this election different from all others before. Except they never are different. BS has yet to demonstrate he is a transformational figure - if he was, he would have had some actual accomplishments by now. Because that is what transformational people do.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)time. I doubt there is any chance I'll convince you otherwise. I think the American public will be more successful. Trends matter. His trend is a positive one.
hack89
(39,171 posts)But has very little to show for so many years in office. Being president is not an intellectual exercise - it takes a skilled leader with the ability to engage in the dirty work of partisan politics. He has not shown any of that. There is absolutely nothing in his past that shows he is capable of leading this country.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And I think it's a little weird that while I understand that presidents are not, and never can be transformational, revolutionary figures, gentlemen such as yourself with longer experience in "the game" seem to still argue for or against as if they were. US politics is a low, plodding process towards progress, sometimes with backwards stumbles, often with long pauses.
Sanders is a step forward. We understand he's not a long jump. But compared to Clinton being either a pause, or a stumble (depending on how much "warm purple sauce" she wants us to swallow) we'll take that step forward.
If you think you can sneer at bernie supporters because our candidate isn't going to be radical, revolutonary change, then you suffer a severe lack of understanding bout what's going on, and all the elections in your past apparently aren't bringing you any enlightenment on the subject.
hack89
(39,171 posts)He is the one positioning himself as a transformational figure. Do you think he views himself as a small evolution ary step forward?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)People in both parties want someone not bought by special interests and against the bipartisan corporatist crap that's being thrown at us like free trade crappy bills, etc.
That's why Trump is leading the Republicans, since he's not taking other people's corruption money (he has his own), and since he's also pushing back on things like the TPP and H-1B Visas too that were areas that got Ross Perot 20% of the vote when Clinton won with a PLURALITY back in 1992 when the corporatists in both parties pushed NAFTA then.
Bernie is what many people want now to reverse the corporate takeover, that they really won't get from any candidate, even Trump (since he's a part of that 1% even if he's not taking corruption money from it).
The times are different this election, and most Americans are just plain SICK of our government. The current record low favorability ratings of congress is a testament to that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Until reality sets in.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)What are you meaning by that?
hack89
(39,171 posts)And this is not a transformational election.
frylock
(34,825 posts)significantly different than it was in '92, but I encourage Team Clinton to Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.
hack89
(39,171 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Bernie has a lot smaller gap now according to these graphs in September of 2015 than Obama had in September of 2007...
hack89
(39,171 posts)Sorry for the confusion
demwing
(16,916 posts)but while he's talking about removing its corrupting influence, you're talking about how to get more of it, and more, and more...
hack89
(39,171 posts)that was the post I was responding to.
I agree with him about the influence of money on politics. But that is irrelevant right now - he will need a lot more money to be competitive.
demwing
(16,916 posts)You may fight fire with fire, but you don't fight the corrupting influence of money in politics by having a race to see who can waste a billion $$$ first.
BTW, it looks like Bernie's getting maximum bang for minimum buck right now, so I'm not worried in the slightest. I'm guessing you aren't either, but since you can't defeat him on policy, attack him on process. I get it, good luck with that.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because if Bernie does win, it will be on a shoe string budget.
I don't have to defeat him. All I plan to do is vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general election. I am merely enjoying the spectacle that is American politics.
imthevicar
(811 posts)His Poll Numbers were not as Impressive, HRC still lead in NH and Iowa, and He had still not secures the endorsement of Prof.Cornel West. That's what I call Being in a Better Position! Now Call Me a Liar!
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I was at a bundler event a week or so ago where I met Amanda Renteria who is the COS staff for the Clinton campaign. Sheila's had two representatives at this event.
Sheila was a very strong supporter of Hillary Clinton back in 2008. I worked with the Obama team on the Texas two step caucuses and a number of African American votes in Harris County were upset that Sheila was supporting Hillary Clinton over Obama. In Texas, there are county conventions held for each state Senate District in Texas. In my county we hold three separate county conventions because my county is gerrymandered by the GOP. Sheila lives in SD 13 in Harris County which is a gerrymandered district where African American voters are crammed in by the Texas GOP and so this district was very strong for President Obama. Here is a you tube video of Sheila at that SD 13 county convention.
I doubt that Bernie made any headway with Sheila but I will ask her at the Johnson Jordan dinner at the end of the month
questionseverything
(9,658 posts)woman are getting raped by the cops on the side of the road???
this is what the war on drugs has come to
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)You can come and ask your own questions. The lady who was mistreated badly by the police is suing and has a great case. http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/National_News_2/article_102565.shtml
They completely stripped this 21-year-old lady naked and held her face down on the ground with her hands hog tied behind her really with handcuffs and had her feet up behind her ears, causing her a tremendous amount of pain. And they spread her legs open and stuffed their fingers inside of her and had her in that position for 11 minutes, Atty. Cammack told The Final Call. He said his client intends to sue the Sheriffs Department for $20-30 million.
As noted in your article, two other ladies are suing the Texas DPS.
questionseverything
(9,658 posts)so no i can't come ask her myself
is sheila asking justice (the feds) to get involved in this, or maybe they already are involved.....i am asking you because you are there
this kind of thing would be disgusting if it happened to a prisoner but for it to happen to a free woman with no freaking probable cause is insane
this shows the real cost to the war on drugs
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)NJCher
(35,730 posts)See this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251588019
It's the Cornel West thread.
Cher
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh that's right, she didn't meet with them. She's sending staffers instead.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/253448-hillary-staff-to-meet-with-black-caucus
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)They're saying only 6 people showed for Bernie, but Hillary sent staffers. At least HE showed up
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Especially after her 2008 hail Mary appealing to white voters. If she and her supporters continue on this course, she'll need to make do without my vote.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and there will be more meetings scheduled.
There was only one mentioned who stated that she's already supporting Hillary so couldn't be bothered. And one who "forgot."
frylock
(34,825 posts)better luck tomorrow.
Response to Gothmog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)I keep asking how Sanders is viable in a general election campaign where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the GOP candidate will be spending another billion dollars and the answers that I keep getting are not satisfactory. You are welcome to ignore political reality and the traditional concepts of politics and campaign but do not expect others to accept your claims without proof.
Sanders is not going to appeal to voters in key demographic blocks without some real evidence of viability. For example, African American voters are concerned about electability http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/bernie_sanders_presidential_campaign_what_would_it_take_for_the_vermont.html
Again, Sanders would have a stronger campaign if someone could provide a good explanation as to viability
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Classic
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)That article explains one of the key reasons for this poor polling. You are free to ignore these facts
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm glad to see such a silly game still has its devotees, though.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Gothmog
(145,554 posts)There are many people and demographics groups who will not support Sanders if they do not think that he is viable
antigop
(12,778 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Between her 2008 flame out and losing Iowa and New Hampshire in 2016, voters will stop thinking that she is viable, and turn to someone else.
In fact, it has already begun in response to the polling. I read my first "no longer thinks Hillary is a viable candidate" from a former Hillary supporter earlier today.
There are many people who will not support Hillary when they cease thinking that she is viable.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)oasis
(49,407 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)Sanders is a sincere and legitimate candidate for the Democratic nomination. Even if they aren't planning on endorsing Sanders, they should meet with him. If Sanders does win the nomination, he's going to need minority voters to turn out for the general to replicate the electorate that Obama won with.
Plus it can't hurt to have either the presidential nominee or a sitting Senator to have opened a dialogue with the CBC for getting the interests of the CBC advanced.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
SouthernProgressive
(1,810 posts)Is it any surprise considering he is pandering to the enemy. Pandering to a group we all know have strong racist underpinnings. Pandering to a group with strong patriarchal and sexist underpinnings. Working side by side with West who has made some unbelievably ignorant comments about the President often touching on race. Sanders is really making some bad moves that will alienate people. He is banking on picking up enough isolationists and libertarians to make up for it. Sanders base is becoming frightening. I don't want the voices of the far right and isolationists in the Oval Office. Sanders is courting them. Not to change their minds, but to gain their support.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)If Hillary does it, it is smart campaigning and reaching out to potential voters.
If Bernie does it, it is pandering.
Meanwhile, 6 CBC members meet with Bernie Sanders and somehow that's a bad thing, while Hillary doesn't even bother going herself but hey, that's okay! Just another day of "IOKIYAHRC!"
Armstead
(47,803 posts)We are still one nation. Unless Bernie goes there and announces that he has become a Born Again Christian, then I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with dialogue.
David__77
(23,503 posts)I don't know what you mean by pandering (to give gratification to) in this context. What is it that he is gratifying? Is that racism, sexism, and patriarchy?
What was the means by which he gratified? Was that through presence alone, or with specific words said?
I don't have any opinion on speaking at Liberty University. I do understand that the institution itself is very conservative and that Democratic club was banned by authorities at one point (http://www.heathercaygle.com/2012/05/14/democrats-voting-young-at-conservative-liberty-university/).
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)They, too, are American citizens and voters who deserve to be addressed, enlightened, and maybe even convinced to support a Democratic candidate.
Sen. Sanders said straight up they won't agree with him on abortion and LGBTQ issues, but still consider the rest of his platform.
Sound like smart, inclusive politics to me. Not pandering.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)At least Bernie stood up for a woman's right to choose at LU, the same can't be said for Hillary.
Desperate and pathetic.
Get some new material.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Obama on The 700 Club in 2008 asked about LGBT issues ... "you're just plain wrong."
Hillary on abortion: we should seek common ground with abortion opponents to make abortion rare.
Sanders today at LU on abortion: "we will agree to disagree."