2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA reminder of why minimizing Clinton's Southern victories is so hurtful.
For those of you, in your enthusiasm for your own candidate, who are attempting to downplay the significance Clinton' Southern victories by implying that strength in those states is unimportant because we cannot win them in November, or because they are the old Confederacy, I ask that you consider the following:
Hundreds of black people (and not a few white people) have died fighting for the right of black Americans to vote, the right to have their voice heard, and to have it count.
Don't disenfranchise them now.
Let me say that for the most part, I don't think the posters are engaging is deliberate racism. I think they are, however, perpetuating systemic racism that tells black people over and over again that their voices do not count. Especially in light of continuing efforts, in places like North Carolina, to gerrymander black voters to even further blunt their electoral power. Please be aware that there is a history involved here.
And do not forget that blue states are ALREADY granted a greater number of delegates.
Thanks for your time.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)yardwork
(61,748 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)She beat Obama there by 15 points back in '08, and that was *after* the very national news that Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama.
Her win this time around was very close to a tie, with a mere 1.4 margin after the final tally.
And, offensively, her husband blatantly and deliberately broke Mass voting law, to the extent that he blocked people at one large, poor, working class precinct (the group that Bernie won by large margins in Mass) from even being able to vote for 2 hours. These were people who likely used their lunch breaks on a frigid day to vote. Who very likely were forced to make a choice between waiting in the cold and lose wages to vote or give up their chance to vote due to Clinton's felonious interference.
Given the very close numbers in that race *and* the fact that at least 2 of those precincts were poor, working class areas (Roxbury and New Bedford), there is a very good chance that had Clinton not deliberately interfered with the people's right and duty to vote, she would have tied or even lost Massachusetts.
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)voting law. But, just like Faux Noise, you've gotta keep repeating that.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)(d)
Activities at Polling Place
. Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR
53.03(18)(c), no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any
person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election.
http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/900-999cmr/950cmr53.pdf
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)if it actually exists.
In the meantime, there's this, right in front of the entrance to the New Bedford polling place:
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)but cannot drink for that horse.
And if Bill is violating campaign laws, so is the holder of the sign who is behind him, who is most certainly NOY a HIllary supporter.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)for the sole purpose of searching for evidence of your claim.
P.S. this thread is about Bill Clinton's violation; not the anonymous poster-holder in the distance who is also breaking the law and should have been stopped (and probably would have been had there not been such a mess caused by Bill Clinton).
BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)You couldn't be bothered to read it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)for the sole purpose of searching for the supposed debunking.
You claim they debunk it. It's incumbent upon you to provide proof of the claim, not me to search through a newspaper that I don't subscribe to so can't read to prove it for you.
If they debunk it, there must be a paragraph or two stating it. Since you have access to the article that I do not have, surely you could back up your claim by cutting and pasting the appropriate paragraphs.
Surely it would be less trouble for you to do that than keep repeating that you've provided proof and alternating with attempts to deflect by pointing at an anonymous person behind Clinton.
back at ya.
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)950 C.M.R. § 54.04(22)(a). "Observers are allowed inside the polling place, outside the guardrail, unless they are disorderly or obstruct the access of voters."
Your cognitive dissidence is showing, you might want to tuck that in before moving forward.
artislife
(9,497 posts)The fact that I cannot find one condemnation from a h supporter on this "pressing the flesh", "electioneering" moment is telling.
So, you don't want us to diminish her wins. How about not diminishing his wins.
As a Latina, I find it kind of appalling that the campaing and her supporters only protect and edify PoC who support a certain way.
And then they use it like a brick to smash the other candidate's campaign.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)She clearly won Nevada, but it was not an especially strong victory, and that was her best showing outside the South, a 5 or 6 point spread. Hillary barely won Iowa, by about a quarter of a percent. In a normal election that would have triggered an automatic recount - we're talking 2000 Florida Gore vs Bush level tightness in Iowa. She won Massachusetts by less than 15,000 votes (which happens to be a neighboring state to Clinton also, which pundits fail to mention.) Texas, mentioned by a different poster, is considered a Southern state by most.
Whereas Bernie won NH by 22%, VT by 72%, Oklahoma by over 10%, Minnesota by 23%, and Colorado by over 18%. And he got decimated in the South
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Because they are basically splitting the white vote in most places, so he needs to win BIG in other more diverse states to make up for all those loses and the 200 delegate deficit. Not to mention his weakness with superdelegates and loss of momentum. I see no chance for victory. He is down in most states. She has set the narrative.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Look out if you think that Clinton will carry NY.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I forgot, some folks only believe opt in internet and facebook polls, my bad.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)Pennsylvania - April 26 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-4249.html
California - June 6 - no poll more recent than 1/3/16
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_democratic_presidential_primary-5321.html
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)whoever is holding the sign "Bankers for Hillary" is much closer to the polling site than Bill.
I strongly suspect that person was not a Hillary supporter.
Svafa
(594 posts)delays like the presence of a former president and his secret service did. Nobody here is justifying the presence of the sign-holder. They should BOTH be held accountable, but to pretend that what Clinton did was ok because someone else was doing it is ridiculous.
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)any candidate running for president.
I also strongly suspect that the sign holder did not come with US Treasury Agents or get a phone call for the Mass. AG to remind them of Mass Election law.
Happenstance24
(193 posts)there haven't been any northern "diverse" states that have got the opportunity to vote yet. She will win NY, NJ, MI, PA, CA.....
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)Happenstance24
(193 posts)did Hillary even contest Colorado that hard? Did she or her surrogates visit there, buy ads, etc? It would be interesting to know how hard she played for the state. Even then she apparently got as many delegates out of it as Bernie did. Bernie can't win for losing. He truly is a worse off but better funded Hillary '08 in this situation.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,919 posts)Yeah, but he still would have lost. Candidates with money don't walk away from a state that they can win. If Hillary chose not to put resources into Colorado that says something. It's not a minor state, it has mixed demographics and a major U.S. city it. It is also an important swing state. All campaigns have to make strategic decisions. Even well funded ones don't have unlimited money to burn. Plus a big loss can look worse if it is obvious that you poured a lot of effort into it. I'm sure it didn't make the Sanders team happy to under contest Georgia etc. either.
As to the Super Delegate thing, yeah. His only chance with some of them is if the momentum of the race swings strongly enough toward Sanders before the convention that it would get real ugly for their votes to knock him out of it despite what real voters chose.
Bernie supporter here - kicking this because it's important.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)wryter2000
(46,125 posts)That's the true spirit of your candidate. He would NEVER say some of the things I've seen at DU. And I will be hugely proud to vote for him if he wins the nomination.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Winner take all first past the poll is the reality of the system. If you live in a state that is a sure thing for the other party, your vote doesn't fucking count. Them's the facts.
yardwork
(61,748 posts)This is nothing but sour grapes. We hear nothing about Oklahoma being "useless" - because Bernie won there.
In the primary season, every state counts.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)That would have given us Hillary in 2008 instead of Obama, btw. Also, you can lose a blue/swing state in the primary as Obama did in NY, PA, MA, CA and OH and win it in the general. What are we arguing about again?
mountain grammy
(26,663 posts)The electoral college stinks, but people have more power than they believe. It's ok to skip a candidate on the ballot, but there's almost always something/someone worth voting for or against.
yardwork
(61,748 posts)I agree with the rest of your points.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It does make me mad to see supposedly progressive people tell Southern black that their votes don't count..... STILL.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Now it's "Those states don't matter anyway!!!"
Losing is hard. People cope in different ways.
Still, I agree that the manner of the dismissal is disturbing.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)I remember that thread.
Edit: those threads.
Sid
Bad Thoughts
(2,538 posts)According to convention rules, states that don't show for the Democrats don't get as much representation. Moreover, many of the superdelegates are themselves elected officials, fewer of whom will come from Southern states.
That said, don't get too high and mighty with Sanders' supporters. It was Mark Penn, who ran Clinton's campaign, who suggested that Southern states really don't count.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary has pushed in every state, she will be president to every state.
greymouse
(872 posts)my vote doesn't count. The sun would go nova before RI voted Republican (once since 1976). So saying that is, what, discrimination against people with funny accents?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)of systemic electoral disenfranchisement.
And you vote DOES count. If you, and the rest of the D voters in RI did not vote, the R's would win. But they don;t. Beucase enough of you DO vote.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)By controlling the economy. He who controls the money controls the politicians. He who controls the politicians controls the system. He who controls the system controls access to rights. That's how it works in every country on earth, the USA included.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)the people you run into here in RI will vote for Hillary over Trump? Because I can't find them
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It is insulting to African Americans to suggest that they are so emotionally fragile that they can't handle that fact.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That is your takeaway? You seem to be the only one making this "fragile" connection.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The OP claims that it is hurtful to mention it.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That is what you want the op to be saying.
Two completely different things.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)of Clinton's Southern victories by implying that strength in those states is unimportant" to the Presidential election in November "because we cannot win them in November."
That strikes me as a ridiculous thing to say because everyone knows that those states will go red in November.
And please don't make the lame reply that what the OP is suggesting is that it is hurtful to say that strength in those states is unimportant in any and all elections, because no one is saying that.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Not there yet but much better than your original takeaway of fragility.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)my insights more and more. (Just kidding) In the meantime, I have to go to work. Peace out.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)I have a hard time believing that people who make this statement don't understand that fact. This is a campaign by Sanders supporters to negate those voters and it's obvious.
Response to sufrommich (Reply #33)
Vattel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And NO, a people who have been oppressed for centuries and are STILL victims of systemic racism, and attempts at voter suppression are NOT being "emotionally fragile" when they object to continued efforts to discount them.
This kind of post is part of the problem.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)of course they should and do have a part in the primary. No one is denying that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)But your points and your OP are spot on.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Are the same ones who felt they were the most significant votes out there as they went on for weeks about Clintons southern firewall cracking. That is what is really so nefarious about a lot of the recent language. It is completely based in dismissal of logic, hypocrisy, and comes from a place of anger.
Don't get me wrong, I feel it was beneficial for me to read this as well.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)It is about relevancy in the general election.
I reject your assertion, as it is patently false.
Voters of color fought and died for their right to vote in EVERY STATE.
Frances
(8,547 posts)I lived in MA and in AL in the sixties
There was racism in MA but I never heard of one person dying in order to get the right to vote. In fact Ed Brooke was black and he was elected senator
Surely you know people died in AL to get the right to vote
I am white and was told by the person who graded the literacy test every person in AL had to take at that time that he passed me because I was white
My friend said her mother in TN was told to put a w on literacy tests papers if the person taking the test was white
How quickly some people forget
I forgot myself that when my husband took some black people to register that the sheriff followed him all the way back to our house
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I remember when people in various cities in the country got beaten, even shot by police, as they were fighting for equal rights. I remember some of these incidents in Brooklyn, NY in the early 60s. I remember reading about them in the papers in the mid and late 60s in various regions of the country, but all over the country.
Frances
(8,547 posts)but I don't remember any gays being killed for trying to register to vote anywhere in the country
I don't remember anyone being killed for trying to help people register to vote anywhere other than the South
Do you have any examples of people being killed for trying to help people register to vote outside the south?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)but I saw someone get beaten to death while marching for equal rights in Brooklyn, NY when I was a kid. I will never forget it!
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Tanuki
(14,926 posts)would suppress turnout and hurt down-ticket voting for local candidates, if we had any faith in the messengers, which we fortunately do not.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Electoral College.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)It's the priority for any proposed constitutional amendment, IMO...
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I'm trying to make folks aware that words may be having the unintended effect of reinforcing systemic racism and its traditional disenfranchisement of black voters.
If you or anyone else feel guilty, examine your own feelings about that.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Yes, I'm annoyed with them that they seem to be making the less-progressive choice this time. Of course I'd be annoyed about that...I'm a progressive. But that annoyance is trivial compared to my wholehearted approval of their refusal to abandon their political principles when the majority around them are opposed. It's a lot easier to be a progressive where I live (Oregon).
I also completely understand the position of the not-particularly-liberal contingent of Hillary voters in those states, the majority of which I suspect are black. Blacks who are conservatively-minded are in the difficult situation of feeling that the more conservative of the major parties doesn't support their issues, and contains an embarrassing contingent of outright racists. They believe, with considerable justification, that the GOP doesn't want them (or at least that a bunch of its members don't). A candidate like Bernie is not going to appeal to these black voters, based on his very liberal positions.
Hillary won't be all that attractive to these more conservative blacks on issues, either, but the Clinton name carries so much weight with this community, and despite some recent glitches with BLM, her record of support is exemplary (yes, a Bernie supporter said that...but it's a matter of record). I actually "get" these black votes for Hillary better than I do those of more-progressive black voters.
I'll conclude this long-winded post by saying I also disapprove of the blanket condemnations of the South as backwards, redneck, etc. Simply being annoyed (and sometimes nonplussed) by the region's voters' political choices shouldn't result in over-the-top, unfair vilification. That's bigotry, plain and simple.
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)It is my decision. That's what democracy is all
about!
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Republican racism can disenfranchise minority votes in November but it would be sinful for Democrats to disenfranchise minority votes in Febraury and March. For that would be ALL ON US.
jalan48
(13,907 posts)No, caucuses no super delegates, one person, one vote. In fact, let's make that day a national holiday so it's easier for everyone to get to the polls.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Our entire primary election system is a wasteful, utterly corrupt mess.
angrychair
(8,750 posts)So I feel compelled to speak here.
Let me be unequivocally clear from the beginning, as a person raised in several southern states this issues is important to me, the right and ease of access for people of color to vote is critical to the success of our democracy. I am inspired by the turn out in the South and other states by people of color in these primaries and caucuses and that they are voting as Democrats. I hope it is a trend that continues to increase as it is critical if we are to take control oh the House at some point.
That all being said, I wrote an OP on Super Tuesday making a clear point that the majority of states still had not voted, including the west coast where I live now, as well as NY, IL and OH just to name a few.
In as much it is great the southern states had such great success and their vote is important to the nomination process, it does not and should not be the deciding factor in who our presidential candidate is going to be. There are 35 more states to vote. Far to many, as recently as last night, have called it over and as someone that has not voted yet, that is offensive and yes is an attempt to disenfranchise those that have not voted yet.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)I see no reason to trash any part of this country. But because I'm a Progressive I truly want to see this country (all of it) fulfill it's great potential. We have a planet to save and this country can do it by leading, not by pretending Climate Change doesn't exist or is too minor an issue to bother with.
The status quo simply doesn't work anymore. We need another daring 'going to the Moon' long term project regarding Climate Change.
We also need our government to take care of all it's citizens, not just the 1% because we already know they aren't the job creators they keep bragging they are.
This country has more potential than it has actualized up to now. A lot more.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)establishment candidates. The fact is that the "southern strategy" has had an outsized influence on outcomes ever since those states agreed to align their primaries and caucuses into a block early on.
I don't think that people are trying to diminish the importance of the black vote. I think they are trying to stress that in spite of his losses there, Bernie is still viable.
We knew he didn't stand a chance to win in the south. We also knew, however, that in order to make it to the convention he had to make it through the firewall with enough delegates and money to continue to the more liberal states.
There was even a specific number of delegates cited in several articles -- he could be down by 150 delegates in the Super Tuesday states and still be a viable candidate.
In the end, he beat that target number, plus has garnered enough financial support to be viable. It's not that the black vote is not important. It's that the southern conservative vote has lost some of it's excess influence.
And the later states in the race have regained some of their lost importance.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,452 posts)because they are Sanders supporters and realize that it is more likely than not that Sanders will, in fact, NOT wind up being the Democratic nominee for POTUS this year. Victories are victories IMHO. Also, to say that, without a doubt, that she can't win ANY southern states is premature at best IMHO. Hillary also could potentially put a southern state or two in play that were trending purple(-ish) when Obama ran in 2008 (i.e. Georgia). If Trump is the Republican nominee, all bets are pretty much off then too.
wryter2000
(46,125 posts)The amount of insensitivity shown here lately here is staggering.
Nitram
(22,945 posts)1. Clinton has a long and very positive relationship with the AA community and their leaders. Just ask them if you don't believe it. She has strongly supported policies that benefited the AA community for decades.
2. African-Americans know what they want and what they need. To suggest otherwise is patronizing and disrespectful.
3. Clearly Bernie supports the AA community. It is just that he has not spent decades working with that community and working to improve their standing in America since his early support for the Civil Rights Movement.
4. The "super-predator" meme was not invented by Clinton, it was a widely respected academic theory at the time, as was the movement towards tougher sentencing. Those who supported the tough on crime movement were well-meaning but mistaken, and Clinton has apologized for her part in that.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Please spare us the melodramatics.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Such elimination would make the whole notion of "red states," "blue states," "southern states," etc. irrelevant.
Each vote counts equally.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Hillary won the south. Everyone expected her to. Its her stronghold.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It was directed at the folks saying we should ignore the results in SC or that the results in the "Confederacy" should somehow count less than they already do.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)But I think there may be a slight misinterpretation going on. I don't think they mean the votes in the south "count less". I think they mean they aren't surprised Hillary won a stronghold. Her and Bill are also from the south, which is partially why she did so well. Just as Bernie ran away with it in Vermont. No surprise there either. Candidates always win there homes. To her credit, she deeply surprised me by winning Mass. That, I congratulate her and her supporters on.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1390486 The use of the term "Confederacy" is insulting here. It suggests, without doing it directly, that Clinton's supporters support the the idea of the Confederacy, which considering her support of black voters is at the least tone deaf. The suggestion is that her victories there aren't important since she won;t win most of those states in Nov. In others words: Hey black voters in the South Your votes don't really matter.
I'm just asking folks to consider how their words interact with this nations history of systemic racism and the disenfranchisement of black voters. I think we need to nip that kind of thing in the bud.
I would think regardless of what candidate we support, we'd all be on board with that.
FreedomRain
(413 posts)"regardless of what candidate we support, we'd all be on board with that. "
I'm with you here and I think most of B's people too. The most vocal are not the most representative in any group
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Any of us can argue about their reasons or their choices, but they are part of the process and deserve respect.
The same should be said for those that haven't yet had the opportunity to vote. Don't try to shortcut the process or claim that one candidate or the other should just call it a day. I view a lot of these discussions as open air strategy sessions that are speculative at best. At the end of the day, most voters in the primary are long time Democratic supporters and will come out for the chosen nominee.
There are a lot of states left and no matter what any number of superdelegates may say they intend to do, the real committed delegates are still close. This process should strengthen our party and clarify the issues that are important to run on in the GE. Am looking forward to the next few months.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)because of it's whiteness sure sounded like bringing down a group of people.
And perhaps NH wasn't a key to the victory in the Revolutionary War, where thousands died.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Our nation has such a long history of undervaluing the value of white voters.
And All Live Matter, amiright?
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)With an alternative look that is relevant since it is a state that voted and was analyzed.
dsc
(52,172 posts)for their votes have never counted, except for the entire history of the country. They have never had a role in choosing our nominee, except every single time since our nominee has been determined by voters. They never have been the majority of the first or second or third contests except since the inception of Iowa being first and New Hampshire second and Nevada third. Oh, woe is the lot of the white voter.
was countering sarcastically with a common refrain about the whiteness of NH from your side and how unimportant the state was
artislife
(9,497 posts)Funny how Bernie's win there creates no joy for his reach to that specific group of PoCs.
I have one forth Ojibwa blood tha is mixed with one forth Mexican. Native North American.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Like that? And the way they keep saying it's over for him?
Please, cry me a river. Hillary is the queen of mean.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)"Speak to no one but white people and keep your mouth shut if you've got an opinion" yes'm, duly noted, "know my place" ok.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Without sarcasm