The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders is also more popular with some minority demographics than others.

Its mainly the black vote, and the Southern black vote in particular, where he gets utterly crushed.

[Flagg]

2 old white guys who appeal to white guys people.

Bernie's support is stronger among women than men.

Yeah, you're right. I meant that, I'd just used "guys" too many times in a row so it slipped in. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Flagg]

Sanders is also more popular with some minority demographics than others.

Its mainly the black vote, and the Southern black vote in particular, where he gets utterly crushed.

There seems to be a lot of holdover love African-Americans have for both Clintons. They used to call Bill "the first black president" before much of anyone had heard the name "Barack Obama", even in Chicago. Which is ironic to me, since he helped put a lot of the really draconian sentencing laws in place federally.

Still, she was First Lady of Arkansas. But have you ever noticed how phony Hillary Clinton (and Obama, as well in the 2008 primary) is when speaking at a black church or before a majority black audience where she does "black preacher voice"?

[Raw Shark]

Narrative going around now is that the very fact that Bernie is even still in the race is evidence that he's racist. Because he lost the entire south overwhelmingly and most of them are black, his pushing to still win anyway is proof he doesn't care about the wishes of black people.

Ugh and facepalm. This is self-sabotage on the level that only white trash usually engage in.

Still, she was First Lady of Arkansas. But have you ever noticed how phony Hillary Clinton (and Obama, as well in the 2008 primary) is when speaking at a black church or before a majority black audience where she does "black preacher voice"?

Yes, they're both pandering centrist political whores who speak well. This is common knowledge.

I'd vote for Sanders but it would be hard to not just write-in Geoffrey Baratheon, instead given that I don't like how he's run his campaign at all

It's Joffrey, and he never had to run a campaign. Read a fucking book, man.

[Flagg]

Narrative going around now is that the very fact that Bernie is even still in the race is evidence that he's racist. Because he lost the entire south overwhelmingly and most of them are black, his pushing to still win anyway is proof he doesn't care about the wishes of black people.

Ugh and facepalm. This is self-sabotage on the level that only white trash usually engage in.

Still, she was First Lady of Arkansas. But have you ever noticed how phony Hillary Clinton (and Obama, as well in the 2008 primary) is when speaking at a black church or before a majority black audience where she does "black preacher voice"?

Yes, they're both pandering centrist political whores who speak well. This is common knowledge.

I'd vote for Sanders but it would be hard to not just write-in Geoffrey Baratheon, instead given that I don't like how he's run his campaign at all

It's Joffrey, and he never had to run a campaign. Read a fucking book, man.

Incest was his campaign. Well, twincest.

Anyway, as close to the ground as I'm sure MJ has his ear, "some stuff he saw on a BBS and heard from places" (paraphrased) I don't buy it being the prevailing opinion one bit.

[Raw Shark]

Anyway, as close to the ground as I'm sure MJ has his ear, "some stuff he saw on a BBS and heard from places" (paraphrased) I don't buy it being the prevailing opinion one bit.

I wouldn't call middle-to-upper-class black people the ground or the prevailing opinion, but I would definitely consider Lord MJ the closest that we have to an ear to them unless you have a better candidate.

[Flagg]

Anyway, as close to the ground as I'm sure MJ has his ear, "some stuff he saw on a BBS and heard from places" (paraphrased) I don't buy it being the prevailing opinion one bit.

I wouldn't call middle-to-upper-class black people the ground or the prevailing opinion, but I would definitely consider Lord MJ the closest that we have to an ear to them unless you have a better candidate.

Any news source? This may come as a shock (I know it did to me), but one member of a community hearing a few others (plus internet ) saying some stuff doesn't mean every member, or the same proportion of members, of said community is in agreement. Though if that is the case, it speaks to how poorly Grandpa Simpson's minority outreach has been.

"Balls!" Said Lieutenant Varys.

[Lagmonster]

Guys, here's what I'm gonna expect: If you want to float some idea you think makes sense, just label it as opinion. Do not make people ask you for sources before you finally pony up to the fact that it's just something you speculated while doing shots with Bobbo, the dude from that bar. It makes you look like you were trying to sneak one by everybody, no matter what you intended. Also, just in case it comes up, do not ask for sources on hyperbolic speech, because it makes you look dumb.

Just cite sources for claims, people. Wikipedia, a Fox News website poll, your auntie Margaret, I don't care. But the next time I read, "X demographic thinks X", and there isn't a link to something, I'm going to replace your post with a big fat rotating radish gif. For no goddamn reason other than I prefer radishes to opinions masquerading as information, and I hate radishes.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Still, she was First Lady of Arkansas. But have you ever noticed how phony Hillary Clinton (and Obama, as well in the 2008 primary) is when speaking at a black church or before a majority black audience where she does "black preacher voice"?

Yes, they're both pandering centrist political whores who speak well. This is common knowledge.

You can just replace that whole sentence with "they're politicians." This is what all politicians are like to a certain degree. I mean, hell, literally the entire point of BEING a politician is to be phony (note that this isn't always necessarily a bad thing: faithfully representing the beliefs of your constituents even if you don't avidly believe in them yourself is being phony by definition, but it's also what a politician in a democratic society is supposed to be doing).

[Raw Shark]

Yes, they're both pandering centrist political whores who speak well. This is common knowledge.

You can just replace that whole sentence with "they're politicians." This is what all politicians are like to a certain degree. I mean, hell, literally the entire point of BEING a politician is to be phony (note that this isn't always necessarily a bad thing: faithfully representing the beliefs of your constituents even if you don't avidly believe in them yourself is being phony by definition, but it's also what a politician in a democratic society is supposed to be doing).

Sanders is arguably neither a centrist nor a particularly good speaker, and most definitely a politician. I've leave the rest alone; you know who's got my vote and why.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sanders is arguably neither a centrist nor a particularly good speaker, and most definitely a politician. I've leave the rest alone; you know who's got my vote and why.

Aaaaaand you completely missed my point. Which was that centrism and good speaking skills are irrelevant. All politicians are phony to different degrees. Even Bernie. As I said in my previous post, this isn't necessarily a bad thing; for example, IIRC while Bernie is personally in favor of gun control as a representative of Vermont he voted against it (or something, I forget the exact details), which is what he is supposed to do as a politician representing that populace. My point just being that "phoniness", or however you wish to define it, are just part of politics, inexorably. That there may be special cases (including, in my opinion, Bernie, despite Flagg's hyperventilating) of politicians who are more morally upstanding and less deceptive than others, does not invalidate it as a general quality of politicians.

(And I LIKE Bernie. Don't take this as an attack on him personally. It's more that I don't like when people point out particular politicians as being "liars" more than others, unless that politician has done something especially egregious a la Watergate).

[Flagg]

Sanders is arguably neither a centrist nor a particularly good speaker, and most definitely a politician. I've leave the rest alone; you know who's got my vote and why.

Aaaaaand you completely missed my point. Which was that centrism and good speaking skills are irrelevant. All politicians are phony to different degrees. Even Bernie. As I said in my previous post, this isn't necessarily a bad thing; for example, IIRC while Bernie is personally in favor of gun control as a representative of Vermont he voted against it (or something, I forget the exact details), which is what he is supposed to do as a politician representing that populace. My point just being that "phoniness", or however you wish to define it, are just part of politics, inexorably. That there may be special cases (including, in my opinion, Bernie, despite Flagg's hyperventilating) of politicians who are more morally upstanding and less deceptive than others, does not invalidate it as a general quality of politicians.

(And I LIKE Bernie. Don't take this as an attack on him personally. It's more that I don't like when people point out particular politicians as being "liars" more than others, unless that politician has done something especially egregious a la Watergate).

Well, you did say he was a good speaker. And "Noun, verb, WALLSTREET!" Isn't great speaking. But I just said that to poke fun at Sanders who I don't think is worse than any Republican as a politician alone, I just particularly won't vote for him in a Democratic Party Primary because he's using that party for spotlight status, making me think less of him.

You're right, except I'm not, per your claim, "hyperventilating" and never have in this thread, so you can quit that now. But like you said, all politicians are phonies, and that's why you never trust them, you hold them accountable. Anyone who votes for a politician because "They trust them" is naive and stupid. But per your swipe at me, how is someone who jumps into a parties primary for the sake of money and media exposure "more upstanding", pray tell?

[Flagg]

And if "felonies" are your low watermark for political dishonesty being too much... Well just, damn. Does treason just warrant a censure?

[FaxModem1]

Marco Rubio rejected a unity ticket with Cruz. The Politico

Exclusive: Marco Rubio rejected 'unity ticket' with Ted Cruz
Utah Sen. Mike Lee sought to arrange a shotgun wedding of his two Senate colleagues, but Rubio wasn't interested.
By ALEX ISENSTADT 03/21/16 07:43 PM EDT Updated 03/21/16 10:32 PM EDT
160315_marco_rubio_dropout_1_gty_1160.jpg
It’s unclear whether Ted Cruz’s campaign brass views a partnership with Marco Rubio as realistic or quixotic. | Getty
Facebook Twitter Google + Email Comment Print
Ted Cruz’s campaign has been exploring the possibility of forming a unity ticket with ex-rival Marco Rubio — going so far as to conduct polling looking into how the two would perform in upcoming primary states.

The motivation, hashed out in conversations among Cruz’s top aides and donors: to find a way to halt Donald Trump’s march to the Republican nomination.

It’s unclear whether Cruz’s campaign brass views a partnership with Rubio as realistic or quixotic. In Rubio’s orbit, according to three sources, it’s seen as an outright nonstarter — with Rubio telling his team he isn’t interested.

Yet in recent weeks, within Cruz’s camp, talk of a joint ticket has run rampant. Utah Republican Mike Lee, one of two senators to endorse Cruz, has emerged as an outspoken supporter of a unity ticket — and as a potential broker. The freshman, according to several sources briefed on the talks, has reached out repeatedly to Rubio to gauge his interest, but has been rebuffed.

Shortly before Lee endorsed Cruz on March 10, Lee and his advisers discussed the possibility of organizing a meeting between the Utah senator and Rubio in Florida, just days before the state’s primary, according to two sources. The meeting, though, never happened.

A Lee spokesman, Conn Carroll, declined to comment for this story. So, too, did spokespersons for Cruz and Rubio.

But the Cruz camp’s apparent fascination with the idea of joining forces with Rubio didn’t end with Lee’s efforts.

20160321_donald_trump_1_AP_1160.jpg
Trump names foreign policy team members
By NICK GASS
In recent days, Cruz’s team has begun to investigate how the two would fare on a prospective ticket. Over the past week, according to a person familiar with the Cruz team's internal deliberations, the campaign has conducted polling in forthcoming contests — including the one on Tuesday in Utah — in which questions are posed about the two running side-by-side.

The deliberations come at a time of rising anxiety among Republican leaders and donors about Trump, who many fear is becoming unstoppable. The real estate mogul holds a 256-delegate lead and is seen as the favorite in a number of upcoming primary states, including New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania — contests that could push Trump toward the 1,237 delegate number he needs to secure the Republican nomination.

At the very least, Cruz’s team is hoping for a Rubio endorsement. The two have been in touch since Rubio dropped out last week, and those close to he Florida senator say he’s open to endorsing his Texas colleague — especially if he believes there’s a pathway for Cruz to defeat Trump.

Yet some have pushed for more. Among the Cruz supporters who have been vocal about forging an alliance has been Doug Deason, son of billionaire megadonor Darwin Deason, who has deep connections in the Charles and David Koch fundraising network.

On March 2, the day after Super Tuesday, the younger Deason reached out to Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe. Rubio had suffered a rash of defeats the night before, and Deason told Roe that it would make sense to reach out to the Florida senator’s team. By that time, Deason had been talking to a number of major Rubio donors, but now wanted to go to the official campaign to pitch the unity-ticket idea.

In an interview, Deason recalled telling Roe he wanted to call Marc Short, a senior Rubio adviser and former operative for the Koch-founded Freedom Partners political operation. After Roe didn’t object, Deason connected with Short and gave him his pitch.

160204_donald_trump_AP_1160.jpg
Poll: More than half of Americans view Trump, Clinton unfavorably
By ELIZA COLLINS
Short’s response, Deason said, was unequivocal: Rubio wasn’t interested. (Short didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

“Rubio was too pompous to act on it. He believed his own internal polls and there was no swaying him away from staying in the race through the Florida primary,” Deason said. “If he had signed on before the first Super Tuesday, Cruz would have won all of the Texas votes and a lot more delegates. They may have very well won Florida.”

Appearing on Fox News after this story was published on Monday evening, Cruz was pressed on his campaign’s decision to look into a unity ticket and to poll its prospects. He said that he and Rubio haven’t spoken about it, nor had their respective staffs.

Cruz declined, however, to rule out a unity ticket.

“I think any Republican would naturally have Marco on their short list and you would look seriously to him as a vice presidential choice,” he said.

Erick Erickson, a vocal Trump critic who has floated the idea of a Cruz-Rubio alliance and last week organized a call by prominent conservative activists for a Republican “unity ticket,” said he thought it would be “very effective in stopping Trump.”

“I wish they would do it because it would provide counterprogramming to the Donald Trump show,” he said in an interview.

But Rubio’s camp is uniformly dismissive of the idea. “Different combinations have been floating out there for a little while — who could partner up with whom," said Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Rubio endorser. "But I didn’t take it too seriously.”

[Flagg]

Wow. You know they are desperate and stupid when they even think about putting 2 Latino's (one with questionable eligibility) against hate monger and Fake Billionaire Donald "Il Douche" Trump.

[FaxModem1]

If Rubio did become Cruz's running mate, hypothetically speaking, would that even make enough of a difference before the convention? Or is it just one of the few tactics Cruz has left to play?

[Flagg]

No, they'd still be down 105 delegates as of right now if they pooled them.

[FaxModem1]

So, unless Cruz or Kasich somehow make a clean sweep of the remaining States, what exactly are the Republicans going to do? Because every option I see is a loss for them.

A. Trump gets the nomination, someone who is either uncontrollable by the establishment or unelectable in the general election, leading to the third successive Presidential loss, along with the bad press Trump is giving them which might hurt them in Congress.
B. Throw Trump and the will of the primary voters under the bus by choosing another candidate and having that person be the Republican candidate. This either leads to serious discontent by the voter base, or loud calls for change in GOP leadership.
And of course,
C. Trump doesn't get the nomination, and puts his money where his mouth is, and runs as a third party candidate, ensuring a Democratic victory due to divided conservative voters.

Or am I missing something here?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yep, the GOP is fucked. And it utterly deserves it. The situation is of their own making.

I'd be gleeful over it if not for the potential fallout for the rest of the country, particularly if Drumpf somehow becomes President.

[Welf]

Or am I missing something here?

maybe:

D. Trumps wins the nomination. Trump gets his shit together long enough to win against Clinton in a year that is really bad for establishment candidates and favours the republicans because of the lacklustre economy.
E. The republican party nominates Kasich, pays off Trump somehow, and Kasich reintegrates Trumps voters by starting a racist and xenophobe campaign. He wins because of the lacklustre economy and Clinton's weaknesses, and divides the country for years.

[Flagg]

Or am I missing something here?

maybe:

D. Trumps wins the nomination. Trump gets his shit together long enough to win against Clinton in a year that is really bad for establishment candidates and favours the republicans because of the lacklustre economy.
E. The republican party nominates Kasich, pays off Trump somehow, and Kasich reintegrates Trumps voters by starting a racist and xenophobe campaign. He wins because of the lacklustre economy and Clinton's weaknesses, and divides the country for years.

I think the only way Trump beats Clinton is if she's dead.

[Lord MJ]

I think the only way Trump beats Clinton is if she's dead.

Depends.

If Donald Trump is able to attack Hillary on her actual problems and corruption, while Bernie supporters decide to sit this one out. Trump can win.

If instead Trump's tactics instead involve running attack ads showing Hillary barking and then saying "she's weak!" as a result. Yeah, that's not going to end well for Trump.

[momochan]

I heard on NPR this morning that at least some Utah Republicans would vote for Clinton in a Clinton vs Trump matchup.
Unlike most other white Republicans, the ones in Utah are a religious minority, so they may not be generalizable. However, what comes to mind is the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence - where the status quo was confirmed much more strongly than advance polling suggested.
Clinton is the most 'status quo' candidate here in the sense that her history in high office is well known. I wonder if enough 'conservative' voters would go with 'status quo' when staring into the abyss in the privacy of their own voting booth...enough to make a difference, anyway.

[Lord MJ]

I heard on NPR this morning that at least some Utah Republicans would vote for Clinton in a Clinton vs Trump matchup.
Unlike most other white Republicans, the ones in Utah are a religious minority, so they may not be generalizable. However, what comes to mind is the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence - where the status quo was confirmed much more strongly than advance polling suggested.
Clinton is the most 'status quo' candidate here in the sense that her history in high office is well known. I wonder if enough 'conservative' voters would go with 'status quo' when staring into the abyss in the privacy of their own voting booth...enough to make a difference, anyway.

I think that also depends on if Trump is able to do a successful general election pivot. He already looks to be trying to pivot to the center and make nice with members of the establishment. We'll see.

[Lord MJ]

Possible explanation of Bernie's lack of support by African Americans

Blacks view their economic fortunes as having improved since 2008, while whites though having had some recovery since the depths of the recession view things as worse off than before the recession. Also whites are more concerned with income inequality than blacks. Blacks feel Obamacare improved their situation moreso than whites do (feel that their insurance has gotten more expensive.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/busin ... pe=article

Why Sanders Trails Clinton Among Minority Voters
By NOAM SCHEIBERMARCH 21, 2016
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page
Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
Photo

The Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders at a campaign rally in St. Charles, Mo., last week. Credit Whitney Curtis for The New York Times
Asked during a January debate why he trailed Hillary Clinton so badly among minority voters, Senator Bernie Sanders said he would gain ground once those voters became familiar with his track record and agenda on the economy and criminal justice.

Two months later and on the eve of another important primary voting day, Mr. Sanders remains on the wrong side of a yawning gap among African-Americans even as his performance among whites has been impressive.

One important reason for this may be that African-Americans have experienced somewhat more favorable economic trends in recent years. While still worse off than whites, African-Americans have seen their jobless rate fall a little further than whites have, relative to a prerecession average. Furthermore, the decline has been faster for African-Americans in the last year.

The economist Robert J. Shapiro recently measured the income growth that people experience as they age. He found that, on average in 2013 and 2014 (the most recent data available), incomes for blacks in their 30s, 40s and 50s grew more rapidly than for whites in the same age group. Older people, who strongly support Mrs. Clinton, have also seen income gains relative to other groups since the recession.

Still, the economic data is sufficiently tentative and murky that it is unlikely to tell the full story.

That is all the more true given the stark difference between Mr. Sanders’s performance among working-class whites and African-Americans. Typically in Democratic primaries, insurgent liberal candidates fail to make significant inroads in either of these groups. But Mr. Sanders carried white working-class voters by large margins in states like Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and New Hampshire. He nearly tied Mrs. Clinton among white working-class voters in states where he otherwise lost badly, such as Florida and Ohio.

Moreover, Mr. Sanders has done so while facing some of the same disadvantages that weigh him down with African-Americans: low name recognition and the group’s longstanding affection for the Clinton family. Recent polling shows that Bill Clinton’s favorability rating among working-class white Democrats is roughly equivalent to his rating among African-Americans.

Continue reading the main story


Presidential Election 2016
Here’s the latest news and analysis of the candidates and issues shaping the presidential race.
Presidential Candidates Walking a Tightrope Over the Fight on Terrorism
MAR 22
Top Experts Confounded by Advisers to Donald Trump
MAR 22
What We’re Watching as Arizona, Idaho and Utah Vote
MAR 22
Donald Trump Pushes Serious Image in the Capital
MAR 21
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Vow to Protect Israel but Differ on Means
MAR 21
See More »

Related Coverage


Older Voters May Be Hillary Clinton’s Answer to Bernie Sanders’s Youth Appeal MARCH 20, 2016

As Hillary Clinton Sweeps States, One Group Resists: White Men MARCH 17, 2016
Perhaps a better explanation for Mr. Sanders’s divergent performance is that while African-Americans and white working-class Democrats are experiencing broadly similar economic trends, they interpret them differently.

A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week found that African-Americans rated the economy as good by a ratio of about four to one, versus about two to one for white Democrats and an even narrower margin for white Democrats without a college degree. A Times/CBS News poll in December found that, relative to two years earlier, roughly three times as many African-Americans said their family’s financial situation was better as said it was worse, while Democrats without a college degree were almost evenly split on this question.

Geoff Garin, a strategist for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign who currently polls for Priorities USA Action, a pro-Clinton “super PAC,” posited that for a more economically marginal group like African-Americans, the unemployment rate — which has declined significantly for all racial groups in recent years — carries more importance than growth in incomes and certain assets, which have been slower to recover. For whites, even working-class whites, whose jobless rate is substantially lower than that for African-Americans, the latter took on comparatively more importance.

“The major source of economic anxiety for working-class white men is not whether they have a job tomorrow,” Mr. Garin said, “it’s that they still haven’t had their personal recovery. Their recovery is about assets and income.” For African-Americans, on the other hand, “you don’t take job growth for granted.”

GRAPHIC
Clinton’s Growing Delegate Lead Is Nearly Unbeatable
An interactive delegate calculator that lets you simulate how the 2016 Democratic nomination could unfold.


OPEN GRAPHIC
He cited polling data showing that working-class white Democrats were roughly as concerned about inequality as they were about job growth and economic growth, while African-Americans were overwhelmingly concerned about the latter two. It is no surprise, Mr. Garin said, that Mrs. Clinton, who has had a similar emphasis in her campaign, did better among African-Americans, while Mr. Sanders’s emphasis on inequality resonated more with whites.

In a similar vein, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that African-Americans and Hispanic voters are more likely to use the economy’s recent low point, in 2008 and 2009, as the base line for their judgment than are whites, who may focus on more recent performance, where improvement has been less pronounced.

David Simas, the White House political director, recalled sitting in on focus groups when he worked for the 2012 Obama campaign for ads that began by reminding voters how bleak the economy had been when Barack Obama first took office. “The folks who responded to it the most were African-Americans and Hispanic voters,” he said.

Willie Minor, an African-American actor in Dallas, who runs a small theater company, recalled that in 2009, “I called all my lenders and creditors, asked for extensions, made partial payments, things like that.” He said that since then, thanks in part to increased revenue from the company’s productions, he has “been more secure financially.”

The Affordable Care Act may be another aspect of President Obama’s economic record that minority voters and working-class whites view differently. “Blacks and Hispanics benefited more from the A.C.A.,” said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, a policy and advocacy group. “It was a really dramatic lowering of their uninsured rate, which was obviously material to their economic health and their overall comfort in the world.”

Mr. Minor said that while he received his health care through the Department of Veterans Affairs, many of his friends “had no insurance and no possibility of getting insurance.”

“Obamacare has been a boon to them,” he said.

By contrast, many whites, who were insured at a higher rate than the other groups before the Affordable Care Act took effect, saw the program as detrimental to their interests. “The promise of Obamacare was to make it more affordable for everybody,” said J. J. Price, a firefighter and union member in Roanoke, Va., who voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but Mitt Romney in 2012. “It’s done nothing but make it more expensive on us, the working class.”

Mrs. Clinton, of course, has been a dogged defender of the Affordable Care Act, while Mr. Sanders has dwelled on the program’s not going far enough. He prefers a single-payer system akin to expanding Medicare for the entire population.

The dynamic on the Affordable Care Act suggests a broader difference when it comes to African-Americans and working-class whites: When Mr. Sanders implicitly criticizes Mr. Obama from the left, white working-class Democrats may see it as advocating for their economic interests, but the claims tend to fall flat with many blacks, among whom the president is still wildly popular.

Larry Cohen, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders and past president of the Communications Workers of America, said that Mrs. Clinton’s perceived loyalty to the administration, as well as the nearly uniform support for Mrs. Clinton within the black political establishment, especially in the South, were key factors in limiting Mr. Sanders’s support among African-Americans.

Others largely agree. “I don’t think you can discount how important President Obama is,” said Stanley B. Greenberg, a former Clinton White House pollster who recently conducted focus groups with African-American voters in Philadelphia and Cleveland. “Obama and his election and re-election is seen as on a scale of what the civil rights movement achieved.”

He added that Mrs. Clinton, by way of her service in the administration and her eagerness to defend the president’s policies on the campaign trail, “is seen as having a more instinctive identification with Obama.”