The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Lord MJ]

In the minds of (some) black voters, not supporting reparations goes to hypocrisy, if he is revolutionary on everything else, but does not support reparations, then his whole revolutionary talking point amounts to pandering. Hillary Clinton doesn't support reparations, but she isn't the one promising a political revolution.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ns/424602/

Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders Against Reparations?
The Vermont senator’s political imagination is active against plutocracy, but why is it so limited against white supremacy?


Bernie Sanders speaking at the Iowa Black and Brown Forum on January 11, 2016Aaron P. Bernstein / Reuters

70k
TEXT SIZE

TA-NEHISI COATES JAN 19, 2016 POLITICS
Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of “reparations for slavery.” It is worth considering Sanders’s response in full:

No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.

So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.
For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”

RELATED STORY


The Case for Reparations

Sanders is a lot of things, many of them good. But he is not the candidate of moderation and unification, so much as the candidate of partisanship and radicalism. There is neither insult nor accolade in this. John Brown was radical and divisive. So was Eric Robert Rudolph. Our current sprawling megapolis of prisons was a bipartisan achievement. Obamacare was not. Sometimes the moral course lies within the politically possible, and sometimes the moral course lies outside of the politically possible. One of the great functions of radical candidates is to war against equivocators and opportunists who conflate these two things. Radicals expand the political imagination and, hopefully, prevent incrementalism from becoming a virtue.

Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy. The calls for community policing, body cameras, and a voting-rights bill with pre-clearance restored— all are things that Hillary Clinton agrees with. And those positions with which she might not agree address black people not so much as a class specifically injured by white supremacy, but rather, as a group which magically suffers from disproportionate poverty.

[Lord MJ]

My reply didn't include the whole article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ns/424602/

Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders Against Reparations?
The Vermont senator’s political imagination is active against plutocracy, but why is it so limited against white supremacy?


TA-NEHISI COATES JAN 19, 2016 POLITICS
Last week Bernie Sanders was asked whether he was in favor of “reparations for slavery.” It is worth considering Sanders’s response in full:

No, I don’t think so. First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do.

So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino.
For those of us interested in how the left prioritizes its various radicalisms, Sanders’s answer is illuminating. The spectacle of a socialist candidate opposing reparations as “divisive” (there are few political labels more divisive in the minds of Americans than socialist) is only rivaled by the implausibility of Sanders posing as a pragmatist. Sanders says the chance of getting reparations through Congress is “nil,” a correct observation which could just as well apply to much of the Vermont senator’s own platform. The chances of a President Sanders coaxing a Republican Congress to pass a $1 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill are also nil. Considering Sanders’s proposal for single-payer health care, Paul Krugman asks, “Is there any realistic prospect that a drastic overhaul could be enacted any time soon—say, in the next eight years? No.”


Sanders is a lot of things, many of them good. But he is not the candidate of moderation and unification, so much as the candidate of partisanship and radicalism. There is neither insult nor accolade in this. John Brown was radical and divisive. So was Eric Robert Rudolph. Our current sprawling megapolis of prisons was a bipartisan achievement. Obamacare was not. Sometimes the moral course lies within the politically possible, and sometimes the moral course lies outside of the politically possible. One of the great functions of radical candidates is to war against equivocators and opportunists who conflate these two things. Radicals expand the political imagination and, hopefully, prevent incrementalism from becoming a virtue.

Unfortunately, Sanders’s radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy. The calls for community policing, body cameras, and a voting-rights bill with pre-clearance restored— all are things that Hillary Clinton agrees with. And those positions with which she might not agree address black people not so much as a class specifically injured by white supremacy, but rather, as a group which magically suffers from disproportionate poverty.

This is the “class first” approach, originating in the myth that racism and socialism are necessarily incompatible. But raising the minimum wage doesn’t really address the fact that black men without criminal records have about the same shot at low-wage work as white men with them; nor can making college free address the wage gap between black and white graduates. Housing discrimination, historical and present, may well be the fulcrum of white supremacy. Affirmative action is one of the most disputed issues of the day. Neither are addressed in the “racial justice” section of Sanders platform.


Sanders’s anti-racist moderation points to a candidate who is not merely against reparations, but one who doesn’t actually understand the argument. To briefly restate it, from 1619 until at least the late 1960s, American institutions, businesses, associations, and governments—federal, state, and local—repeatedly plundered black communities. Their methods included everything from land-theft, to red-lining, to disenfranchisement, to convict-lease labor, to lynching, to enslavement, to the vending of children. So large was this plunder that America, as we know it today, is simply unimaginable without it. Its great universities were founded on it. Its early economy was built by it. Its suburbs were financed by it. Its deadliest war was the result of it.

One can’t evade these facts by changing the subject. Some months ago, black radicals in the Black Lives Matters movement protested Sanders. They were, in the main, jeered by the white left for their efforts. But judged by his platform, Sanders should be directly confronted and asked why his political imagination is so active against plutocracy, but so limited against white supremacy. Jim Crow and its legacy were not merely problems of disproportionate poverty. Why should black voters support a candidate who does not recognize this?

Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy.
If not even an avowed socialist can be bothered to grapple with reparations, if the question really is that far beyond the pale, if Bernie Sanders truly believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom deserved nothing, that the victims of contract lending deserve nothing, that the victims of debt peonage deserve nothing, that that political plunder of black communities entitle them to nothing, if this is the candidate of the radical left—then expect white supremacy in America to endure well beyond our lifetimes and lifetimes of our children. Reparations is not one possible tool against white supremacy. It is the indispensable tool against white supremacy. One cannot propose to plunder a people, incur a moral and monetary debt, propose to never pay it back, and then claim to be seriously engaging in the fight against white supremacy.

My hope was to talk to Sanders directly, before writing this article. I reached out repeatedly to his campaign over the past three days. The Sanders campaign did not respond.

[The Romulan Republic]

We have two different stories emerging. One is a hot mess, and the other is the story we've been covering for weeks now. We'll start with the boring story: So, end of the night, and Sanders exceeded expectations by winning by substantial margins in Minnesota, Colorado, (both caucuses in states filled with white people) and Oklahoma (likewise filled with white people.)

Yeah, keep playing up this false narrative. We know the reason- a false attempt to discredit the Sanders campaign by portraying it as racist. The Clinton crowd has found a smear they think will work, and by God they're going to stick to it.

Its certainly interesting to compare to Clinton's racist campaigning against Obama eight years ago.

Fortunately, its also demonstrably false:

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... -colorado/

DENVER, Colo. – Continuing a trend started in Nevada where he won the Latino vote by eight points according to entrance polls, Sen. Bernie Sanders convincingly carried 10 of the top 15 Latino counties in Colorado, many by wide margins.

“You can only win the state of Colorado by more than 18 points if you get the support of the state’s Latino community in a big way,” said Arturo Carmona, Sanders’ deputy political director. “Last night’s victory is the result of organizers working on the ground to engage the community and deliver Sen. Sanders’ message of fixing a rigged economy.”

Sanders carried Colorado with sizable margins of victory in the most dense Latino regions. Adams, Weld and Denver counties are home to 43 percent of the Latino Democrats in the state. He won Adams County by 23 percent, Weld County by 22 percent and Denver County by 10 percent.

“Latinos will play a pivotal role in Sen. Sanders’ path to victory in important states like Arizona, Illinois, New York, California and Florida and we’re confident he can continue to win in battleground states with their help,” Carmona said.

Also, Colorado, according to Wikipedia at least, was recently 20.7% Hispanic and Latino, although granted that includes white Hispanics. Including white Hispanics, the state was just barely over eighty percent white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado#Demographics

Wo I'll give you predominantly white, with the reminder that the Demographics of a Democratic Primary will likely be less white-dominated than the general populace.

He generally performed to expectations in Massachusetts (a toss-up state with slight Clinton leanings,) and lost horribly in the South (the prediction of thirty point losses was being grossly generous to Sanders.)

And I'm sure Bill Clinton campaigning at polling places had no effect on the very close results in Massachusetts.

Sanders knows he's just being a spoiler at this point, since he came out really early, gave his speech about how he plans to stick it out to the bitter, bitter, end, and then went to bed, denying the press the satisfaction of watching him react to getting repeatedly kicked in the balls.

That's an awfully cynical way to look at it.

Aside from the fact that dismissing him as "just a spoiler" is to ignore the numerous valid reasons he might have for sticking out the campaign in favour of implying that he should just quit the race to make way for the Chosen One, Hillary Clinton, to assume her "rightful" place.

He's proven that he's mainly the candidate of the 8-10% of the Democratic Party who would be Greens if they thought the Green Party could win elections.

You are liar, because I refuse to believe that you are this delusional.

Portraying Sanders' level of support as in the 10% range is a flat-out lie, with no basis in actual numbers.

And this is why he is getting zero credibility outside of Sanders supporters.

No one supports him other than his supporters? Isn't this true of most politicians?

If you mean that no one else thinks he can win, well, I doubt the Clinton campaign would have attacked him so hard if they didn't take him seriously.

Remember that only a small fraction of voters ever participate in primaries. He keeps saying he's trying to start a revolution, and that his success hinges on turnout ... unfortunately, the ones who are really turning out for this primary cycle are the Republicans. It's the Republicans who are angry and hungry for change in the White House. For the Democrats, this is pretty much a normal primary cycle ... a heavily favored Establishment candidate who can expect to face a rabid lunatic in November ... nothing really worth getting excited over. He's failed to get his would-be Greens to come out in very large numbers.

Yeah, keep rehashing this "Sanders supporters=Greens" line to discredit us.

Also, the high turnout is, in my opinion, a reason to pick Sanders. He offers something new. Exciting. He has enthusiastic supporters and giant rallies. And it seems to me that the Democratic turnout has been lower on days when a Clinton victory was a foregone conclusion (I seem to recall reports of Iowa and New Hampshire being high, South Carolina and Super Tuesday being lower). Which tells me people aren't excited by "Clinton the Inevitable." And why should they be?

Worse, it's starting to look like traditional Democratic blocs are turning against him. The Democrats need minority votes to be competitive in the general election, and very few of them are voting for Sanders.

Do Latinos count as a traditional Democratic block? Because if anything, they're moving toward him.

Worse, Sanders' consistent meh-ness is only going to make things worse for him further down the road. Turnouts start to drop as the air of inevitability settles over one candidate and would-be voters suffer from primary overload. There are signs that took place in South Carolina on the Democrats side, and it wouldn't surprise me if it holds true in the other Southern states as well (places in the South are reporting record turnouts, but this is for both parties combined, and the Trump campaign is succeeding at getting more people to come out to vote ... for or against him.)

I wonder if some of it is Democrats/Independents switching to vote in the Republican Primary to stop Trump from being nominee.

Worse, looking at the seventeen states that are left to vote in March, only a handful of them really strike me as Sanders territory. The rest have much more traditional Democratic voter makeups, and we already know how mainstream Democrats are voting. So, while his supporters are all passionate, starry-eyed idealists, overflowing with optimism; the only one who's going to feel the Bern in the end is the Bern.

15 states have voted. Bernie has won 5. 35 are left. Most of the states in more Sanders-friendly areas have not voted.

Clinton is the most likely winner, but acting like its already over is to dismiss the majority of the Democratic electorate as irrelevant.

It's a good thing, then, that it looks like Hillary Clinton can afford to have a spoiler; because Super Tuesday was a hot mess for the Republicans. Rubio and Cruz both notched up wins, Trump didn't score runaway victories, and hell ... even Kaisch pulled out a strong second-place finish somewhere. Instead of one candidate to take on Trump, it looks like all of them are going to stay and try to pick off states here and there (Republican contests shift to winner-take-all further down the line) ... anything to deny Trump a majority of delegates at the convention. So the prospect of an independent Trump run against a GOP holding its nose and nominating Cruz remains surprisingly high.

I wouldn't take anything for granted about the general election.

[Terralthra]

Bernie is held to a much higher standard than anyone else. He exceeds basically every other candidate in his plans and positions on oppressed minorities, as well as his history of actions and votes on their behalf, but because he isn't perfect, those same minorities are instead voting for someone actively worse for them. Then again, poor, rural Republican voters have been voting against their own interest for decades. I suppose it's about time the Democratic electorate caught up.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know if Sanders is held to a higher standard overall, but I think that because he's run as a revolutionary (in the non-violent sense, obviously) and built a reputation of integrity and principle, even minor failings seem like glaring hypocrisy and risk reducing him to "just another politician".

I suppose to some extent that's fair-he set the standard himself-, but its also frustrating. For trying to be better than a typical politician, he may be treated more harshly.

[Lord MJ]

Pre-disclosure: I'm a Bernie supporter. And I don't agree with the conclusions about the before articles or what I'm posting here. Just paraphrasing the thoughts of black Americans.

But based on the articles it appears that he has a history of working against minorities (the nuclear waste story.)

We already mentioned that there is controversy that Sander's education plans hurt HBCUs. Sander's health care plan would involve taking a black man's name off of the nations healthcare plan and is therefore a spitting on Obama's legacy. Etc, etc.

[Terralthra]

No, his plans don't hurt HBCUs. They don't help privately-run HBCUs as much as they help public colleges and universities, because - get this - Sanders supports a strong public college system.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders actually was asked about Historically Black Colleges and Universities in a recent town hall and pledged to increase support for them.

[Lord MJ]

No, his plans don't hurt HBCUs. They don't help privately-run HBCUs as much as they help public colleges and universities, because - get this - Sanders supports a strong public college system.

The source of the controversy is that privately run HBCUs are put at a disadvantage by making public college and universities tuition free. 50% of HBCUs are private. Therefore 50% of HBCUs are put at a disadvantage. It appears Hillary won on this issue.

Sanders actually was asked about Historically Black Colleges and Universities in a recent town hall and pledged to increase support for them.

Which to many black voters seems like pandering. He only pledged support after he was called on his plan hurting HBCUs. Furthermore if he didn't provide specifics (I believe Hillary actually attached a number and plan to help HBCUs), then it doesn't give cause for black voters to believe him.

[Soontir C'boath]

Sanders has repeatedly ad nauseam called for a revolution in health, educational, and wage policies, but it seems the Atlantic article is arguing that since it is not a revolution that is specifically tailored to blacks, he cannot call himself a revolutionist...

Which to many black voters seems like pandering. He only pledged support after he was called on his plan hurting HBCUs. Furthermore if he didn't provide specifics (I believe Hillary actually attached a number and plan to help HBCUs), then it doesn't give cause for black voters to believe him.

LOL Sounds like damned if supports, damned if he doesn't at this point then.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, his plans don't hurt HBCUs. They don't help privately-run HBCUs as much as they help public colleges and universities, because - get this - Sanders supports a strong public college system.

The source of the controversy is that privately run HBCUs are put at a disadvantage by making public college and universities tuition free. 50% of HBCUs are private. Therefore 50% of HBCUs are put at a disadvantage. It appears Hillary won on this issue.

Sanders actually was asked about Historically Black Colleges and Universities in a recent town hall and pledged to increase support for them.

Which to many black voters seems like pandering. He only pledged support after he was called on his plan hurting HBCUs. Furthermore if he didn't provide specifics (I believe Hillary actually attached a number and plan to help HBCUs), then it doesn't give cause for black voters to believe him.

So...

He doesn't support their interests, he's a racist. He does... its pandering.

In other words, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Should he have talked about it more before? Maybe. But he can't discuss every issue at once, and to be honest, I'm fairly sure HBUCs are not the most important issue in the country, for black people or anyone else. But when it came up, he gave a favourable answer. What more can people ask for?

Does he automatically fail because he hasn't spent his entire career focussing on exclusively black issues? Hillary sure as hell hasn't either.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think what frustrates me the most is that black voters, by and large, seem to have forgotten, or at least forgiven, the outright racist campaign Clinton ran against Obama eight years ago.

[Lord MJ]

I think the root of the discord and animous is that in their mind he doesn't see there is a difference between the economic issues and racial issues. It's been a repeated source of frustration for black voters.

I'm fairly sure HBUCs are not the most important issue in the country, for black people or anyone else.

I'm glad Sanders didn't say that.

But when it came up, he gave a favourable answer. What more can people ask for?

Stop trying to replace Obamacare, and stop trying to make public colleges tuition free. Also stop characterizing blacks as poor or in jail. Also explain exactly how his grand spending plans will work and they will even get passed in congress. These are sentiments I've seen from blacks that are vehemently opposed to Bernie Sanders.

[The Vortex Empire]

Also explain exactly how his grand spending plans will work and they will even get passed in congress. These are sentiments I've seen from blacks that are vehemently opposed to Bernie Sanders.

If they think the GOP will be any less obstructionist with Hillary Clinton of all people, I have a bridge to sell them.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

We have two different stories emerging. One is a hot mess, and the other is the story we've been covering for weeks now. We'll start with the boring story: So, end of the night, and Sanders exceeded expectations by winning by substantial margins in Minnesota, Colorado, (both caucuses in states filled with white people) and Oklahoma (likewise filled with white people.)

Yeah, keep playing up this false narrative. We know the reason- a false attempt to discredit the Sanders campaign by portraying it as racist. The Clinton crowd has found a smear they think will work, and by God they're going to stick to it.

Clinton doesn't need to smear the Sanders' campaign. The data, by and large, is clear. Outside of a handful of exceptions, Bernie Sanders is the candidate of young white people. If he were the candidate of more than young white people, his performance in the primary season would be much better than what it has been.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release ... -colorado/

DENVER, Colo. – Continuing a trend started in Nevada where he won the Latino vote by eight points according to entrance polls, Sen. Bernie Sanders convincingly carried 10 of the top 15 Latino counties in Colorado, many by wide margins.

“You can only win the state of Colorado by more than 18 points if you get the support of the state’s Latino community in a big way,” said Arturo Carmona, Sanders’ deputy political director. “Last night’s victory is the result of organizers working on the ground to engage the community and deliver Sen. Sanders’ message of fixing a rigged economy.”

Sanders carried Colorado with sizable margins of victory in the most dense Latino regions. Adams, Weld and Denver counties are home to 43 percent of the Latino Democrats in the state. He won Adams County by 23 percent, Weld County by 22 percent and Denver County by 10 percent.

“Latinos will play a pivotal role in Sen. Sanders’ path to victory in important states like Arizona, Illinois, New York, California and Florida and we’re confident he can continue to win in battleground states with their help,” Carmona said.

Colorado is also a caucus state. Caucuses, by their very nature, draw out the most politically engaged and motivated voters. Also, your source is nakedly biased, and is repeating the wholly, and demonstrably, false assertion that Bernie Sanders won the Latino vote in Nevada. The entrance polls did not track with the actual results from the Hispanic-heavy precincts near Las Vegas.

He generally performed to expectations in Massachusetts (a toss-up state with slight Clinton leanings,) and lost horribly in the South (the prediction of thirty point losses was being grossly generous to Sanders.)

And I'm sure Bill Clinton campaigning at polling places had no effect on the very close results in Massachusetts.

As am I. And I'm not being sarcastic. Bill Clinton appeared in what ... three places? He also, apparently, didn't approach voters and ask them to vote for Hillary. Massachusetts was a toss-up state, but it was still slightly favoring Clinton. Her husband's not a wizard, and didn't deliver the state into her hands.

Sanders knows he's just being a spoiler at this point, since he came out really early, gave his speech about how he plans to stick it out to the bitter, bitter, end, and then went to bed, denying the press the satisfaction of watching him react to getting repeatedly kicked in the balls.

That's an awfully cynical way to look at it.

Aside from the fact that dismissing him as "just a spoiler" is to ignore the numerous valid reasons he might have for sticking out the campaign in favour of implying that he should just quit the race to make way for the Chosen One, Hillary Clinton, to assume her "rightful" place.

That Sanders is being a spoiler is a perfectly legitimate conclusion to draw. He has no hope of gaining the nomination, it's arguable he's never had any hope of gaining the nomination. The only people who gain from him remaining in the Democratic contest are the Republicans, because Sanders is forcing Clinton to spend money campaigning against him ... money that she might've otherwise used to counter Donald Trump.

He's proven that he's mainly the candidate of the 8-10% of the Democratic Party who would be Greens if they thought the Green Party could win elections.

You are liar, because I refuse to believe that you are this delusional.

Portraying Sanders' level of support as in the 10% range is a flat-out lie, with no basis in actual numbers.

In 2008, roughly 19% of eligible Democrats turned up to vote in the primaries. And this was the highest level of turnout since 1972. This year, Democratic turnout is something like 50% less than what it was in 2008. If anything, asserting that Bernie Sanders has the support of 10% of voting Democrats may be overstating things. To put it into context, when Obama won Iowa in 2008, a whopping four percent of eligible Democratic voters turned out to support him (bear in mind, Iowa is a caucus state.)

If you mean that no one else thinks he can win, well, I doubt the Clinton campaign would have attacked him so hard if they didn't take him seriously.

They can't really ignore him, can they. They have a prime example showcasing why one shouldn't ignore non-credible candidates. Donald Trump is a non-serious candidate that was broadly ignored until he stopped being a non-serious candidate.

Also, the high turnout is, in my opinion, a reason to pick Sanders. He offers something new. Exciting. He has enthusiastic supporters and giant rallies. And it seems to me that the Democratic turnout has been lower on days when a Clinton victory was a foregone conclusion (I seem to recall reports of Iowa and New Hampshire being high, South Carolina and Super Tuesday being lower). Which tells me people aren't excited by "Clinton the Inevitable." And why should they be?

This is a thing that happens in primaries. The inevitability thing depresses turnout for the candidate who isn't "it." And if Sanders offered something exciting, Democratic turnout in this primary season wouldn't be only slightly above historic norms. You want to see what happens to turnout when a candidate offers something that's perceived by a large percentage of the voting public as new and exciting? See Obama, Barack and Trump, Donald for examples. Hell, Hillary Clinton appears to have the "new, exciting" thing going for her, when it comes to Southern African-American voters ... they turned out for her in greater numbers than they did for Obama (admittedly, they might be doing so because they see just how terrifying the Republican field of candidates is.)

Worse, looking at the seventeen states that are left to vote in March, only a handful of them really strike me as Sanders territory. The rest have much more traditional Democratic voter makeups, and we already know how mainstream Democrats are voting. So, while his supporters are all passionate, starry-eyed idealists, overflowing with optimism; the only one who's going to feel the Bern in the end is the Bern.

15 states have voted. Bernie has won 5. 35 are left. Most of the states in more Sanders-friendly areas have not voted.

Yes, Sanders won five states. If we're going to play that game, Clinton won ten. That's not really a favorable exchange rate for Sanders ... especially since the territory that is most friendly to Sanders isn't especially rich in delegates.

It's a good thing, then, that it looks like Hillary Clinton can afford to have a spoiler; because Super Tuesday was a hot mess for the Republicans. Rubio and Cruz both notched up wins, Trump didn't score runaway victories, and hell ... even Kaisch pulled out a strong second-place finish somewhere. Instead of one candidate to take on Trump, it looks like all of them are going to stay and try to pick off states here and there (Republican contests shift to winner-take-all further down the line) ... anything to deny Trump a majority of delegates at the convention. So the prospect of an independent Trump run against a GOP holding its nose and nominating Cruz remains surprisingly high.

I wouldn't take anything for granted about the general election.

I admit that Clinton could choke on a pretzel tomorrow and the Democratic nomination would fall to Sanders. If that happens, then we'd raise the spectre of a Bloomberg independent run. Wouldn't that be a fun general election? Trump vs Cruz vs Sanders vs Bloomberg.

I think what frustrates me the most is that black voters, by and large, seem to have forgotten, or at least forgiven, the outright racist campaign Clinton ran against Obama eight years ago.

If Obama could forgive Clinton, and hire her to work in his Cabinet, then so could black voters. Especially since the actions of Hillary Clinton as SecState reflected her boss's views on foreign policy so well. As has been previously posted, Sanders' class-first views do not impress black voters; because they've had a very long memory of being screwed over by class-first progressives. The progressive movement of the early twentieth century disenfranchised a lot of black voters, because they were believed to be corrupt. Both Presidents Roosevelt, progressive heroes of their times, were racist in their actions; even as they made great strides in conservation and the construction of the societal safety-net. It wasn't until the racially-aware policies of JFK and LBJ did the lot of blacks really start to improve in the twentieth century.

[Lord MJ]

Also explain exactly how his grand spending plans will work and they will even get passed in congress. These are sentiments I've seen from blacks that are vehemently opposed to Bernie Sanders.

If they think the GOP will be any less obstructionist with Hillary Clinton of all people, I have a bridge to sell them.

But in this case, there is an issue that since the Democrats are centrists and moderates (I would say corporatists) do any Democrats actually support any of his policies? That's a question I've gotten about Sanders. So it's not just an issue about the GOP. On the other hand, Dems seem to be strongly behind Hillary so it gives the appearance that she can get more done.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think the root of the discord and animous is that in their mind he doesn't see there is a difference between the economic issues and racial issues. It's been a repeated source of frustration for black voters.

I don't think that's entirely fair.

Their is certainly overlap between the two issues, but Sanders has addressed race specifically at times, most notably perhaps when it comes to reforming the Justice System.

I'm glad Sanders didn't say that.

Wouldn't be a tactful thing for him to say, but its true nonetheless.

It is a issue. Even an important one. But their are bigger priorities that Sanders is rightly focussing on.

America is not likely to rise or fall on funding for HBUCs. Climate change, the economy, and foreign policy, on the other hand...

Stop trying to replace Obamacare,

Ah, nice of your to repeat this Clinton talking point.

Sanders doesn't want to just scrap Obamacare. He wants to create something better.

Until he does, I'm sure Obamacare will remain in place under him (he voted for it, after all).

Now, if the objection is simply about replacing Obamacare with anything, even something better, simply because it doesn't have Obama's name on it or something, there's not much I can say to that.

and stop trying to make public colleges tuition free.

Why? Because it'll supposedly hurt HBCUs? Despite the fact that Sanders has pledged more support for them? Despite the fact that no president can responsible put the interests of a few institutions entirely ahead of the whole nation?

Also stop characterizing blacks as poor or in jail.

Except he hasn't done that, so far as I'm aware. He has rightly pointed out that a disproportionate number of black people are poor and in prison. You know, addressing racism. If he doesn't do this, he'll be called racist for not doing it.

Also explain exactly how his grand spending plans will work and they will even get passed in congress. These are sentiments I've seen from blacks that are vehemently opposed to Bernie Sanders.

Any Democratic President will depend on a sympathetic Democratic majority to get much done outside of Executive Action. Bernie or Clinton.

Sanders has made it clear that he will pay for his programs by tax increases on the rich, closing loopholes, and raising taxes while more than making up for it by cutting health care costs. Probably he'll also do it by spending less on the military and prisons. He probably should release more detailed plans and articulate it better, but let's be honest- how many voters ever read lengthy outlines of tax policy?

[Simon_Jester]

While I am... more than a little ambiguous about which candidate I think best to win the Democratic primary...

I do find it a bit ridiculous if Sanders is trapped in a Catch-22 situation with black voters, where if he says anything about the problems of black voters (i.e. chronic poverty and unjust imprisonment) he is condemned as racist, and if he proposes to do anything which might conceivably as a side effect have indirect negative consequences for blacks, he is condemned as racist, and so forth.

There comes a point at which the only way Sanders can 'win' by such standards is to make promises on a level that literally no mainstream candidate ever, including Obama, has ever done... And bluntly, if he did make such promises, realistically, he'd be lying.

If I were black, I'd be pretty goddamn sick of lending my support to corrupt mendacious creeps who talk big and claim they're going to do good for me and mine, but who in practice are just using me to strengthen their own position.

And yet that is what I feel like Lord MJ is effectively saying Sanders should be.

If he's honest about saying "blacks are one of several groups that are being stepped on in modern America, all of which have allied, parallel interests, and by pursuing certain goals we help everyone, including blacks," he's racist for, um... not doing enough specifically for blacks.

Whereas if he promises blacks the moon and the stars in the sky, a car in every pot and two chickens in every garage or whatever, then suddenly he's doing the "right thing" for blacks- namely, the exact same thing politicians have done "for" blacks for the past forty years, in the process of not helping African-Americans at all.

Am I off-base in thinking that this an amazingly counterproductive stance? It seems almost perfectly calculated to ensure that blacks take any real chance to improve their lot by participation in American politics... and cut themselves right out of it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Which leads me to wonder how many people have altogether given up on achieving reform through the political process and have simply accepted a permanent state of us vs. them?

But then, they'd have no reason to vote for Clinton.

[Tribble]

If it was Obama running with Sander's campaign, would he have had more support from the black community than Sanders does at present? Or would the black community still overwhelmingly support Clinton because they generally agree with her policies more?

[Raw Shark]

The nuclear waste article is reaching more than a little bit. Sanders can't find anywhere willing and able to store it in his own (tiny-ass, mountainous) state, so he cuts a deal with Dubya, Dubya throws one of his own towns under the bus, no doubt receiving something nice for Texas in exchange, and this makes Sanders a racist? Bullshit.

[Thanas]

Ah, the south. Ruining America since 1776.

Yes, damn those women and minority voters ruining things for the young white male demographic!

I want to state for the record that I consider this, and its implication that I am motivated by racism and want to silence women and minorities to favour white men, false, dishonest, and arguably defamatory.

Quit making stupid comments and then accuse people of racism and bigotry when they rip your badly construed posts to shreds. You have done so in a number of threads. It is getting tiresome. Moreover, it is cowardly. You made a blanket, bigoted statement yourself.

Any further instance of this "debating" and you will face punishments.

Take it straight up to Edi or Queue or Dalton if you want to argue about this. Failure to do so and instead trying to argue about it in this thread will result in punishment.

[Thanas]

Sanders is a great candidate who in a more saner political process would be the best for president. Unfortunately, this is the USA, where the GOP obstructs and bullshits. I think Hillary would handle that better than Sanders. She is a candidate of the establishment, but then again the record of outsiders (Obama) turning into establishment candidates at a breathtaking pace once reaching office is not encouraging.

And I think Hillary will be tougher in debates against Trump.

[Raw Shark]

I would fucking love to see Sanders debate Trump. This is probably the closest vs we can possibly have IRL between money and anti-money where anti-money has any kind of chance to even be heard. It would be relatively epic.

[RogueIce]

Also explain exactly how his grand spending plans will work and they will even get passed in congress. These are sentiments I've seen from blacks that are vehemently opposed to Bernie Sanders.

If they think the GOP will be any less obstructionist with Hillary Clinton of all people, I have a bridge to sell them.

But in this case, there is an issue that since the Democrats are centrists and moderates (I would say corporatists) do any Democrats actually support any of his policies? That's a question I've gotten about Sanders. So it's not just an issue about the GOP. On the other hand, Dems seem to be strongly behind Hillary so it gives the appearance that she can get more done.

I think this a big one, TBH. We all remember how much shit Obama went through on Obamacare, and that was with Democrats controlling both houses of Congress.

How much better do you think someone going even more left than that - and on a larger scale if you believe his talk - will actually fair, even if the Democrats take back Congress? Sanders seems very much like an outlier in the Democratic party, and I don't see them going in lockstep with him even if they had Congress.

That would not really be an issue with Hillary.