Kerry got 14% of the white vote in Mississippi in 2004. Obama got 11% in 2008.
So your premise instantly falls apart on that alone.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Bernie Sanders: Barack Obama won 10% of the white vote in Mississippi. That speaks to very bad work done by Democrats there
- Thread starter GrapeApes
- Start date
Kerry got 14% of the white vote in Mississippi in 2004. Obama got 11% in 2008.
So your premise instantly falls apart on that alone.
Oh thank you senator of the whitest state in the union for always being their for me.
/s
I didn't realize Mississippi was the whole nation.
Indiana's white population voted in higher percentages and numbers for Obama than Kerry (Kerry lost Indiana by around 20 points IIRC).
A large coalition of voters, including young and old white people, helped turn North Carolina around in 2008.
The closest state in 2004, Wisconsin, with a large white population, voted heavily for Obama.
Michigan as well.
Ohio as well.
He was able to chip at the white vote and increase turnout among black Americans. If your premise had any merit, Obama would have done worse than Kerry in most white states. The opposite is true.
This topic is about Mississippi and Bernie's comments on whites there. If Obama in 08 couldn't do anything in Mississippi, then why should we believe anyone else can? Mississippi is universally considered the most racist state in the country for a reason. If you put Roy Moore in Mississippi, he still probably breaks 85% of the white vote.
That's only if you ignore Mississippi having a different history with racism than North Carolina or Wisconsin.
This is reductive: his main point is about Democratic policies not attracting more white voters across the country, including Mississippi, which is why he regularly talks about the working class and poor white population.
Democrats just scored 45% of the vote the last couple years because they attracted more people to the polls compared to the 1/3 of the state they typically do. They also did it with a black candidate.
What happened during the administration of the latter that made democrats lose support amongst White working class voters? I posted research earlier in this thread showing that even now, White support for social programs is directly impacted by their views on minorities.
Also, didn't FDR have to throw minorities under the bus in order to secure support for the New Deal from southern whites? If that's true, it makes all the sense in the world that they'd abandon the Democratic Party after LBJ signs civil rights legislation into law.
No, it's if you recognize that you can't ignore poor white people when the better message is that their lack of power is also being caused by a system that has been rigged over time against minorities in America.
So he chose to use Mississippi, a state that completely argues against his point, as his example for what reason?
Your defenses of his comment is hilarious.
Continued support for unpopular trade deals. Campaigning on picketing and protesting with unions and then avoiding it in 2011. Not jailing any of the people responsible for the 2008 crisis. Not having a clear platform that Republicans have worked on for decades.
Who are you that anyone should care what you find hilarious about me?
I'm talking about something bigger than I am. Perhaps you lack vision for the country, but I'd like to see things improve and not stretch to make good policy seem bad because I don't like the guy saying it.
You listed 3 presidents, and I was asking what happened during LBJ's presidency that caused white southern voters to flock from the Democratic Party. It was a rhetorical question, because it's something everyone knows. Also, all the stuff you listed, why would that hurt democrats and not Republicans?
They scored those percentages because of unprecedented turnout from blacks in Mississippi. I just proved to you that Obama did WORSE with whites than Kerry or Gore.
Bernie chose to talk about whites in Mississippi not being racist. The data proves him wrong. They are.
Obama increased his support among white voters between 04->08 because Bush screwed the pooch and the nation was desperate for change. That's how you get results like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia (Lean/Likely D state now, but 2008 was the first time since 1964 it had voted Democratic in a presidential race) going blue and Obama coming within 4,000 votes of winning Missouri.
Even then, when you consider that Obama ran roughly ten points ahead of Kerry in the popular vote, the 4% increase in white voters is not that impressive. Those gains largely came from boosted minority turnout and doing better among those minorities. Obama's improvement among African-American voters (88%->95%) was more significant. Dubya was also the last Republican to take the Hispanic vote seriously, which only broke 53-44. In 2008? 67-31 for Obama. There's your secret sauce.
Want to know something fun though? Kerry won 41% of the white vote in 04, Obama won 43% of the white vote in 08. In 2012 Obama won... 39% of the white vote. It was the worst performance among that demographic since Mondale, even Dukakis just barely edged him out. If you ran the 2012 election with 2004's demographics, Romney would have cruised, easily. He didn't because the country became more diverse and Obama tapped into that spectacularly, he won a clear majority in the popular vote, nearly every swing state and his party picked up several House and Senate seats.
Anyway - the important thing is we are talking about white Mississippians. Specifically the ~90% that consistently votes Republican, who Sanders argued are not racist. Obama did improve among white voters in the nation overall compared to Kerry, which makes sense given the final results, so why did he still manage to run behind Kerry in Mississippi among white voters?
Once again, this discussion about a specific demographic in Mississippi is being turned into "oh so you think ALL white people are racist HUH HUH???" No, no one said that. Much like how no one said all Mississippians are racist, yet that seems to keep coming up as if the black Mississippians just don't exist.
I feel like if I spit more data I'm just going to be this guy so I'll end it there
Because Trump didn't support the unpopular trade deal. Because Obama ran on it and didn't follow through with it. Not having a clear platform for Democrats wouldn't hurt Republicans.
You are correct about 1964, but I think you're not quite getting my point: there are white Americans who will never vote for a Democrat. There's likely not going to be a situation at the moment where you're winning 50%+ of the white vote in a southern state (or most states). We're talking about increasing the margin of the white vote, which makes it harder for Republicans to win if they can't make inroads with all other demographics.
Ex: Hispanics in Texas vote Democratic in higher numbers than Republican, but not to the extent of other states. Republicans are doing a good job appealing to higher percentages of Hispanic Americans in Texas and Florida because they're a lot quicker about issues concerning countries such as Venezuela to make it seem like they're on their side, and they've convinced a high enough portion of them that their vision of the economy will help them more than any immigration policy will hurt them. So even though they know that some Americans think lower of them because of the plot of land they were born, they will still for Republican. We have to get away from this idea that the economy that was doing well under Obama and into Trump is actually good for most Americans and frame it in a way where we understand how it's rigged, we understand how the systemic racism in the economic apparatus has also hurt poor and lower-class white people, and that the economy doing "well" doesn't mean it's doing well for many others than the rich (to which most of them are white).
Now further: what states still voted for him? States such as Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas (including a Democratic civil rights Senator who beat George HW Bush who ran an anti-civil rights campaign). There were and are plenty of racists across the country, but they're not exclusive to the south. You'll find plenty of racists in New York City, especially considering who our president is.
We're disagreeing because Sanders and co. act like those poor white people can be talked about in the same breath as poor black people in Mississippi.
This is textbook whitewashing of the problems faced by poor black people in Mississippi. Or do you think the massive gulf in poverty rates between MS blacks and whites is based on something other than systemic racial oppression?
Also what the fuck are you even talking about with "so they weren't racist in 2008?" Of course they were. They didnt' vote for Obama despite it being in most of their best interests. They also didn't vote for Kerry, Gore, or Clinton.
The problem here is you seriously think Sanders had some kind of point when he's talking about "the Democratic party of the last 15 years". Mississippi has been hard red as soon as the CRA was passed and never looked back. As I pointed otu earlier, Clinton and Gore were as close to a local duo as the Dems could probably ever hope to field in '92, running against a heavily weakened (via his own tax policy) HW Bush, with a tailwind of Perot stealing votes from HW Bush as a "center" right conservative, and even with that the combined Dem/Perot totals would have still lost to HW Bush. That was in 1992, almost twice as long ago as the time frame Sanders is giving here.
He's either lying or he doesn't know what he's talking about.
This reads like a ginned up "MLK quotes for white people" line, so fitting day to push that narrative.
But maybe you should flip back to the pages in this very thread were others have linked to numerous historic and contemproary studies that show this is just flat out fucking wrong.
You can't say "we need to help all the poor" when the white poor abandon you the minute you include black people. Thats still the reality of large swaths of this country, none more true than Mississippi. How many more studies, surveys, and polls do you all need to see that you can't fix racism by relieving "economic anxiety"?
The most economic anxiety a poor white man in Mississippi feels is when he sees a black man with a nicer car/house/etc. than he has.
And meanwhile you're also ignoring that this is nothing more than a rephrasing of "a rising tide lifts all ships" capitalist propaganda. It promises nothing more than a chance at shared prosperity to a people who have been systemically blocked by similarly worded programs and policies for more than 50 years now.
This is not the narrative of those best equipped to speak to anyone but those firmly planted within their own echo chamber.
Not in Mississippi where John Kerry did better in an election he lost handily.
Someone once said that you shouldn't sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect. Pretty good line that. Maybe B. heard that once and decided to take what he could get.
Because the previous guy had just tanked them all into upside down home mortagages that put roughly 10% of them out of work and actual percentage points worth of people on the street.
Go look at the 2012 election. Obama, with the incumbent tailwind having actually largely put the economy back together, saw his win margins drop substantially in both those states for 2012. As soon as the complete failure of the GOP's previous hand at the wheel had a brief moment to fade into memory these became swing states again and we all know how they broke in '16.
[quote[The problem Democrats have is they don't govern like they campaign, which is why they're not producing long-lasting coalitions as FDR did, where southern white folk were voting like black Americans because the economic needs were similar. So you didn't see Democrats hold onto their 2008 coalition. It would have still been bumpy going in 2010, but long-term, I don't believe it would have been as dire.[/quote]
How old are you? Do you even recall something before 2008? Clinton passed legislation based on what he campaigned on, was a successful and popular president, and yet when it was time to transition to something new a large portion of the white voters who supported him switched to the GOP, voting for a silver spooner from Texas over the VP who was part of that economic growth and social program expansion.
Or maybe take a look at what Obama actually did. Here is Politifact's breakdown. I wouldn't call it particularly fair to Obama if you consider the post-2010 headwinds he faced, but even then you see that he accomplished quite a bit of what he ran on, especially the major domestic policy issues, to at least some form of compromise.
Or how about an article comparing him to Trump two years in?
Maybe the average voter is just a fucking idiot who votes for whoever tells them what they want to hear and it has fuck all to do with actually passing policy.
Which is offensively dismissive towards the efforts to get to that 25-30 percent by Mississippian candidates running for state office. But Sanders says he can do it so fuck the people actually on the ground living this shit, right?
And you think Mississippi, a state that turned GOP immediately after the CRA and has never looked back, is the bellweather for how well the Democratic party resonates with working class people?
No, Sanders is letting them know he'd like to help with their needs and either intentionally or unintentionally not mentioning the minorities. Once he did it would all be for naught because these are the very same people who would cut their own parachute to see a black man fall to his death.
Also, if you think systemic racism in policy for a state like Mississippi hasn't been fine tuned to maximize the white folks hurt to black folks hurt ratio you're not paying attention. Yeah, there is some collateral damage, but for the most part they've been real successful sequestering the black majorities into a few counties they starve the fuck out of.
Ya'll keep acting like just explaining how socialism would end poverty will somehow by proxy get these poor white racists to stop being racist. The only difference Sanders' platform would achieve is that the next time a couple white guys decide to drag a black dude out for a beating they'll do so with a newer truck and a fresher coat of paint on the stars and bars painted on the hood.
Obama increased his support among white voters between 04->08 because Bush screwed the pooch and the nation was desperate for change. That's how you get results like Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia (Lean/Likely D state now, but 2008 was the first time since 1964 it had voted Democratic in a presidential race) going blue and Obama coming within 4,000 votes of winning Missouri.
Even then, when you consider that Obama ran roughly ten points ahead of Kerry in the popular vote, the 4% increase in white voters is not that impressive. Those gains largely came from boosted minority turnout and doing better among those minorities. Obama's improvement among African-American voters (88%->95%) was more significant. Dubya was also the last Republican to take the Hispanic vote seriously, which only broke 53-44. In 2008? 67-31 for Obama. There's your secret sauce.
Want to know something fun though? Kerry won 41% of the white vote in 04, Obama won 43% of the white vote in 08. In 2012 Obama won... 39% of the white vote. It was the worst performance among that demographic since Mondale, even Dukakis just barely edged him out. If you ran the 2012 election with 2004's demographics, Romney would have cruised, easily. He didn't because the country became more diverse and Obama tapped into that spectacularly, he won a clear majority in the popular vote, nearly every swing state and his party picked up several House and Senate seats.
Anyway - the important thing is we are talking about white Mississippians. Specifically the ~90% that consistently votes Republican, who Sanders argued are not racist. Obama did improve among white voters in the nation overall compared to Kerry, which makes sense given the final results, so why did he still manage to run behind Kerry in Mississippi among white voters?
Once again, this discussion about a specific demographic in Mississippi is being turned into "oh so you think ALL white people are racist HUH HUH???" No, no one said that. Much like how no one said all Mississippians are racist, yet that seems to keep coming up as if the black Mississippians just don't exist.
I feel like if I spit more data I'm just going to be this guy so I'll end it there
First, if I could upvote your post, I would because I just laughed out loud at the gif. FUCK, man! xD~~~~~~~
He didn't say white people aren't racist. He's saying 90% of whites in Mississippi aren't. It's dismissive and reductive to assume so, and if we agree with that premise (there are unfortunately people in this thread who don't), then the notion that you can win 20 - 30 percent of the white vote in Mississippi isn't controversial with better policies and a better platform.
Cutting into margins is fine, but once again, Hood and Espy ran very specific campaigns catered to Mississippians and barely improved among white voters. IIRC their share of the white vote was in the mid-teens, which combined with amazing black turnout and support wasn't enough to win. Hood in particular was a candidate who managed to pull this off four times in the ostensibly nonpartisan position as Attorney General, but once he ran for Governor and promised to expand Medicaid, that white support quickly evaporated. Why do you think that is?
Part of the problem is we're also comparing margins among presidential candidates, but neither side bothers competing in Mississippi. It's not like Obama is solely responsible for ignoring the state's needs, how often did you see Trump or Romney or McCain campaigning there? And sure, maybe that creates an opening for a Democrat to capitalize on, but we've seen what happens when both sides take Mississippi seriously. Democrats do 2-3 points better and still lose. Resources are finite and candidates can't be everywhere at once. Perhaps in a system where the Electoral College didn't exist it would make sense to try and juice up turnout in Hinds County, but unfortunately it currently does not really matter.
Obama, and even Clinton's platforms were strongly redistributive and either of them would have been able to tend to the needs of Mississippians greatly. Clinton even had an awesome plan to reinvest into rural America and it didn't matter. It worked on black voters, Obama won 98% of them in Mississippi in 2008, even better than his national numbers. I don't think the balancing act to maintain that level of support from the African-American community while improving white support to 25-30% is possible, if I'm being honest. That Sanders could seems rather presumptuous and dismissive of black voters (I have seen several people on this very forum unironically say something along the lines of "who else would black voters go for between Trump and Sanders???"), which is ironically the same thing he's complaining about with regards to the white working class. You can't square that peg, you have to pick one, and if you pick the WWC, it probably won't work.
Last edited:
90% of whites in Missisippi are racist. They prove it time and time again. Not a single Democrat in decades has been able to win 20-30 percent of the white vote. You just refuse to accept how ingrained the racism in Mississippi is, even compared to the country at large. And, in doing so, you are showing complete disregard to the blacks in Mississippi who suffer under the systemic racism put upon them.
But why coddle white voters in a state that won't give him any EC at the expense of possible alienating the black voters that he desperately needs in the primary?
Keep in mind him defending voters who didn't vote for Abrams or Gillum due to their race.
This. The deep south is a racist hell hole. And I say that as someone who has lived in the south for a long time.
Saw you said Michigan not Wisconsin so my fault on that but they too have a vastly different history than Mississippi.
Last I checked, I haven't been ignoring poor white people in any of my advocacy work or posts in this topic. They also aren't being ignored by policy proposals to any degree higher than poor black, latine, first nation, Asian or other poor POC. Yet they are constantly the one group who sway against policy proposals that would benefit the poor and working class and have done so since the civil rights era in Mississippi.
When Truman was re-elected in 1948, he lost four states that had gone Democratic in every election since Reconstruction to the third party candidacy of Strom Thurmond, who campaigned on a platform of "states rights" (i.e. segregation): Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Thurmond got 72% of the vote in South Carolina, 80% in Alabama, and 87% in Mississippi.
In 1964, LBJ was re-elected in a historic landslide with over 61% of the vote. Nonetheless, each of these four states went for Barry Goldwater, their first Republican votes since Reconstruction. Along with them, Georgia went Republican for the first tim ever. Again we have eye-popping results like Goldwater getting 69% in Alabama and 87% in Mississippi.
No doubt by complete coincidence, Truman and LBJ were known for their strong support of civil rights.
There are many fact errors in this post, including Mississippi's vote patterns (they voted for the Democrat in 1976 as well). I live in a state that's gerrymandered and rigged against Democrats in Florida, where gubernatorial, Senate and presidential races are typically close, albeit ever so Republican leaning. Democrats continue to be baffled by why they can't make further inroads. Part of it is obviously gerrymandering; that can't be disputed. Part of it, which has bothered me for a while, is how Democrats let Republicans get in front of issues. Why are people like DeSantis allowed to fool people into thinking he's pro-environment and getting in front of red tide, which was worsened under Scott? Why are they letting people like Scott get ahead on Venezuela and letting him pretend he cares when they should be proactive? Why was Nelson's campaign so slow against Scott's well-oiled machine?
The Democratic Party here is weaker on the state level (which is unacceptable in a state like this), and they're not able to define what the state Democratic Party is as Republicans can define themselves. So yeah, they're on the ground, but they don't seem to get how to build the party. Nelson could have made the environment such a major plank, but he kept talking about Scott's Medicare issues, which were awful but already litigated in his 2010 governor's race. The few who have done better, like Margaret Good, did a good job defining herself on the environment than other Dems. That doesn't mean everyone wins all the time, but you'll build the party with a more well-defined platform when you are not only pro-environment, but link Republicans to bad environmental policy.
Just assuming people are idiots and don't listen is a continued losing strategy.
Last edited:
Gillum pointed out all those discrepancies about Desantis and lost. What magic words are you expecting Democrats to express that change hearts and minds alright with being lied to constantly?
Obama's policies partly consisted of going back to the Clinton days and getting Clintonites like Larry Summers, which didn't do much to stem voodoo Reaganomics. Obama wasn't a bad president, and I think for some of my Sanders friends, he was actually underrated in certain areas. But looking back, if you need new people to fix old ideas, why get the same people like Summers?
I'm very excited about Sanders because I think his policies are great, and that the poor would be lifted as the rigged system gets taken apart in favor of a better redistributive system and there are tangible improvements. It's the kind of platform that helps poor minorities and limits the power of the rich (which includes so many rich white people). But he also does a much better job touting his platform. Hillary had a bunch of ideas yet they couldn't promote it. "Stronger together" was a really weak slogan. Bernie knows how to make a clear platform that people understand and what his policies are and why they would work. He does a good job explaining the problems with the system and has the best ideas of how to change them. And one of which is not just saying, "The economy is good because look at the jobs," when many are low-paying, overtime is lost, unions are weakened, and workers have less negotiating power.
Policies that lift up the poor aren't alienating to any black voter I know.
Biden's position on marijuana, however, will do a much better job alienating black voters in the general. Bernie's policies aren't much different than what some civil rights leaders in the 60s were advocating, which was not just about voting rights but also about giving the poor more power through income and radical distributive change.
Not surprising. He will speak bad of the Democratic Party because he's not part of it... just using it to try and get the nomination.
It has been explained several times how rising tides don't raise all boats. There are major issues that are unique to black voters and Bernie continues to fail to address them.
Indeed, the histories are different. I'm not saying it's 1:1. We don't have these debates on these boards because nobody holds those views here openly, but I argue with many Republicans about Civil War history, monuments, the racist secession speeches given by southern states that talked of white supremacy, and when they tell me MLK was a Republican, I correct them, let them know he told people to vote LBJ over the anti-civil rights Goldwater, and that MLK's policies were very, very left.
So I get it. I'm saying that we're paying so much attention to the state he used but not enough as to what he's saying: plenty of people are racists. There are plenty who aren't, and whatever the percentage is, increasing margins with white voters don't have to alienate minority voters and would help Democrats nationally.
Many of his advertisements weren't about the environment in a year where red tide was rampant, though he did a good job in the debates. As a gubernatorial candidate, Gillum also did far better than any other "centrist" white Democrats who ran since 94 when Democrats last won the governor's mansion. Crist, Sink, Davis, McBride and MacKay all did worse than he did.
You're confusing, "Someone is debating something opposite of what you're saying," with, "Someone said something I agree with and it's true." Not even MLK was afraid to talk about the Appalachian white American in the some breath as the poor black American.
MLK had them in same breadth ECONOMICALLY, but socially???? Not even close. This is exactly the problem with Bernie and his supporters. For many of us, it's not all about wealth.
Yes, economically, because he felt wealth and income were specifically tied to power and equality. To paraphrase, we didn't need to spend a dollar to give black Americans the right to vote, but we need to spend billions to create a fairer economic system.
They voted for Carter after Nixon resigned, kind of an easily explained outlier there. And Carter only won by about 2%.
Meanwhile in '72 McGovern, the most progressive candidate to run since FDR, got fucking bodied by Nixon 78% to 20%.
1964 following the CRA they voted for noted father of the southern strategy 87% to 13% over LBJ. LBJ won the national vote 61% to 38% and the EV 486 to 52.
In '68 the state would vote independent, going for George "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Wallace.
So it took a GOP president getting caught and admitting to an actual fucking crime for them to briefly vote for a southern Dem by a narrow margin. This after two stints of breaking with the entire rest of the nation to pick the most racist motherfucker running the first two cycles after the CRA.
But yep, keep fighting on that hill of MS not voting entirely on the race politics.
Also, what the fuck with the random tangent moving of goal posts to Florida? Are you trying to suggest that Florida and Mississippi are remotely politically similar? They don't share the same demographics. Florida is "south" in the same way Texas is.
Here's a dose of reality for you: When the Civil War ended Mississippi was 55% black. one county's population was 92% former slaves. Yet black politicians have been relegated to the sidelines and kept out of power for the entire post-CW history of the state. How do you think that happens? Its now about 40% black and yet they have basically zero meaningful representation in state office. If a shade over 10% of the white people actually aren't racist and would show up this wouldn't be the case. But obviously to Sanders and co. this is a Dem problem, not a constituency problem, because why blame racist white people when you can blame the true ultimate evil, the democrat establishment, right? Just not progressive enough to win over Mississippi's hard working blue collar salt of the earth folk.
Last edited:
What if I told you that this "fairer economic system" would still have the socially oppressive characteristics that black people want to address?
You know why? It's not just the rich that fuck over black people. Poor whites in states like Mississippi take political actions to screw them over too.
ThisThingIsUseful I don't know why you keep dancing around the fact that poor white southerners will actively vote against their self interest, if it means that minorities will also benefit from the same social and economic policies that would help them. There are numerous studies on the issue that shows this, and you keep on bringing up appealing to poor whites.
No one has abandoned them. They have chosen to flock to the Republican Party because they want to see minorities fucked over. Stop infantilising them as if they are these poor sods that need to be sympathised with. No one (white southern voters) is that fucking stupid. When they elect Republicans as their local municipal representatives; and they elect Republicans to serve them at the state level, and they send to Congress Republicans time and time again; how do they have the gall to turn around and claim democrats have abandoned them?
It's not about economic anxiety with these voters.
No one has abandoned them. They have chosen to flock to the Republican Party because they want to see minorities fucked over. Stop infantilising them as if they are these poor sods that need to be sympathised with. No one (white southern voters) is that fucking stupid. When they elect Republicans as their local municipal representatives; and they elect Republicans to serve them at the state level, and they send to Congress Republicans time and time again; how do they have the gall to turn around and claim democrats have abandoned them?
It's not about economic anxiety with these voters.
Speaking for myself personally there is nothing to read except the fact that Bernie is a "color blind" type of person. That still doesn't dissuade me from supporting him because at the end of the day I've seen enough from him to understand he will fight to protect those being preyed on or attacked by the rich and powerful. He has a blend of moral compass and stubborness that clearly suggests even despite his flaw he won't put up with bullshit like southern states defunding federal projects like what happened with Obamacare.
The Sanders team needs to get across this fact of how his stubbornness cuts both ways. He doesn't appreciate the concerns of people who don't share as much his experience as much as such people would like but he is so determined to get his agenda done he won't settle for halfassed victories.
As someone who volunteered to help with his campaign in 2016 the way it was ran simply had a bunch of flaws that made him unable to appeal specifically to black voters. He did have a colorblindness issue back then and it only got mildly better in 2019. He still makes casual mistakes like that video in his OP but his stump speech is now putting Native Americans and black folk more visible in his platform.
Just how ignorant are you?
Ignoring the fact that people DIED to get black Americans to vote, the fact is that money was needed to get them the right to vote.
You think dismantling voter suppression DOESN'T cost money?
I'm literally paraphrasing MLK Jr., so you're more than welcome to tell him that he's ignorant.
This doesn't really contradict my post, nor do any of the Democratic candidates address this in a better way.
I've addressed all of this, particularly the bold:
"I'm not saying it's 1:1. We don't have these debates on these boards because nobody holds those views here openly, but I argue with many Republicans about Civil War history, monuments, the racist secession speeches given by southern states that talked of white supremacy, and when they tell me MLK was a Republican, I correct them, let them know he told people to vote LBJ over the anti-civil rights Goldwater, and that MLK's policies were very, very left.
So I get it. I'm saying that we're paying so much attention to the state he used but not enough as to what he's saying: plenty of people are racists. There are plenty who aren't, and whatever the percentage is, increasing margins with white voters don't have to alienate minority voters and would help Democrats nationally."
If you think that, then we've lowered the bar of graduate level courses. Especially Drek's posts.
Shout-out to Spirit of Jazz and mutantmagnet I guess. They get it.
It's not. He was arrested at a Civil Rights rally, but the picture's been debunked.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white progressive. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, or even the white moderate but the white progressive who is more devoted to "economy" than to justice; who prefers negative unity which is the coddling of white racists to a positive unity which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your experiences and history;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for culling another man's hatred; who lives by the myth of racists are actually secretly progressive and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
~Neo Martin Luther King. Or maybe Martin Luther King if he was still alive.
~Neo Martin Luther King. Or maybe Martin Luther King if he was still alive.
No offense, but that is the stuff that gets people mad. They come with facts, figure, IMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, and folks go "Nah that can't be right". Rational conversation is a two way street.
what a post. respect for taking the time to write that out and educate a few posters. I'm too old for this shit.
User banned (1 month): Condescending and dismissive rhetoric over a series of posts in this thread
"I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your experiences and history," sounds like a lot of "centrists" who believe in civil rights but don't understand that economic justice will help poor minorities. Here's one for you:
"It didn't cost the nation one penny to integrate lunch counters. It didn't cost the nation one penny to guarantee the right to vote. But now we are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power."
- MLK Jr.
But apparently, that's ignorant to you.