Bernie needs to connect with black voters. Here’s how that’s going.

[Professor Emeritus]

Not the best argument I have ever heard you make tbh. Using that argument one could say trust the GOP because they abolished slavery. Bernie has often had a one size fits all approach to politics that isn't translated in the real world. Liz Warren adjusted and took up well thought out, explained nuanced positions. Bernie feels like he just keeps giving more of the same. I may be wrong, but that's how I see it based on what I read and see.

That's an awful argument because there ain't a single Republican alive who had shyt to do with the end of slavery.

And why make this a Bernie vs. Warren issue? I'm pro-Warren and pro-Bernie both. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot to attack some good thing a candidate did just because we like some other candidate better.

Like I already said, saying that Bernie fought for civil rights for Black people doesn't define the argument. It's only the start. But it's a good start. Whenever you're trying to answer the question, "is that person genuine about what they are saying or are they just being politically convenient?", one of the first things you look at is, "Okay, well, what were they doing before it was politically convenient?" And the answer is that Bernie was fighting on the side of Black people back when it was extremely non-convenient to do so. That doesn't tell you that Bernie will make the best president, but it does give you the impression that Bernie's stated concern for the welfare of the Black community ain't just a show for votes.

Similarly, Clinton campaigning for Goldwater doesn't prove that she won't stand up for Black people. Of course people can change, and I honestly believe that Clinton changed. But did she change when it was hard, or when it was easy? And when you look through the rest of her career, did she stand up for Black people when it would have been hard (like 1990s fights regarding black criminality and welfare reform, or in 2008 when Obama was under attack from racists during the primaries?) or just when it was easy (making promises while campaigning)? Clinton appears to me to take the politically expeditious route far too often.

Again, nothing Sanders did in the 1960s proves his case. It just sets the bedrock for what we can trust regarding his case. Does that make him a better candidate than Warren? Of course not. I would probably prefer Warren to win the presidency at this point. But I would be perfectly fine with Bernie too. We should only shyt on candidates when they're doing the wrong thing - shytting on candidates who are doing all the right things just because we prefer someone else is misguided energy, yet all the way since 2015 it seems to be where a lot of the anti-Bernie hate has developed from.

If Bernie hadn't dared to stand up to someone else's favorite candidate, then his fight in the civil rights era would be seen as nothing but positive. People talk about plenty of old things in campaigns - McCain, Kerry, and Gore all had their Vietnam service come up as a campaign issue, while Trump, Bush, and Clinton had their draft dodging come up, and Vietnam happened just as long ago as the CRM did.

 

[jj23]

We often bring up mass incarceration and the super predators statements Those were massive mistakes by Bill and Hillary.

That said, I feel like Hillary was lumped with Bill and not given a chance to see how her initiatives would have worked.

She was for addressing the gender pay gap, which would have helped black women, criminal justice reform, and helping more black small businesses.

She made a lot of black women critical parts of her campaign and for me had more in her policies for black people than Bernie did.

 

[jj23]

That's an awful argument because there ain't a single Republican alive who had shyt to do with the end of slavery.

And why make this a Bernie vs. Warren issue? I'm pro-Warren and pro-Bernie both. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot to attack some good thing a candidate did just because we like some other candidate better.

Like I already said, saying that Bernie fought for civil rights for Black people doesn't define the argument. It's only the start. But it's a good start. Whenever you're trying to answer the question, "is that person genuine about what they are saying or are they just being politically convenient?", one of the first things you look at is, "Okay, well, what were they doing before it was politically convenient?" And the answer is that Bernie was fighting on the side of Black people back when it was extremely non-convenient to do so. That doesn't tell you that Bernie will make the best president, but it does give you the impression that Bernie's stated concern for the welfare of the Black community ain't just a show for votes.

Similarly, Clinton campaigning for Goldwater doesn't prove that she won't stand up for Black people. Of course people can change, and I honestly believe that Clinton changed. But did she change when it was hard, or when it was easy? And when you look through the rest of her career, did she stand up for Black people when it would have been hard (like 1990s fights regarding black criminality and welfare reform, or in 2008 when Obama was under attack from racists during the primaries?) or just when it was easy (making promises while campaigning)? Clinton appears to me to take the politically expeditious route far too often.

Again, nothing Sanders did in the 1960s proves his case. It just sets the bedrock for what we can trust regarding his case. Does that make him a better candidate than Warren? Of course not. I would probably prefer Warren to win the presidency at this point. But I would be perfectly fine with Bernie too. We should only shyt on candidates when they're doing the wrong thing - shytting on candidates who are doing all the right things just because we prefer someone else is misguided energy, yet all the way since 2015 it seems to be where a lot of the anti-Bernie hate has developed from.

If Bernie hadn't dared to stand up to someone else's favorite candidate, then his fight in the civil rights era would be seen as nothing but positive. People talk about plenty of old things in campaigns - McCain, Kerry, and Gore all had their Vietnam service come up as a campaign issue, while Trump, Bush, and Clinton had their draft dodging come up, and Vietnam happened just as long ago as the CRM did.

Nah, it's not a bad argument. The party fundamentally changed as years went by. The party changed as people changed, and people change. So your juxtapose of Hillary to Bernie showed one side of a complex coin. Your argument initially never mentioned how people changed and leaving that out there creates the framing of it being consistent through the years on both sides when it wasn't necessarily so.

Warren vs Bernie, I simply said Warren has outflanked him so far. Is that incorrect? She is also running, unlike Hillary. I can also argue, why bring up Hillary in this argument to justify why Bernie should be trusted, as she isn't campaigning.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

We often bring up mass incarceration and the super predators statements Those were massive mistakes by Bill and Hillary.

That said, I feel like Hillary was lumped with Bill and not given a chance to see how her initiatives would have worked.

She was for addressing the gender pay gap, which would have helped black women, criminal justice reform, and helping more black small businesses.

She made a lot of black women critical parts of her campaign and for me had more in her policies for black people than Bernie did.

How can you claim that addressing the gender pay gap (which is extremely difficult to do in any practical sense) will "help black women", but not see that Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, enhancing worker-owned cooperatives, improving early childhood education, making college more affordable, criminal justice reform, and ending the privatization of prisons would help FAR more Black people?

Of course Hillary had some initiatives for Black people, but they wouldn't have been nearly as groundbreaking in most Black people's lives as what Bernie is proposing.

And GTFO with this "she made black women critical parts of her campaign" shyt. On the wiki page for the Hilary Clinton campaign there are 12 key people listed - 7 white men, 2 white women, a latina, an iranian, and an asian man. And her running mate was a white man too.

Of the 8 key people listed in the Bernie Sanders campaign wiki, there are 2 Black women (Nina Turner and Briahna Joy Gray), 2 Latinas, an Indian, a Pakistani, just 1 white man and 1 white woman. Nina Turner especially has been in a more critical role for Bernie, going back to the last election and in-between elections too, than any Black woman in the Clinton campaign.

Yeah there were Black women in lower-level and regional positions in the Clinton campaign, but that's mostly because Clinton was the establishment candidate and there are a lot of Black women in the Democratic establishment, not to mention that she was specifically targeting for Black votes. You can NOT claim that shyt is any sort of meaningful Black empowerment when none of those people had any real say in what the campaign would do. They were tools to be used BY the campaign.

Nah, it's not a bad argument. The party fundamentally changed as years went by. The party changed as people changed, and people change. So your juxtapose of Hillary to Bernie showed one side of a complex coin. Your argument initially never mentioned how people changed and leaving that out there creates the framing of it being consistent through the years on both sides when it wasn't necessarily so.

Warren vs Bernie, I simply said Warren has outflanked him so far. Is that incorrect? She is also running, unlike Hillary. I can also argue, why bring up Hillary in this argument to justify why Bernie should be trusted, as she isn't campaigning.

I'm not wasting any time on the "Republicans ended slavery and then 100 years later a bunch of racist dems became Republican, therefore people's past positions mean nothing" argument.

And I'm not engaging in the Bernie vs. Warren debate. I'd happily support either and I'm not invested in either. Whichever one of them can win is fine by me. I'm only saying that it's ridiculous to argument that people's past actions don't mean anything, especially when those past actions took personal commitment and sacrifice and show something of their character.

 

[Mook]

That’s all I wanted to see.



And yes Bernie will lose to Warren.

She's polling at 8%

She's got zero charisma

And people like me remember when she held out until after Bernie decidedly lost to endorse Hilary. She's a DNC shill.




GOAT been tryna to take down the rich cacs for 30 years. EYES ON THE PRIZE Y'ALL

 

[jj23]

How can you claim that addressing the gender pay gap (which is extremely difficult to do in any practical sense) will "help black women", but not see that Medicare for All, $15 minimum wage, enhancing worker-owned cooperatives, improving early childhood education, making college more affordable, criminal justice reform, and ending the privatization of prisons would help FAR more Black people?

Of course Hillary had some initiatives for Black people, but they wouldn't have been nearly as groundbreaking in most Black people's lives as what Bernie is proposing.

And GTFO with this "she made black women critical parts of her campaign" shyt. On the wiki page for the Hilary Clinton campaign there are 12 key people listed - 7 white men, 2 white women, a latina, an iranian, and an asian man. And her running mate was a white man too.

Of the 8 key people listed in the Bernie Sanders campaign wiki, there are 2 Black women (Nina Turner and Briahna Joy Gray), 2 Latinas, an Indian, a Pakistani, just 1 white man and 1 white woman. Nina Turner especially has been in a more critical role for Bernie, going back to the last election and in-between elections too, than any Black woman in the Clinton campaign.

Yeah there were Black women in lower-level and regional positions in the Clinton campaign, but that's mostly because Clinton was the establishment candidate and there are a lot of Black women in the Democratic establishment, not to mention that she was specifically targeting for Black votes. You can NOT claim that shyt is any sort of meaningful Black empowerment when none of those people had any real say in what the campaign would do. They were tools to be used BY the campaign.




I'm not wasting any time on the "Republicans ended slavery and then 100 years later a bunch of racist dems became Republican, therefore people's past positions mean nothing" argument.

And I'm not engaging in the Bernie vs. Warren debate. I'd happily support either and I'm not invested in either. Whichever one of them can win is fine by me. I'm only saying that it's ridiculous to argument that people's past actions don't mean anything, especially when those past actions took personal commitment and sacrifice and show something of their character.

If you aren't wasting time on the arguments then we shall disagree and continue on. And I will do likewise.

 

[wire28]

If he didn't say that, the narrative would be, "He's an old White guy, look at the generation he grew up in, he's got to be racist like the rest of them."

The fact that he was willing to defy White supremacy and march with King in the early 1960s shows that he wasn't just some liberal who moved towards civil rights when it was politically convenient. And it wasn't like he just marched once - he was the chair of his university's chapter of CORE, he led their CORE chapter to mere with SNCC, he participated in a multi-week sit-in at the university of chicago that successfully forced them to end their segregated housing policy, he was leading campaigns against police brutality, and he was charged with resisting arrest during an anti-segregation demonstration.

Compare that to Hillary Clinton, who was campaigning for Barry Goldwater at the same time.

It isn't the end of the discussion, but it's a good beginning. He was an ally when being an ally wasn't politically convenient. He was an ally long before being an ally was necessary to get votes.

That’s nice too bad he’s been missing in action for an entire generation. Too bad he wasn’t an ally when the crime bill was being passed around. He is tone deaf, dismissive and thinks everything boils down to class. There’s a reason he lost the south even though “he walked with Martin”. Impressive though, Bernie would be proud.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That’s nice too bad he’s been missing in action for an entire generation. Too bad he wasn’t an ally when the crime bill was being passed around. He is tone deaf, dismissive and thinks everything boils down to class. There’s a reason he lost the south even though “he walked with Martin”. Impressive though, Bernie would be proud.

Do you have the alternative that wasn't missing in action for that generation?

On the crime bill though you got me , cause did you not know he was an ally or are you just trolling?




And he lost the South cause his name recognition was for shyt down there and most of those voters had known Clinton for 30 years. How the hell you gonna blame that on the crime bill when it was CLINTON'S crime bill that Sanders opposed? Where was Clinton during that generation? What were Clinton's great pro-Black beliefs that brought her victory?

You don't have to like Bernie's policies. I'm hoping a better candidate that Bernie wins. But I ain't gonna sit here tolerating narratives born from bitter 2016 results.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

And he lost the South cause his name recognition was for shyt down there and most of those voters had known Clinton for 30 years. How the hell you gonna blame that on the crime bill when it was CLINTON'S crime bill that Sanders opposed? Where was Clinton during that generation? What were Clinton's great pro-Black beliefs that brought her victory?

It's true that Sanders lost in the South because the Clinton brand was too strong in the South. Plus he had no name recognition among blacks.

But that don't change the fact that some black folk were aware that Sanders was against the Crime Bill before he was for it.

 

[the next guy]

This is a great article. I dont necessairily agree with the premise, but expanding campaigns is always good.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

The difference between Sanders and Warren, aside from reparations, is that Warren crafts her messages to specifically and explicitly address black issues. For instance, her answer on the maternity death rate for AA women. Her solution is not going to help only AA women. It'll help all women. However, she doesn't say that. In fact, in a lot of cases she makes it a point not to "all lives matter" the solution. She speaks directly to the black issue.

Aside from reparations and redlining, Warren's solutions have to benefit all Americans. But she just does a better job of communicating how her solutions help black people than the other candidates. Sanders has to learn how to do that.

 

[StatUS]

@88m3 is a Klobuchar Stan, not surprising this thread was made.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

@88m3 is a Klobuchar Stan, not surprising this thread was made.

You're making that up. Right?

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

For people like @wtfyomom @Mook and @Rhakim constantly bringing up Bernie’s past actions, only one thing matters to Americans when it comes to politics:

 

[Professor Emeritus]

It's true that Sanders lost in the South because the Clinton brand was too strong in the South. Plus he had no name recognition among blacks.

But that don't change the fact that some black folk were aware that Sanders was against the Crime Bill before he was for it.

It's disingenuous to say he was ever for the tough on crime measures. Even when he voted he said he had serious issues with it and was against large segments of it. The problem is that they wrapped up the tough-on-crime bullshyt, the Violence against Women Act, and the Assault Weapons Ban all into one vote. If he had voted against it, then people could say, "Why were you against the Violence Against Women Act? Why were you against the Assault Weapons Ban?"

Sanders made explicitly clear on the House Floor what he opposed about the bill. But he doesn't get to decide what gets lumped together. It was the Clinton Administration that was pushing all those aspects at once, and the Clinton Administration could have put them in separate bills, but they WANTED the "tough on crime" bullshyt.

There's a massive gap between Sanders and Clinton on this issue. Sanders voted against the 1991 crime bill, voted against the 1996 crime bill, openly opposed the tough-on-crime measures of the 1994 crime bill on the House floor. Clinton, on the other hand, openly supported the tough-on-crime measures in the bill and didn't apologize for any aspect of it until she was running for president in 2016. I don't think she even apologized in 2008 from what I can tell.