MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Who Is the Hillary Voter?
By ocean-kat on Sat, 03/19/2016 - 3:38pm |The voter we almost never hear about, however, is the Clinton voter. Which is surprising, since Hillary Clinton has won more votes in the primaries than any other candidate so far. She has amassed over 2.5 million more votes than Sanders; over 1.1 million more votes than Trump. Clearly Clinton voters exist, yet there has been very little analysis as to who they are or why they are showing up to vote for her. There is almost no discussion of what is motivating these voters. If anything, the media seems to think they are holding their noses as they vote for Hillary. Considering that narrative, one would expect Clinton to be faring far worse in the primaries. Instead, she currently holds a popular vote and delegate lead over Sanders that far surpasses Obama’s lead over her at this point in the race in 2008.
URL:
https://newrepublic.com/article/131762/hillary-voter
- Add new comment
- 15647 reads
Comments
That's funny - I was going to write a post "I'm not angry" last Tuesday - saved me the trouble.
Also, Politico addressed some of the trade quandary - many people arent kneejerk anti-trade
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 2:30am
Good question, Ocean Kat! As a Hillary supporter I will try to give a partial answer:
First of all, I really like and admire President Obama. I think he accomplished quite a bit, considering the appalling obstruction that he faced beginning on Day 1 of his Presidency. Did he ever disappoint? Yes, absolutely. On health care, I was particularly distressed at the time that he didn't push for a Public Option. I was also really upset when he agreed in principle about reducing Social Security benefits. I think both of those disappointments had their roots in the fact that he believed that he could trust the GOP to bargain in good faith. It took him way longer than it should have, IMOP for him the figure out the truth. I think people who don't like HILLARY also don't like President Obama...at least that is what I get from their posts.
I truly believe that Hillary is under no illusion about the level of cooperation she can expect from the GOP. She wants to move towards a Public Option to expand on the ACA. She also wants to change the laws that currently work in favor of Big Pharma that are bad for literally everyone else. Is this "incremental change?" Yes. Is any other change possible? No. Could she, if she tried, get us to Universal Health coverage? Anyone with any objectivity knows the answer to that: No. But I think she will know on Day 1 of her Presidency just how far she can trust Republicans, and they also know she is tough -- that is why they desperately want her NOT to be the nominee.
She will work to expand Social Security benefits, and has a rational plan for Immigration reform. I trust her on Foreign Policy. I have read what she said on the date she voted on the bill which Bush then used to start a war in Iraq, and I do not consider her a hawk; I do not think that she wants to be a "War President" as Bush stated that he wanted to be. In fact I think she will be a thoughtful and experienced leader in the world. I wish she were not as pro-ISRAEL as she is, but I don't think she would have buckled on the Iran deal either, and so I'll take that as a positive.
On trade, I think she knows her stuff. Not everyone has the same opinion on that. Good people can disagree.
When she is asked questions on a variety of issues, she gives a nuanced, thoughtful answer. I personally would prefer that there would be no fracking anywhere, but I was very impressed with her response to the question. It demonstrated a depth of knowledge and thought, and I actually learned something from her answer.
I am NOT concerned about her email; during the time when her server was NOT hacked, the FBI, the IRS, and several other government agencies had their servers hacked. I am NOT concerned that she was paid very well as a private citizen to give talks to groups, including Wall Street. She spoke. She got paid for it, why should the narrative be that she owes them more?
Finally, I truly believe that if Hillary gets the privilege of being our next President she will be very aware of the opportunity to have a legacy that will transcend all she has done before. She has all the money she will ever need. What is left? To be the very best President she can be -- not only the first woman President, but also the first spouse of a former President to achieve that office. She is highly competent and accomplished, and I honestly believe she will do her very best for our country. No nose-holding for me. I am all in for Hillary.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 8:45am
How ever the tide rolls Hillary is criticized for being on the wrong side of it. When the tide rolled more conservative and Bill rode it to the White House, Hillary fought against it. Her team in the West Wing was derided as "The bosheviks down the hall." Now she is saddled with that centrist legacy that she fought against behind the scenes as First Lady.
There doesn't appear to be that Sanders revolution but if a liberal revolution happened why do some assume she would fight it? It's just as likely that she would hop on and ride that wave. And in a way that had more intellectual depth and nuance than Sanders.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 4:11pm
There's certainly path dependency involved. If Hillary had been her own candidate in the 70's and 80's, her stance and experience would have been different, but supporting Bill closed certain doors and opened others. Considering the fate of McGovern, that's probably good, though she doubtfully was a McGovern copy. Being Senator out of New York produced a different CV and network than Senator of Illinois or Senator of Arkansas. Being Secretary of State required adapting to Obama's roadmap, so a Hillary 2009 presidency would have been quite different than a Hillary 2017. Of course you can try to buck your CV, but that's pretty hard to do - especially for Hillary. Look at the TPP flap or that statement about Sarajevo. To some extent if elected she'll have more freedom to choose her battles, but 1) it seems the White House can't tilt at too many windmills before it loses momentum, and 2) key focus is often determined externally, whether some crisis or demanding stakeholder or...
I don't equate Sanders' lack of nuance with lack of intellectual depth. Voters often aren't swayed by nuance - I think it says more about their comfort with Clinton & how long she's been around that she's still pitching nuance and it's working this time. 2008 was also a "revolution" election, and pointing out the improbable details went nowhere. Not completely - she did roughly tie, but in that case tie went to the underdog. Possibly would have this time as well - there have been naysayers and spinners ever since June, waiting on indictments, predicting the collapse, analyzing every misstep as if it was a hole in the Titanic. Even overwhelming leads with superdelegates and the South and unions are often dismissed as unfair and irrelevant. Ironically, even inroads she's made with black voters is dismissed as being too much identity politics. Who would guess that too much diversity would be a problem - for a Clinton.
The Youth vote...
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 2:28am
I agree with much of this. re: Sanders, intellectual depth and nuance. There's been a thing that's been gnawing at me and for a while I wasn't sure what it was. When he broke on the scene I didn't know much about him. I don't have time to follow the career of every politician in Washington and I'll never vote in a Vermont election. Unless an out of my home state senator gains prominence by leading and speaking out on some national issue I know little about them. As I read about him I liked him a lot on most issues. But as the debates rolled on I liked him less and less and I wasn't sure why.
It crystallized for me in one debate during a long back and forth about Wall Street. Finally Sanders blurted out, "The business model of Wall Street is fraud!" I thought at that moment, That's just not true, and, He really believes it. Fraud exists, lies and manipulation on Wall Street and the banks around the world. It's a constant drain on the economy and harmful to the populace. When it gets out of hand it can be devastating to the economy. But banks also provide valuable services and most of the time they do it quite honorably, from a hard nosed business perspective. I realized that Sanders has many black/white views, a good and evil view of the world. And I don't. The world is just more complex than that. I don't think his lack of nuance is simplification for votes. I think he truly believes it.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 3:29am
Yeah, you'd think it'd be easy to accept that for example the LIBOR rate scamming and mortgage robosigning are predatory, but on the whole, banks & business & investors are needed and important to our system's success.
Much of our advantage over Europe is easy credit, easy access to venture capital, and easy bankruptcy terms to try, fail and start over.
There is no success in America being anti-business, and there's not going to be a massive revolution against all the financial, agro, industrial, telcos, energy, military and whatever other interests. There can be some better oversight and basic laws, but that's about as far as it goes.
And some of the issues we're supposedly fighting are questionable. Do fracking's dangers really override its massive benefits? Are questions about genetically modified foods worth abandoning their help for world hunger and low food prices? Are the gains in Bernie's single payer approach worth the hard battle vs. another path? If creating more manufacturing jobs (which we're doing slowly) and higher wages requires larger amounts of exports, how do we do that with trade protectionism and shunning trade deals? Are we really able to phase out fossil fuels in 10 years without huge shocks, vs the calmer 35-60 year goal?
You tore me a new asshole on vaccines once, and while I remain skeptical about reporting on side-effects (& know that the original autism report was a fraud), I agree the massive decline in worldwide deaths thanks to vaccines isn't something to lightly toss away with a "but thimerosol might have some effect" non-scientific speculation. It's a major human success, more important than getting to the moon, and while we might improve efficacy and side-effects and failures (thimerosol and swine flu), these are tweaks, not wholesale change, though there's likely a new revolution in medicine and genetics and new models of pathology that will make all this seem quite primitive.
The youth thing seems to me largely understanding incrementalism, not leaps of faith. Oddly to me, I see young professionals involved in Agile programming and cloud computing and new designs-for-success - lean, optimized, fast-chaining results and cramming schedules. These techniques don't skip process - they advance it. Same in politics, where it's often ignored. There's a nice book called The Phoenix Project that deals with software optimization in the business much as manufacturing would be optimized before. It's novelish, so a bit unrealistic, but by aligning processes across the organization, including suppliers and customers, in non-intuitive ways, you can greatly improve productivity and output and predictability and reduce mishaps. At some point we'll manage this in government as well, though it takes time - even digitized medical records has proven problematic over 20 years.
At some point I predict we'll be able to reduce the size of government while greatly increasing effectiveness - and there will be people right there complaining that we're destroying livelihoods and ruining democracy. There will never be the leisure to examine these issues objectively without a lot of pressure from existing interests and activities and people who depend on the old system.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 5:57am
I'm sorry to see that this blog is so hard to find. Under the "From The Readers" section there are posts five, six and seven days old without new comments. I finally found this under "Hits of the Day." I thought that titl would indicate a lot of interest. 127 reads so far? I think the topic is very interesting, but since this comment now is one of two from me, and one of three altogether, I'm not sure it is a hit yet. Not surprised since it is pretty much buried anyway.
That said, I really would like to hear from others who have some input about who HILLARY voters are. I hope they somehow find this and comment.
by CVille Dem on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 1:58pm
This isn't a blog CVille. It's an article I placed in the In The News section.
It's an interesting question that I don't know the answer to. There is so much negative press on Hillary yet she is winning the primary, not without a fight but fairly easily. 8 years ago she fought Obama to a virtual dead heat. There was the same sort of constant negative press calling her dishonest and untrustworthy. She never got nearly the big crowds at rallies. If she is so disliked how is it that she keeps winning or comes so close to winning? It's a conundrum. I'd like to get better answers for who and why so many people are voting for Hillary. This article is an interesting, though superficial, attempt to answer that question.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 4:22pm
Many Democrats have heard the media commentary about Hillary for so long that they tune it out. Democrats do not believe that a private email server put the country at risk or that is was part of a nefarious plot. To the consternation of Bernie Sanders supporters, black voters, for the most part, hold no ill will for comments Hillary made in 1994. Hillary has huge support among minority brothers. She held her own at the Benghazi hearings. When she is criticized for having a loud voice, voters have ready access to YouTube clips of Hillary's male opponents shouting. The meme of "evil Hillary" has been used for so long that most Democratic women and minorities have tuned it out.
White male Democrats overall, seem to be less enthusiastic in supporting Hillary
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/as-hillary-clinton-sweeps-...
The thing is, as evidenced by the number of voters she accumulated, she is doing well enough with male Democrats to win the national election
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/18/hillary-cli...
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 4:24pm
Hillary Clinton's controversial comments in support of the 1994 Omnibus Crime bill that led to the "first black President" becoming the President who incarcerated more African-Americans than any other were made in 1996 not 1994. She also used racially charged and coded language against Barack Obama in 2008. You are correct when you identify a racial and gender gap between Clinton and Sanders supporters. Again, it is my great disappointment that poor, working, and middle-class Americans did not join forces to elect as President the one candidate who has always championed economic justice.
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 4:33pm
Her comments were only "controversial" to someone wanting controversy - in this case 20 years later.
Your negating/ignoring the problem of a huge crime wave with over 20,000 murders per year and over 5 million violent assaults all so you can score some quick points for your candidate is hardly admirable.
OceanKat already noted that Obama's team (Jesse Jackson Jr) followed up his loss in New Hampshire with "Hillary didn't cry for Katrina", a rather "racially charged" and hardly coded assault. Bill's "fairy tale" comment was about Obama's speech on Iraq, not his campaign, but it was spun as such. So it goes - it's over, we're 8 years wiser. Hillary and Bernie are spinning the facts and opinions their way for their advantage, and whichever one wins this game persuades voters. As long as it's not brazen falsehood, such as half of The Donald's utterings, it's okay. We're playing hardball in the majors, not smashball nor powderpuff. Obama's acknowledged much the same, and considering Hillary spent 4 supportive years in his cabinet pretty well means everything's copacetic now.
And as rmrd has noted over and over, blacks at this point are less concerned with the economic justice side of the street and more about the racial / human justice side. They're different issues, even though they sometimes intertwine. Police abuse has little to do with economics, and much to do with color of skin and preconceptions. And the US has long been skeptical about the socialist trappings of "economic justice". Even for me, I was taken aback by the anti-business tone Gore started using in 2000 trying to please the liberal base when I thought his pro-Internet, pro-dotCom, pro-environment credentials played much better for a future-focused modern presidency.
So basically, Bernie rode the wrong issue to November, though certainly the highlighting of economic disparity is a useful plank for the party to carry forward - not that I think Hillary wasn't aware of it, but to have it as 1 of 5 top focuses (along with its causes and manifestations and solutions) isn't bad.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 5:30pm
This is what I call a very frustrating post ocean-kat. Those of us who do not agree with your assessment have specified precisely what it is we don't like about Hillary Clinton's record and why we don't trust her. You are of course free to come to a different conclusion than we have but how is it that you can't even acknowledge our concerns might be legitimate even if you don't feel they are significant enough to support Bernie Sanders?
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 4:29pm
Hillary is trouncing Sanders in states won and the popular vote. The people voting for Hillary do not share your concerns. Blacks voters support Hillary. Instead of trying to understand their point of view, including their revulsion for Cornel West, you accuse men like James Clyburn of trying to fit in with the system. If you cannot understand that Clyburn and others represent the wishes of the black community, why should you expect any special consideration for your point of view.
Bernie Sanders is not seen as a person who "stood up" for Civil Rights for thirty-years because nobody saw him fighting. Black activists in Vermont said Sanders was dismissive of their concerns about race. The reason that black voters do not "Feel the Berne" has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You dismiss the conclusions of the vast majority of black voters. You are puzzled that voters are expressing their desires by supporting Hillary.
You want others to come around to your point of view and refuse to see anything that Sanders voters need to do to address concerns of Hillary supporters.
And you say that you are frustrated
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 4:39pm
I have no wish to relitigate here the issues that we have been arguing for months. I posted in response to your comment in order 1) to correct the record with respect to the year that Clinton called some law violators "superpredators" who need to be brought "to heel", 2) to point out that her use of racially charged language did not end in 1996 as you implied, and 3) to lament the fact that Bernie Sanders' campaign was unable to build a successful coalition of poor, working, and middle-class Americans of all races, ethnicities, and genders.
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 6:54pm
Black voters moved beyond 1994. Black voters moved beyond 2008. You still cannot an not accept those facts. In your world, Clyburn has to be a sellout.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 7:16pm
Of course I accept the fact that most black voters support Hillary Clinton notwithstanding the fact that she used racially charged language in 1996 and against Barack Obama in 2008. How could I not accept that fact? That is the way it is even if I wished it weren't so. I never called James Clyburn a sell-out. You asked me why I thought he supported her and I said because he had been for many years an insider, like Clinton, and might therefore not fully comprehend the impact that Hillary's pro-corporate pro-insider policies were having on his constituents.
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 7:28pm
You keep referring to 1994 and 2008 as if you do not realize that black voters do not consider the crime bill and the campaign as reasons not to vote for Hillary.
Regarding Clyburn you imply that in supporting Hillary, he gets personal gain. He neglects the needs of the black community.
Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sellout
Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sell+out
You Sir, called Clyburn a sellout.
It is not Clyburn 's fault that in 30 years in Congress Bernie Sanders did not make an effort to connect with black members of Congress.
by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 11:17pm
You really have me confused. The title of this post is:
Who Are The Hillary Voters?
Not:
Is There Anything Not Yet Written About Why Bernie Supporters Hate Hillary?
I can't understand why it should frustrate you to have to endure a post that is about HRC without any reference to Bernie at all. I took the title literally and wrote a fairly lengthy response about why I support her. I made no comment at all about Bernie, and it was kind of refreshing to do that. So, because there is a post up asking for those who support Hillary Clinton to say why, you are somehow offended because after all, you have on myriad occasions opined about why we are all wrong and you are right. I am pretty sure you didn't read one word of what I wrote since it frustrates you that there is even a forum to write anything positive about her.
So, according to your sensibilities it is frustrating to you for anyone to even say why they will vote for Hillary. The impression you give here is that anything positive about Hillary cannot be legitimate and should not be written, since you have so painstakingly pointed out the error of our thinking. Do you honestly think that? If so, why?
by CVille Dem on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 5:31pm
CVille Dem - I read your lengthy explanation for your support for Clinton and found it interesting and informative. Well done! In fact, I considered putting a brief complimentary comment up but decided it wasn't necessary. In retrospect, I wish I had.
I did respond to ocean-kat here because she alluded to those of us who do not share her extremely positive view of Secretary Clinton with these words:
My post was an attempt to answer ocean-kat's question "why . . . some assume she would fight" a liberal revolution.
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 7:34pm
"I did respond to ocean-kat here because she alluded to those of us who do not share her extremely..." - uh, Hal - OceanKat is a guy.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 6:41pm
Okay. I think the "Kat" confused me.
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 6:46pm
Exactly how do you think I need to legitimize your concerns when I don't think they are legitimate? I recognize there is a difference of opinion. I think we both, and many others, have made our best case to support our opinions. When you don't engage in passive aggressive insults I don't insult you back.
You may think this is about my support for Hillary. It's not. Here is one example. About 7 years ago we were discussing health care and the fight to pass the ACA. My argument was the same then. We cannot pass single payer because a majority of the population has employer based health insurance and they will fight any attempt to take it away. You now claim that is a bogus attack on Sanders by Hillary. I think it's the truth and the biggest obstacle to single payer. Sanders wants to take away the employer based insurance most people have now. In what way do you think I can legitimize your claim that it's a bogus attack?
Single payer is a big, if not the biggest, part of Sanders campaign. I was not for single payer 7 years ago and I'm not for it now. What I wanted 7 years ago was a gradual expansion of Medicare. An option for people and even employers to buy into the program with subsidies for those with low income. No one would be forced to give up their employer based insurance. They could keep what they had if they wanted it. By attrition we would eventually end up with a single payer system simply because it was better. But that is not Sanders plan. Then and now I thought that you could not take away the employer based insurance from the majority of the population with a promise of something better.
I don't want to get into a long discussion of single payer here. You had several opportunities to address my view in other threads and chose not to. I'm just pointing out that I can not legitimize your concern that Hillary has made a bogus attack. Nor can I legitimize your concerns in many other areas. Because we have a difference of opinion over their legitimacy.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 6:17pm
Thanks ocean-kat. You asked in this thread why some assume Clinton would fight a liberal revolution. I think I and many others have repeatedly explained why we assume that.
Regarding my alleged failure to respond to your views on healthcare, I know I have explained why I do not agree that Clinton's attempt to improve the ACA is more likely to succeed than Sanders' call for single-payer. Of course, I could be wrong.
I certainly have spent quite a bit of time here explaining in the face of incredulous bloggers why Clinton's email server set up violated federal rules. When my arguments finally broke through (I think), you abruptly changed course and claimed you didn't care without even acknowledging that I had proven my point.
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 6:45pm
So instead of repeating yourself, how about join the spirit of the thread and write about who Hillary Voters are and why they're supporting her. You may want to break it down into old folks, whites, blacks, Hispanic, LGBT, women, southerners, midwest, northeast... is there a common thread or a set of diverse reasons? what are the positive points among her roughly 10 million votes gained so far? what do all these Democrats see in her?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 6:54pm
Thanks for asking PP. I will do my best to answer the question of who I think Clinton's supporters are. They are seniors, they are Americans of color, they are upper middle-class, they are well-educated, they are reasonably to very successful professionals. They are women over 30. They are people who have fond memories of the Bill Clinton administration. They are not radicals. They are Democratic party insiders as well as registered Democrats, and some independents. If Trump is the Republican nominee, Hillary will also garner some support from the few moderate Republicans left.
These groups are supporting her for several different reasons. The Democratic insiders, affluent, and near-affluent (including many retired seniors) are satisfied with life as it is and fear any disruptive change (including those championed by Bernie Sanders) could impair their pleasant lifestyle. Some of the women who support her are hoping to take justifiable pride in the first women President.
Most, if not all of her supporters, are for good reason very afraid of Donald Trump (and to a lesser extent the other Republican candidates). They believe Clinton would do better in the general election than Bernie. Clinton is better known across the country. Clinton is extremely experienced. I think RMRD makes a very persuasive case that Clinton has been unfairly villified for so long that her supporters have tended to tune out all criticism of her even when such criticism may well be justified.
Americans of color support Clinton for a myriad of reasons including those set forth above. Based on what I've read and people I've spoken to, I believe the following may also be of especial importance to blacks and Latinos. Before many other mainstream politicians did, both Clintons showed respect and courtesy to African-American voters. Bill appointed many blacks to powerful and influential positions. The Congressional Black Caucus almost unanimously supports Clinton. Sanders is not well-known in the south and has very few minority constituents. Sanders was on the wrong side of two important gun control votes. Understandably, Americans of color have a particular fear of Trump and many believe that Clinton will be stronger in the general election.
I do not support Clinton, although I will vote for her in November if she is the Democratic nominee as I expect. Accordingly, I believe there are some less positive reasons than those listed here that some support her but I have set those out before. Additionally, I do think that Clinton's backers overweight some factors that I discount and discount some factors that I think are important.
by HSG on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 7:21pm
Let's break down your response. Clinton supporters have a pampered rich lifestyle they're afraid of losing and are supporting her out of fear (3x + 1 implied), hoping she's more electable than Trump, the Clintons have given out favors and respect to African-American voters, plus some less savory (than fear and blatant patronage) reasons. Plus a couple gun votes & women's identity/1st female prez + don't know Bernie well enough.
Maybe you don't realize how much your attitudes drip with contempt. You don't actually name a single positive reason supporters have for voting for Hillary - how she would govern, what issues are important to them (aside from comfortable lifestyle, guns and spoiled patronage), or the style of governing.
Note that all of this is given from the perspective of a Bernie supporter, not an attempt at understanding and expressing what Hillary supporters think.
Even with first female president, I think supporters expect her to push or be attuned to more rights and issues that affect women, rather than simply being some checkbox in presidential ascendancy.
As for fear, I don't think Hillary supporters are terribly afraid or have that as a prime motivator, nor do they think the electability issue is even in doubt.
And I think black voters are hoping for better representation and advocacy in racial and economic issues, with the usual jobs, health, education, national security, opportunity. And I'd guess black female voters have an enormous amount to gain from a president that listens harder to women's and family issues (from pregnancy/birth/infancy to raising & educating children to safety & security in communities, to health issues that especially affect the less affluent and the elderly, along with retirement and women living alone).
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 1:53am
Hal cannot grasp the fact that Sanders did not consider African-American concerns until he needed votes and was forced to address the issue of racism directly. Before the confrontation, Sanders told blacks that his eco mic policies would address the issues of the black community. Sanders was tone-deaf. After suggesting a Primary challenge to Obama, Sanders chose Cornel Westvas a spokesman. Sanders had never spent time in the black community and had no idea how West would be viewed as a man who repeatedly attacks President Obama because West did not get tickets to the Inuaguration. He also failed to realize West attempted to destroy the academic career of Melissa Harris-Perry. West is despised by a huge chunk of black voters both male and female.When a person who ignored the issues of the black community comes asking for voted and produced Cornel West as his spokesman, it was predictable that it would not result in the majority of black voters siding with Sanders.
Hal believes that older black voters are comfortable. He seems to have missed the housing crisis. Blacks realize that Sanders can't deliver single-payer health care or free college education. Why would blacks trust any promise made by Sanders.Hal cannot address the failure of Bernie Sanders' appeals to the black community.
Sanders surrogate Cornel West is heavy on rhetoric with no real impact on the lives of black people compared to say Al Sharpton or John Lewis. In similar fashion, Sanders has rhetoric with no rational plan.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 8:09am
Your claims about what I believe are false. You do not know what I believe except based on what I write and your assumptions are not justified by my writings. If you disagree with something I have written, you are free to quote me and then explain why I am wrong as I do when I dispute claims here.
by HSG on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 10:31am
Hal believes that blacks are comfortable (This is where I address you) This was based on your statement
Followed by
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 11:07am
Each group is distinct. Thus, one group of Clinton supporters is affluent. Another group is women. A third is Democrats of color. Of course, there is some overlap but there are many distinctions between the discrete groups as well. I apologize for the admittedly somewhat confusing nature of my post.
by HSG on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 11:28am
Sanders problem with blacks is a problem Sanders created. He never reached out.He cannot deliver on his promises, You cannot come to terms with the fact that it was Sanders who never attempted to reach out directly to the black community. You see the problem as a result of flaws in black voters, not with how Sanders behaved.
Edit to add
Most black people are not poor. Most black people do not live in ghettos
Sanders transmits that he has no understanding of black life
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-black-people_us_56ddb...
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 11:47am
No, Your arguments never "broke" through for me. You know Hal, I spend a lot of time reading divergent viewpoints. RCP is one of the sites I read every day mainly because I think it stands for "Republican Clearly, politics" and not Real Clear Politics. I really try to get views from as many sides a possible. I realize that there are several sides to this issue. Josh Marshall at TPM has written often on the email controversy. He leans left but he's not in the tank for Hillary. I found his analysis detailed and convincing. I've linked to his analysis and others a few times here.
I may have said I don't care about Hillary's email server. If so it was part of a discussion that laid out what I considered convincing evidence that it was not an issue and because I felt the arguments had been sufficiently explored and our difference of opinion unresolvable. Eventually every dialog must end. When I have nothing more to say and I think the other is just repeating themselves or making trivial arguments I'm quite comfortable dropping out and letting them have the last word. In other words, dropping out doesn't mean I think I've been beaten and I'm unwilling to admit it.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 1:14am
Oh, thanks, Ocean Kat. I didn't know there was such a thing. Live & learn!
by CVille Dem on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 4:49pm
It's in the upper right hand corner of the page below the "search" box. Since we don't have quite enough people with time to write a good blog to spark a discussion the In The News section is a valuable way to get one going. It usually doesn't get as much attention as an actual blog, perhaps others are unaware of it too.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 5:20pm
Yeah, I notice few items in News get comments, but unless I have something lengthy to say around it, I don't put a good news item into the blog section, seems unfair/misuse.
Btw, my "look on the bright side" blog was spurred on by your Hillary Voter item, but too long for a comment. But I think that Optimism is an important ingredient in a successful campaign - I can't think of anyone who carried a presidential election as Debbie Downer - maybe Nixon in '68, but I think Humphrey was more downbeat than him.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 5:45pm
The New Republic article makes some good points about how little coverage is given of voters who have chosen Clinton in ratio to the votes she has received so far.
I disagree with Sasson's comment made at the end of the piece saying that her support comes mostly from those who locked in step with her after many years of support. That doesn't match up with my meeting so many who support her now who voted for Obama instead of her. It doesn't match up with Sasson's own observations of how little Clinton has been regarded over the years. He has started thinking about something that is going to require more from him than his snappy comparison with Trump.
by moat on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 9:23pm
That is why I was very hopeful that more people than me would actually write about why we are voting for her. I am 68 years old. I was for Obama and definitely NOT for Hillary in 2008. I didn't think she was electable then, and I still think she couldn't have won then. She has done so much since then to prove her abilities independent of her "First Lady" experience which really wasn't enough. Now I support her whole-heartedly and I think she will be an excellent President for Ll the reasons I noted in my comment upstream.
I would love to read from others here why they will vote for her (without mentioning anything about Bernie).
by CVille Dem on Sun, 03/20/2016 - 9:43pm
I'm supporting Hillary because I believe of all the candidates she'll make the best president. I've outlined my reasons many times but that's the bottom line. She'll make the best president. Yes, I like the idea of our first woman president, but it's her background and experience that caps it for me. She's by far the most qualified.
Will she do everything I want her to do? If she were my own personal president it would be guaranteed, but that's not how the presidency works. Will she never make a gaffe or a mistake or a deliberate decision that will send me into a rage? Again, that's not how the presidency works. The highest office in the land will still be held by a human being given to the same flaws and weaknesses we're all guilty of.
I'm finding as I go through this campaign season that I don't want an outright revolution. I want a return to sanity. I want us all to calm down, to choose leaders who will actually lead in the direction that will benefit us most, to be patient in our expectations.
Hillary is not promising the moon and to me that's a good thing. She understands the workings of the government better than any other candidate out there. She has worked with social groups and non-profits long enough to know the gears turn slowly and it takes finesse and nuance to get the job done. She knows Wall Street well enough to work with the best of them to kill the lead of the 1% and get us back to an economy we can all live with. She is the only candidate out there who has any experience with foreign policy. And she knows the rascals in the Republican party so well she'll be one step ahead of them when they come after her. There isn't anything they can do that she won't be able to anticipate.
That's why.
by Ramona on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 8:18am