Hillary's campaign was devoted almost entirely to appealing to black women. She had more black women on her campaign staff than any candidate in history. She lost for a lot of reasons, but taking them for granted wasn't one.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democrats are losing their most loyal voters: Black Women
- Thread starter Angelus Errare
- Start date
Hillary's campaign was devoted almost entirely to appealing to black women. She had more black women on her campaign staff than any candidate in history. She lost for a lot of reasons, but taking them for granted wasn't one.
Right. The Bernie contingent showed itself as a force in the 2016 election and now the Dems are more likely to listen to them about economic matters. Minorities "going on strike" in essence can show the Dems that they are just as important to the party and civil rights issues can't be ignored.
They need to synthesize these blocs. The right message is really not that hard.
This is how it should be. The party must serve the masses. The masses must demonstrate their power.
Seems to be doing its job pretty well so far to me!
The problem and tension here, which Stooge is getting at, is that there are a subset of white swing voters (the "populist" social conservative/economic liberal type) who absolutely freak out if they see minority issues being addressed directly. You can make all sorts of proposals on jobs, healthcare, etc. but one thing about benefits going to minorities and all that work you did gets lost. These are the types that decry "identity politics" .... but are perfectly fine w/ politics tailored to a white/male/rural identity.
the fuck are you talking about
Yup. Ellison would be getting the same complaints. The issue is everyone who thinks the election was lost because either the Dems tackled racism too head on or didn't focus enough on the wwc vote.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I mean, democrats actually made progress with healthcare from the first time in a long time (among other things), not just farts in the wind, and they've been getting obliterated ever since. It's like people said, nah, we're good now.
I saw Hillary go in pretty hard on police reform, gun reform, etc.. and courted minorities (especially black women) harder than anyone I've seen politically. I mean, go back and watch some of the convention. She earned that 94% support speaking out and platforming ideas and folks you normally don't see. Hell, that rustled plenty of jimmies, including a few Bernie supporters that came across my timeline.
Again, how do progressive agendas succeed when midterm turnout is so low, which is far from a recent phenomenon. I don't think people realize how important mid-terms actually are, and then they wonder why bigger changes can't be done. It's not gonna be medicare for all that changes the tide, if it does, it's gonna be backlash against Trump and the GOP.
I dunno, man. I'm in the "vote for Democrats even if I'm not happy with the things they do to get them a majority and THEN worry about how much attention they pay to the base" camp.
I get the frustrations of these women. But with Republicans essentially co-opting white supremacists, I'm more concerned about getting them out than I necessarily am about how satisfied I am with Democrats. In this country's shitty two party system, we've only got two choices.
You can only move forward if you get the crazies out of government first.
I get the frustrations of these women. But with Republicans essentially co-opting white supremacists, I'm more concerned about getting them out than I necessarily am about how satisfied I am with Democrats. In this country's shitty two party system, we've only got two choices.
You can only move forward if you get the crazies out of government first.
googleplex
Member
Someone said "Establishment"! Take a drink.
I think you are reading a few things wrong. The Bernie "contingent" they are looking for are not the young urban socialist dems. They are the rural populist whites that Hillary under-performed with, and there is a very very real possibility that those voters were pushed to Trump because of Hillary's positions on BLM, criminal justice reform and police brutality.
She did, but the women in question are worried that the rest of the party isn't following suit. That's why it's good for them to apply pressure.
And rationally, a lot of black female voters know this. A lot of black voters period know this.
But there is only so much shitting on you can take, and then those same people shitting on you turn around and not only expect your vote, but expect you to do the lion's share of the organizing.
Democrats better get right with black women, or there will be hell to pay.
Given the percentage of black women that voted for Hillary and the percentage of white moderates that voted for Trump you would think you'd be more "what can we do more for your demographic" than "vote for us or else". You would think you'd want to cultivate that demographic and other ones that make up your base and a strong foundation, grow that foundation and base. Not piss on them and say "look, they are gonna piss on you after eating asparagus so better me than them".
Skellig Gra
Member
They have more leverage because of how bad Trump is. Exert the pressure while you have the power or else they'll never listen.
googleplex
Member
The "Enough with Identity Politics!" message coming out of Bernie's camp after the election didn't help anything with this voting block.
Dreams-Visions
Member
DNC better get their shit together. Looking more and more like they won't. That's unfortunate for everyone.
I think more troubling is what can Dems do when large planks of their progressive messages when it comes to minority rights (inclusive of immigrant rights, muslim rights, etc) is simply unpopular with a large chunk of the old "Obama coalition". I hope I'm wrong on this, and I want Dems to stay on the right side of history, but it is possible that the mid-west is going to be more challenging to win much sooner than we anticipated.
Flipping Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia have been known to be necessary for the long-term national success of the Democratic party because it has been clear that the Mid-West was slipping away for a long-while now.
Hopefully Trump was an aberration that did better than expected and we'll go back to the slow-turn towards R in those states but we may have a real issue on our hands if he simply accelerated what was already coming and we wind up with a more populist Republican party that plays to the Left of the Democrats with protectionism and appeals to WWC voters fears of minorities.
The issue is they're being torn between black women and the wwc types Bernie won and wants to court. You can't get both and Clinton's loss scared the party as a whole off the issues black women care about and the wwc hates.
Do you have a source on this?
How about the poster I just quoted? Unless he stumbled into the wrong thread and didn't mean to write something about attacks on Nina Turner as going hand-in-hand with the attitudes of black women as a whole about the Democratic Party.
Democrats won with black women and *enough* white working-class voters at the presidential level just five years ago. There's no reason the party needs to be torn between picking one over the other. We have the policies for both! We just need the right candidate to communicate that message. The problem is, that one messenger is still a little under three years away.
The Northam v Pierello D Gov primary in VA a few months ago is a good example of seeing that geographical divide at play. Northam won NoVA to Richmond, and the Norfolk/Hampton Roads areas. Pierello was winning rural counties.
Hillary's attempt to go for libertarian-type urban voters worked with them, she did pick them up, but the problem was that she lost those rural populist types at a 2:1 ratio. This ended up being a huge issue in the rust belt.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Are you actually trying to claim Hillary's campaign and platform was like that? She probably ran the heaviest identity politics focused campaign we've ever had from a candidate and will have for a while. While everyone else was screaming populism and claiming we needed to attract everyone she kept fairly focused on the groups that she knew consistently voted and tried to address their issues. Not to mention, being a woman, her platform put woman's issues on more of a forefront than we've seen before.
The issue is the white working class thinking they should be front and center while they continue fucking up and not even reliably voting Democrat. Meanwhile they think they're being sidelined by groups who DO reliably vote, and who have been shafted historically trying to acquiesce to their (wwc) issues
I was explicitly referring to the demsocs by the "Bernie contingent" since they're the ones carrying the mantle for his economic platform that leads to all the online infighting we're seeing. I agree that the economic liberal/social conservative types who voted for Bernie because he was against NAFTA and/or because Hillary is a woman are problematic. But I also also think we can still bleed enough of them off with a charismatic enough candidate with exciting policies that its overcomeable (see: Obama).
Plus Trump just keeps fucking up and that's good for us.
umop_3pisdn
Member
That sounds like the kind of dynamic that would breed resentment and apathy on the part of black women. Feeling obliged to do something is antithetical to actually feeling like you're participating in politics.
Better the devil you know, huh?
This isn't a lesson for black women to learn. This is for everyone else to get a grip on reality. Get right, or keep failing. It's that simple.
But Democrats won't get the lion's share of those voters anyway, as anyone paying attention last year saw.
As long as race remains a sharp weapon in the Republican arsenal, they will always have an easier time winning the white vote. They will always appeal directly to whiteness.
KidGalactus
Member
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It misses that Hillary took them for granted far less than any canidate in modern history.
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
What reasonable person could blame them?
I know that and you know that, hell Perez probably knows that, but as of right now there's a large, very loud, subset of democratic voters who want the party pushed in this direction and he's trying to avoid a schism. It's not going to calm down until the midterms and we see what kind of candidates win.
This seem quite disingenuous to me.
Why? is there something he could have said that wouldn't seem disingenuous?
That's not what I said at all nor implied, the exact opposite. I'm talking about what the DNC should be focusing on given the numbers.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/polit...s-white-kaiser-family-foundation-infographic/
Lots of stuff in here and a lot of it is still in the "poltical theory" world. But a lot of the rural WWC voters in the midwest have some very uncomfortable positions on minority rights, and a good chunk of those voted for Bernie in the primary.
Trump running to the left of Hillary on trade and protectionism certainly helped move them over. But it's very possible they voted for Obama while opposing lots of his policies because of economic issues and fears of globalization they had with Republicans.
We don't really "know" anything right now, but there are real fears in the Democratic ranks that we were relying on voters who don't align with progressive ideals to win elections and there are most torubling, some Dems in high ranks of power who want to try and get them back even it if means ditching (or at least only whispering about) some of our progressive ideals.
please by all means tell me who the winners are when people stop voting.
it aint me who wants to lose
Supha_Volt
Neo Member
Don't blame them for the way they feel and I'm quite disappointed that Tom has yet to meet with them. It's a bad look even if it's not intend to be malicious.
They have been showing up forever and consistently and should be taken more way seriously for the effort they put in day in and day out.
They have been showing up forever and consistently and should be taken more way seriously for the effort they put in day in and day out.
UnemployedVillain
Member
Ah, rereading it I get what you mean now. Yeah, it's like I said, there's a large group of populist Dems who are trying to make everything about them despite not even showing up and voting consistently
It's not an issue of not supporting them, it's an issue of doing it in a way that doesn't wake the sleeping latent racism/white supremacy. It's rough.
Stooge is dead-on about the dynamic of the problem here. It's urban/multicutural/female vs rural/white/male. It's why Clinton/Bernie isn't dying, the two candidates were on polar opposites of a fault line and neither was very good at synthesizing issues in the way say, Elizabeth Warren or Obama is. There are several analyses of a Voter Study Group giganto-surevy on the election. Here's a link to the index of them, all worth reading - https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections
This is the most important one, IMO - https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publications/2016-elections/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond
Also this piece on the WWC abandoning the Dems in the wake of Civil Rights is really important - https://agenda-blog.com/2017/07/03/...beralism-and-the-white-working-class/#more-42 Intra-party conflicts we see today are directly a result of this.
Wafflecakes
Member
This seem quite disingenuous to me.
Meh. When you dislike someone everything they do seems disingenuous, no matter whether it is or not.
Well, they are fucking idiots then.
This seem quite disingenuous to me.
He's talking but he's not walking.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Pretty sure the poll was taken late 2016 when their support (Hilary) was high. Going out on a limb here but I don't think Mammoth is speaking specifically on Hillary but rather how Democrats are currently moving and this major push to appease "moderate" Trump supporters as the article mentions.
It's a losing angle, they MAY get a few of these folks, but they'll lose out on their actual backbone whose been in the Democrats corner for 50 years where as this mythical group Democrats are trying to woo haven't voted majority Democrat in those same 50 years.
No lies detected. My mom has pretty much given up on politics. Its sad, but I honestly understand why black women have shown the Democratic Party the door. Theyve yet to do shit for black women, and theyve had countless opportunity to do so. I dont think theyre going Republican, I just thing theyre going to abstain from voting period. Thats what my mom did, despite me and my sisters trying to get her to vote.
She grew up not being allowed to drink from Whites Only water fountains, going to segregated schools, and not being able to eat at certain food establishments. Shes lived through all of it, and shes seen that the station of black women hasnt changed all that much, and neither Democrats or Republicans have done squat to improve their quality of life.
Its easy to get disenfranchised after being neglected for your entire life. And she used to vote religiously.
Edit: my mom is 67, for reference.
She grew up not being allowed to drink from Whites Only water fountains, going to segregated schools, and not being able to eat at certain food establishments. Shes lived through all of it, and shes seen that the station of black women hasnt changed all that much, and neither Democrats or Republicans have done squat to improve their quality of life.
Its easy to get disenfranchised after being neglected for your entire life. And she used to vote religiously.
Edit: my mom is 67, for reference.
VendettaRed07
Member
In the primary, at least.
After that messaging switched almost entirely to suburban republican women
Yup, they came out for Hillary. But they aren't going to come out for someone who forgets them.
UnemployedVillain
Member
What?
Yeah, but frankly the Demsocs are mostly going to fall in line or vote Green anyway, and generally live in areas where we don't really need votes.
Not to argue the merits of the policy or not, I feel like Bernie was going after one very particular sort of voter in the primary (DemSocs) and wound up unintentionally pointing out a very uncomfortable line that exists within the democratic voting bloc. Had we paid better attention to that in the primary we might not be where we are today, but I don't know an answer to how to win those voters back in a way that helps me sleep at night.
Hopefully Hillary Clinton being the very representation of women's mobility from the 90s made them extra apt to hate her, and Trump is a one-off and the Republicans will spurn economic populism with their next candidate.
But, I think we were winning elections with a lot of voters who simply vote Dem because of economics and have never been on board with the progressive planks of the party platform.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
If the next GOP nominee runs a populist, socially conservative, economically liberal platform, they won't "switch back". Why settle, when you can get exactly what you want?
Thus far Trump has been typical Socially Conservative / Economically Conservative with the exception of Trade. Trump was so vague on policy that everybody heard exactly what they wanted to hear during the GE. I'm not sure that will work again in a great enough capacity, especially given shifting demographics. So there is some hope.
The 2016 election was deceptively close.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
I get it. But we also have a broken 2 party system. Want more Trump, ladies?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked