Support NeoGAF

[Elfforkusu]

Actually, it's not.

http://priceonomics.com/social-mobility-statistics-are-racist/

This is a perfect example of exactly why the Sanders analysis, and thus the Sanders policy platform, fails when it comes to people of color. It postulates a sameness of economic experience that just isn't true. Poor white people really do just do way better across a variety of measurements than, not just poor black people, but often middle-class black people as well. That's the American way.

E: i misread the chart.

the argument isn't that the economics are the same across racial lines, it's that many of the problems that unfairly keep minorities (really, african americans) from equality *are* economic. The economic inequality reinforces the racial inequality.

Also, the war on drugs is baked into that graph, so to speak... considering who it disproportionately affects.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Clinton doesn't support reparations either, does she? Why are some making it a Sanders problem?

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

Yes, Bill Clinton was elected by moving the Democratic party to the right. Before that the Democrats had lost 5 out of 6 Presidential elections, often by huge amounts. The only time they won was after Watergate and Carter still couldn't get to 300 electoral college votes then. The only reason the Democratic party was relevant was because their social policies were conservative enough that white Southerns kept voting for them in local elections. You can look back and criticize what the Clinton's did but it was the right decision for where the country was at the time.

Right, of course I understand this. But my point was that Clinton managed to adeptly do both - make promises to the left while then actually delivering to the right. I mean, this is the president that managed to pretty much complete what Reagan started and dismantle any remnants of the New Deal. So I can't particularly agree that it was the right decision considering the lingering impact.

And to those who've said that the party has moved left on social issues. Of course they have, the whole country/much of the world has also (and that's certainly not what I was referring to).

 

[nib95]

Is there a Democrat version of this?

 

[Jenov]

Jeb!

I don't think he was laughing about it though

 

[Bronx-Man]

The fall of El Yebe.

 

[Dragmire]

Yeah, such as your mystical scenario entitled "Black people suddenly prefer Bernie." There's no way such a huge demographic shift is going to occur this late in the process. It's virtually unheard of. What would cause it? "I marched with MLK" thirty times in the mirror and hope people listen? Bernie is simply not charismatic enough to encourage such a shift. It's not happening.

It may or may not happen. I don't know. But it seems to me that Bernie's biggest hindrance is not policy, charisma, experience or anything like that. It is exposure. The more people learn of his policies, the more his numbers eat into Clinton's. She, on the other hand, has been in the public eye politically for decades. Her likability is low in polls but people know her. The public has a narrative about her that suggests she is fated to become president, but as people learn that there is a more authentic candidate with more focus on the actual citizens of this country, their views seem to shift.

So if that is as big of an issue as I think it is, it would also mean that Bernie can capture minority voters. In fact, I read a report that said Bernie captured 15 of the 20 largest counties for the Latino population in Iowa. Maybe the minority issue is a false narrative. Bernie is somewhat of a disruptive force in this election so the traditional polling may not capture intent and public opinion very accurately.

 

[kirblar]

Clinton doesn't support reparations either, does she? Why are some making it a Sanders problem?

"If you're supporting all these other completely unviable pie in the sky ideas, why won't you support this one?" is what they're getting at.

 

[Psychoward]

For some hillarity, let's watch both Chris Matthews on Hardball and Hillary both meltdown about how younger voters "don't know anything" about politics, and how "only incremental change" allowed for things like "FDR's new deal" and "Civil rights act legislation", and how Bernie is "nothing but an idealogue politician"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODSbTL-6i7g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxC26dyn7ZY

For shame Chris. I used to watch you religiously, but i guess big money was the trigger to show your true face?

I kept waiting for a meltdown to come and didn't see any... timestamp?

 

[sphagnum]

Clinton doesn't support reparations either, does she? Why are some making it a Sanders problem?

Sanders, as a "radical", shouldn't be afraid to back radical positions. Clinton is expected not to. Somehow, though, she's just as liberal!

I do agree with the first part though. Bernie shouldn't be afraid to push for the most leftist policies. He's not likely to win, so he should be the moral voice of the left wing. But I do find it strange that this is somehow lobbed as an attack on Bernie by Clinton voters when it's not like she's going to do anything about it either. Makes more sense a criticism from people who aren't aligned to either.

 

[Inuhanyou]

That's actually a pretty good interview, shows Hillary's pragmatism and understanding of politics and compromise. Yes Matthews is obviously bias, lol, but he's not saying anything terribly outlandish.

"Pragmatism"?

She called the GOP "the enemy" and loves beating up on them any chance she gets to pander to the liberal base unsuccessfully, until she needs to tack to the center and says she "can get things done" without actually saying how or what she would 'get done' in a Paul Ryan congress any more than anyone else.

She only sponsored two bills in the senate and only one passed. While Bernie himself won awards in the bipartisan Veteran affairs committee, and even reached across the isle with John Mccain on many bills(as well as Ron Paul to audit the FED)

How could she possibly know anything about compromise? Compromising on her own values for gold maybe.

Clinton doesn't support reparations either, does she? Why are some making it a Sanders problem?

Because its an easy narrative to paint Bernie as "a tough sell to minorities", when its the exact opposite on his end.

 

[Hellsing321]

I don't think he was laughing about it though

Yeah but the people he was paying to burn money were.

 

[gutter_trash]

I feel sorry for Ben Carson though

 

[JABEE]

For some hillarity, let's watch both Chris Matthews on Hardball and Hillary both meltdown about how younger voters "don't know anything" about politics, and how "only incremental change" allowed for things like "FDR's new deal" and "Civil rights act legislation", and how Bernie is "nothing but an idealogue politician"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODSbTL-6i7g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxC26dyn7ZY

For shame Chris. I used to watch you religiously, but i guess big money was the trigger to show your true face?

What about Teddy Roosevelt?

 

[gutter_trash]

For some hillarity, let's watch both Chris Matthews on Hardball and Hillary both meltdown about how younger voters "don't know anything" about politics, and how "only incremental change" allowed for things like "FDR's new deal" and "Civil rights act legislation", and how Bernie is "nothing but an idealogue politician"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODSbTL-6i7g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxC26dyn7ZY

For shame Chris. I used to watch you religiously, but i guess big money was the trigger to show your true face?

Chris has always been like this

 

[sphagnum]

I kind of wonder what would happen if Bernie changed his mind and stated he was in favor of reparations. It would put Clinton in a tough spot but also pretty much annihilate whatever chances he has for a general elections victory. But if he gets to the point where he's sure he can't win, it would be an interesting thing to see.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Has anybody said that Sanders's policy platform is sufficient to combat the issues that black people face, or that there isn't a specifically racial component to the black experience of income inequality? Sanders came up in a different time and so probably isn't as adept at talking about that in those terms, but the reality is that confronting the general problem of poverty will make the black experience of American life better to a non-negligible extent, and directly challenges some of the largest impediments to the social advancement of people of color (namely, giant banks corporations staffed by insular networks of rich, straight white men). All the Clinton platform really promises is a lack of a backslide - which is not nothing, especially if you think Sanders is more unelectable and therefore more likely to plunge women and minorities into a situation where their livelihoods exist at the behest of a party that wants to dismantle the welfare state and return abortion to a state-level issue, but still, to act like Sanders isn't offering much to people of color because his platform is not a sufficient challenge to white supremacy is both factually wrong and rhetorically disingenuous.

 

[teruterubozu]

Chris has always been like this

Yup. This is nothing compared to his debt ceiling meltdown a few years back.

 

[danm999]

Wait and see until he gets there. I implore you to wait and see. He will carve his own slice of the electorate, make no mistake about that.

Bernie's campaign is really going state by state and having people even see what he's really about.

I'm not as optimistic as you are. I still think Bernie is going to have a problem appealing to minorities, and I still think he's got a problem amongst self identified Democrats. Even in Iowa last night his result was partially on the back of independent voters. Clinton handily won the Democrats.

When you get to states where the independent vote isn't as high as it is in Iowa or New Hampshire, that's going to be a hurdle for the campaign to overcome. Especially the ones with closed caucuses or primaries (like Nevada for example).

The state by state strategy is also going to be really difficult in a few weeks when you need to focus on several states at once, and the machines these campaigns have been building for months is tested.

 

[billeh]

Matthews paints a really rosy picture of democrats through history, but all I can recall right now is the spineless bunch of assholes that lost the senate in 2010 because they ran against their president's successful platform. Nice to see Hillary working closer with him, but I can't completely get rid of the bad taste yet.

I'll vote Democratic, but I don't want that label.

 

[Prodigal Son]

I feel sorry for Ben Carson though

BREAKING NEWS: BEN CARSON ATTEMPTS SEPPUKU, SAVED BY BELT BUCKLE

 

[Inuhanyou]

"If you're supporting all these other completely unviable pie in the sky ideas, why won't you support this one?" is what they're getting at.

But they aren't pie in the sky compared to literally every other global economy?

"Why didn't FDR support reparations? He obviously was for these pie in the sky ideas like "national roadways"" and "social security benefits" for every elderly citizen."

"Why didn't LBJ support reparations? He's obviously for these pie in the sky ideas like "unsegregated public schools"

As i said before. Just because Bernie advocates for legitimate ideas doesn't mean he's obligated to support literally everything out there. His ideals that he's been talking about for years are not even radical by our own history, let alone in the global sense. Its the other American politicians ideas that are weaksauce and don't improve anything substantive.

Its a tough task in our current weak as hell climate with everyone in both parties afraid of stepping on their donors shadows, but anyone saying its pie in the sky apparently assumes that taking on corporate corruption is pie in the sky, or actually improving people's quality of life is pie in the sky, and that we should not advocate for those things because they are 'pie in the sky'.

So, if not now, when in the distant vague future were you planning on expecting more from your elected officials?

Well, somebody has to push for these things even if everyone else is a coward who won't say what needs to be said and advocate for what needs to be advocated for.

 

[Slackerish]

She only sponsored two bills in the senate and only one passed. While Bernie himself won awards in the bipartisan Veteran affairs committee, and even reached across the isle with John Mccain on many bills(as well as Ron Paul to audit the FED)

Where are you getting your information? I keep seeing you saying stuff, like she made $20 million off a single speech (in a different thread).

You said she only sponsored two bills in the senate, but using this site I see Sponsor: Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] more 2x.

 

[MHWilliams]

Has anybody said that Sanders's policy platform is sufficient to combat the issues that black people face, or that there isn't a specifically racial component to the black experience of income inequality? Sanders came up in a different time and so probably isn't as adept at talking about that in those terms, but the reality is that confronting the general problem of poverty will make the black experience of American life better to a non-negligible extent, and directly challenges some of the largest impediments to the social advancement of people of color (namely, giant banks corporations staffed by insular networks of rich, straight white men). All the Clinton platform really promises is a lack of a backslide - which is not nothing, especially if you think Sanders is more unelectable and therefore more likely to plunge women and minorities into a situation where their livelihoods exist at the behest of a party that wants to dismantle the welfare state and return abortion to a state-level issue, but still, to act like Sanders isn't offering much to people of color because his platform is not a sufficient challenge to white supremacy is both factually wrong and rhetorically disingenuous.

Sanders' strength has been his general improvement on racial issues. Following the BLM protests in his direction, he's done a great job of listening and adjusting his policies and speeches to fix some issues.

Will it be enough? No clue.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

The bolded implies that [existing] social services are sufficient to solve the problems of poverty and wealth inequality. They're not, even for whites. In america, you die in the socioeconomic class you were born in, no matter what race you are. That is the present, and it's also the future under Hillary or a republican president.

Is it drastically different under Bernie? Impossible to say. It might be. But racial stereotypes in 2016 are intrinsically linked with mass incarceration (war on drugs) and economic inequality. Bernie's answer is not complete, but I guess I don't see how anything (for example) Hillary has offered is even in the same ballpark.

That isn't true. There are studies showing that generational class mobility is the same as it was 20-40 years ago depending upon the methodology. They have helped things at worse remain the same despite more income inequality. It may not be working bestnbut it is working. It's not hard to imagine with expansion they couldn't do more. Even if class does matter as much there is still a racial gap.

His answer is as incomplete as Hillary's. She was more willing to go to the table on how to fix that plan and address it with policy. She simply wasn't given great policy options at that time.

 

[Elfforkusu]

That isn't true. There are studies showing that generational class mobility is the same as it was 20-40 years ago depending upon the methodology. They have helped things at worse remain the same despite more income inequality. It may not be working bestnbut it is working. It's not hard to imagine with expansion they couldn't do more. Even if class does matter as much there is still a racial gap.

His answer is as incomplete as Hillary's. She was more willing to go to the table on how to fix that plan and address it with policy. She simply wasn't given great policy options at that time.

'existing social services help' is not the same as 'existing social services are sufficient'. Considering how these social programs do at helping those most in need of them (poor minorities), it seems pretty clear that they could use some work.

E: I mean, either the social services programs themselves are helping whites disproportionately (in which case they should stop being racist), or something else is lifting whites out of poverty disproportionately compared to blacks... e.g, the social programs aren't doing it.

 

[mid83]

Actually, it's not.

http://priceonomics.com/social-mobility-statistics-are-racist/

This is a perfect example of exactly why the Sanders analysis, and thus the Sanders policy platform, fails when it comes to people of color. It postulates a sameness of economic experience that just isn't true. Poor white people really do just do way better across a variety of measurements than, not just poor black people, but often middle-class black people as well. That's the American way.

What sort of policy is going to help change this if Sanders platform, the most liberal one in decades, isn't going to?

That's always a question I have when this topic comes up regarding the color blindness of welfare and other social programs, or even Sanders proposals like universal health care and free college for all?

 

[nitekrawlwer]

'existing social programs help' is not the same as 'existing social programs are sufficient'. Considering how these social programs do at helping those most in need of them (poor minorities), it seems pretty clear that they could use some work.

Did you not read where I suggest we expand them? I'm willing to put in work and improve upon some elements of the establishment. They aren't all bad. They already kinda work for whites.

I just want pro black policy specifically to solve those black issues too. I'll take an immediate back room policy discussion that can be broadcast over the internet to being booed off the stage and shown how those programs will somehow help me too when history and habit just don't bear that out.

 

[Jenov]

"Pragmatism"?

She called the GOP "the enemy" and loves beating up on them any chance she gets to pander to the liberal base unsuccessfully, until she needs to tack to the center and says she "can get things done" without actually saying how or what she would 'get done' in a Paul Ryan congress any more than anyone else.

She only sponsored two bills in the senate and only one passed. While Bernie himself won awards in the bipartisan Veteran affairs committee, and even reached across the isle with John Mccain on many bills(as well as Ron Paul to audit the FED)

How could she possibly know anything about compromise? Compromising on her own values for gold maybe.

Because its an easy narrative to paint Bernie as "a tough sell to minorities", when its the exact opposite on his end.

It's difficult to take what you say seriously when you skew basic fact like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

"While a member of the U.S. Senate, Clinton sponsored 713 pieces of legislation.[11] Of these, three[12] became law."

Where are you getting your information? I keep seeing you saying stuff, like she made $20 million off a single speech (in a different thread).

You said she only sponsored two bills in the senate, but using this site I see Sponsor: Sen. Clinton, Hillary Rodham [D-NY] more 2x.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the $20 million dollar speech!

 

[Elfforkusu]

Did you not read where I suggest we expand them? I'm willing to put in work and improve upon some elements of the establishment. They aren't all bad.

So we agree that they aren't sufficient as is?

My point really comes down to that Bernie's aggressive position is a lot more likely to achieve something in this area than Hillary's career of 'pragmatism'. She'll be a good president for social liberals and people who want the US to continue to have interventionist foreign policy. Economically, though, I don't see her reforming much if anything. Despite being pragmatic policy wise, it's going to be hard for her to reach across the aisle because of the animosity between parties.

 

[Psychoward]

Is there a reason Jeb is doing so poorly in this race? Is it just his "low-energy" or what?

 

[Shogmaster]

A bit misleading chart since it's $ spent PER vote. Jeb could have spent less money in Iowa than Cruz, but since he got so little votes, the $ spent per vote is much much higher.

 

[Kusagari]

Is there a reason Jeb is doing so poorly in this race? Is it just his "low-energy" or what?

He's a horrible campaigner and is so awkward and milquetoast he makes Romney look like Obama in comparison.

Combine that with the fact he's running as the sensible and wonky candidate at the time most of the GOP electorate wants an outsider and is sick of career politicians. Jeb and the Bush dynasty represents everything they hate.

 

[stupei]

A bit misleading chart since it's $ spent PER vote. Jeb could have spent less money in Iowa than Cruz, but since he got so little votes, the $ spent per vote is much much higher.

Pretty sure that's what makes it funny.

 

[mid83]

Is there a reason Jeb is doing so poorly in this race? Is it just his "low-energy" or what?

Bush fatigue exists on both sides. Plus, the Republican base is so pissed at the establishment and Bush is the ultimate establishment guy this time around. His low energy doesn't help either.

 

[Psychoward]

He's a horrible campaigner and is so awkward and milquetoast he makes Romney look like Obama in comparison.

Combine that with the fact he's running as the sensible and wonky candidate at the time most of the GOP electorate wants an outsider and is sick of career politicians. Jeb and the Bush dynasty represents everything they hate.

Yeah that's about what I figured, what about Rand though?

 

[cameron]

A bit misleading chart since it's $ spent PER vote. Jeb could have spent less money in Iowa than Cruz, but since he got so little votes, the $ spent per vote is much much higher.

That's the point.

 

[elrechazado]

Clinton doesn't support reparations either, does she? Why are some making it a Sanders problem?

It seems to be an easy hand wave to dismiss him in the interest of realpolitik, rather than any real lionization of Hilary's policy. I find it fascinating that anyone would argue super centrist Hillary has some magic plan for racial equity.

Seems to be true regardless that bern has no real path to victory though so it seems like an argument about angels dancing on pinheads at this point.

 

[KingV]

For all the people that say Bernie is offering good policy for blacks I have to respectfully disagree. Bernie's policy automatically fails because it addressed problems from the colorblind framing of class and economics. If it worked that way traditional social services would have solved these issues long ago.

I hearnestly question what value many of the promises his supporters think of will actually do much of anything for blacks. What good is a college education for a man they won't hire over a white dropout because his name sounds more black? I understand the advantages of education, but even given that education we don't see the same success for racial reasons, not class or economic reasons. To tell me you have policy that is good for me it would have to see me racially to tackle the problems I face. Anything less is tantamount to denying that those problems exist. Something America has perfected for centuries.

We have went back and forth on this, some, and before I dig in, I want you to know I appreciate your opinion on this.

The thing I would keep in mind with Bernie is he was out against TANF and the Clinton Welfare Reform Act of 1996 20 years ago. He voted against it in 1996, and wrote about it in 1997.

The reason "traditional" social programs don't work is that they were designed not to work. In 1996, Newt Gingrich and President Clinton came up with a deal to scrap traditional Welfare, and create TANF, that includes block grants to the states (which aren't always spent on social programs), a temporary nature, and most importantly, don't change with inflation.

So the Money for Welfare is essentially, static at 1996 levels until Congress decides to vote to change. The amount of money for benefits stays the same even as the pools grow (or shrink).

The work requirements have some inherent racism because the jobless rate is so much worse for Black Americans.

The programs don't work because they were designed not to work. I think you could design a program that DOES work (national minimum income or something like that), but this one isn't it.

I think you're right that there are certain structural differences that need to be addressed with legislation that targets people racially, even if they are temporary in nature or phase out slowly over some extended time period (50 years, say).

I think when people say that Bernie is better for minorities, or at least when I say it, I am specifically talking about the Clinton ties to Welfare Reform (which Hillary said was a great success as recently as the 2008 primary) and Sanders specifically saying that the law was immoral.

 

[params7]

Bush fatigue exists on both sides. Plus, the Republican base is so pissed at the establishment and Bush is the ultimate establishment guy this time around. His low energy doesn't help either.

Ultimately he is not as skilled as his brother or father in presentation, public speaking and charisma. I would think maybe due to his soft nature and probably being smarter he would be a better (neocon) President, but that's not true either since its obvious he's on strings and will have most areas pointed out to him by establishment and the pro interventionist lobbies. Masses see through this now.

 

[danm999]

Bush represents a bunch of electoral bets that looked fine on paper but immediately all went south the moment the race started.

Trump is correct when he says that they wouldn't be talking about immigration if it wasn't for him. Bush (and I guess Rubio) were supposed to be candidates who recaptured GWB Latino support.

But they underestimated how much the base wanted to talk about the issue.

 

[Shogmaster]

That's the point.

The point is a bit moot then. They all spent a lot. Probably about the same amount. The guy who finished at the bottom will have spent most per vote. No shit!

Now is it delicious irony that Jeb was supposed to have been the obvious front runner say 6 months ago? Sure. But other than that, the chart is just pointing out the obvious.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

what makes Hillary's analysis and policy platform better for people of color?

Why would Hillary go out of her way or do anything that she hasn't already done to make her platform better for people of color? It doesn't make any sense. If you take the ideas seriously that blacks can't afford to take gambles and blacks believe liberal Supreme Court Justices offsets whatever other risks they're facing, then Democrats can manhandle that portion of the electorate however they please. And of course still have their votes in your back pocket. After all Bill has done, blacks are seemingly paving a smooth path to the nomination for Hillary. I mean enough said. So, you can make that part of the electorate jump through hoops for welfare while giving big handouts to whites and accordingly, they either don't care or they don't care enough to do anything about it. So, I wouldn't bend over backwards for blacks politically if I was her since the vote is locked up anyway. That would be risky to do if they're not particularly upset and like where things are headed. Obama and Bill Clinton are highly rated.

 

[Kusagari]

Yeah that's about what I figured, what about Rand though?

Rand tried to dip his feet in both pools and ended up just pissing off both sides. The establishment will never support a candidate that wants the foreign policy and civil liberties Rand wants and the Paulites sniffed him out as a fraud because of his other positions trying to take a more establishment tone.

 

[riotous]

The point is a bit moot then. They all spent a lot. Probably about the same amount. The guy who finished at the bottom will have spent most per vote. No shit!

Now is it delicious irony that Jeb was supposed to have been the obvious front runner say 6 months ago? Sure. But other than that, the chart is just pointing out the obvious.

No it's not; if it was obvious then Trump and Rubio should be equal.

It does a good job of showing off that Trump spends 1/2 the amount of money for roughly the same amount of votes as Rubio.

It's an interesting stat and wasn't remotely misleading.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

So we agree that they aren't sufficient as is?

My point really comes down to that Bernie's aggressive position is a lot more likely to achieve something in this area than Hillary's career of 'pragmatism'. She'll be a good president for social liberals and people who want the US to continue to have interventionist foreign policy. Economically, though, I don't see her reforming much if anything. Despite being pragmatic policy wise, it's going to be hard for her to reach across the aisle because of the animosity between parties.

We can agree on that.

An aggressive position has a better chance of reaching across the aisles than a pragmatic one? I just don't believe you. Especially not coming from a woman.

 

[teruterubozu]

Bush represents a bunch of electoral bets that looked fine on paper but immediately all went south the moment the race started.

Trump is correct when he says that they wouldn't be talking about immigration if it wasn't for him. Bush (and I guess Rubio) were supposed to be candidates who recaptured GWB Latino support.

But they underestimated how much the base wanted to talk about the issue.

Republicans always talk about immigration come election time, it's a prime conservative talking point, just not let's build a wall kind of immigration talk.

 

[KingV]

I hate to just link to Bernie's page on this, but https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/ discusses his various policies (violence, economic injustice, environmental problems, etc.) in relation to minorities fairly well. Now, you're absolutely right - a lot of those policies are colorblind. That said, it's true that even so many of them would greatly benefit people of color, like raising the minimum wage to $15, banning employers from discriminating against employees by criminal history and re-instating voting rights for people who had them stripped away by felony convictions, ending the war on drugs, etc. He does have some things he lists there that are specifically intended for the purposes of rectifying racial disparities like "address[ing]address the inadequate environmental cleanup efforts of Superfund hazardous waste sites in communities of color."

Some things though can't really be legislated away. It's already illegal to discriminate against someone for their racial/ethnic/etc. background when hiring - it's not like you can make it any more of a law to "not pass over that buy because his name sounds black." A lot of that sort of thing would have to come from society changing itself. (edit: although I just read the post on the last page with the suggestion about bias testing and that seems like a good idea)

I don't think either candidate is really quite adequate for meeting the needs of minorities; Bernie obviously had a blind spot that he's been working on and Hillary hasn't really promised any sweeping changes herself. They both seem pretty similar in their stances but Hillary has better messaging.

Now, as someone who mostly supports Bernie for the sake of pushing the overton window, I do think actual socialism would be greatly beneficial to non-whites since it would massively elevate their political/economic power. Not to say that real socialism (as in, the workers controlling the means of production) can't be rife with racial problems itself. Unions obviously have all sorts of messy history with race. But to me that would be the best way to ensure that people at the bottom of the socio/political/economic ladder get a real say in the matter. Unfortunately that's a long way off or may just never happen.

Though you are right that the laws already exist, there can be huge differences in enforcement. In some ways it's maybe more important than the actual laws, because the President can choose to interpret those laws more liberally or more conservatively, or direct the FBI/Labor Department/etc. to focus more or less resources on those areas and really needs nobody else's help to do so.

 

[Manifest Destiny]

You Americans really drag this process out

Since we are going to elect the most powerful person in the world into office for the next 4-8 years forgive us if we take a while to go through the process.

 

[sphagnum]

We can agree on that.

An aggressive position has a better chance of reaching across the aisles than a pragmatic one? I just don't believe you. Especially not coming from a woman.

There is a 0% chance of anything Hillary wants reaching across the aisle successfully with the GOP as it is.