• 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.

CNN : Biden: Clinton never figured out why she was running

Status
Not open for further replies.
History has shown that to be bull fucking shit.

Yup

Black Wall Street and what happened there is my go to example of that.

Sources pls.

Black folk built themselves a prosperous neighbourhood in Tulsa, the end result it was eventually burned to the ground by white folk.

The Civl rights movement wasn't focused on economic issues, it was weaved in but it sure as fuck wasn't about let's fix the economy and civil rights will follow suit.

FOR MANY AMERICANS, the American dream means a vast middle class, a society in which the basic necessities of food, shelter, and education are available to all - with enough left over for a comfortable life. Certainly Martin Luther King's vision of equality and integration was not confined to overturning the segregation laws. Indeed, breaking through the barrier of segregation was seen as a means to the end of providing African Americans with an equal opportunity to join the middle class and beyond.

YET THE MIDDLE-CLASS DREAM continues disproportionately to elude minority families. For example, 1999 Current Population Survey data shows that 27% of white families -- yet only 9% of Hispanic families -- reported earnings of $50,000 or more. Half of African Americans in married-couple families had incomes of $50,000 or more, according to 2000 Current Population Survey data, compared to 61% of white married-couple families.

AND WHILE the 1999 median family income for all white families was $42,500 (up from $36,900 in 1991), that for African American families was only $27,900 (up from $21,400), $30,700 for Hispanic families (up from $23,400), and $30,800 for American Indians and Native Alaskans.

MOREOVER, MINORITIES DO NOT APPEAR to receive the same return from their investment in education compared to their white counterparts. For example, according to 1999 Current Population Survey data, white workers 18 years and older with a high school degree and working full-time earned a median income of $26,800, while those with a college degree earned $48,800. Meanwhile, their black counterparts with a high school degree earned only $22,900, and those with a college degree $38,600. Latino high school graduates working full-time reported a median income of $21,500 and college graduates $39,300. Asian and Pacific Islanders reported a median income of $22,600 for those with a high school diploma, and $40,500 for those with an undergraduate degree.

EVEN IN TIMES OF DECLINING POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT, minorities remain disproportionately likely to be poor and/or unemployed. For example, 1999 Current Population Survey data concluded that 32.3 million Americans were poor, for a national poverty rate of 11.8% -- the lowest level since 1979. Yet the African American poverty rate was 23.6 percent (down from 31.9% in 1990); Native Americans had a 25.9 percent rate (down from 30.9%), Latinos were poor at a rate of 22.8% (down from 28.1%), while Asians and Pacific Islanders had a 10.7% poverty rate (down from 12.2% in 1990). Just under eight percent of whites -- 7.7% -- were below the poverty line, down from a 10.7% rate in 1990. (In 1999, the poverty line was set at $17,029.)

SIMILARLY, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the March 2001 unemployment rate was 4.3 percent. But for African Americans, it was 8.6 percent and for Latinos 6.3%, while the rate for white Americans was 3.7 percent.

MINORITY CHLDREN are also disproportionately likely to be poor: one-third of both African American and Hispanic children in America are poor, compared to 13.5% of white kids, and 11.8% of Asian Americans. Latino and African American children are also disproportionately likely to lack health insurance -- according to 1999 Current Population Survey data, one out of every four Latino children and one out of every six African American kids are uninsured, compared to one out of every of 11 white children. Similarly, Latino married-couple families were more than four times as likely to be living in poverty as their white counterparts - 14% of Latino married-couple families were below the poverty line in 1999, compared to only 3% of white families.

Even in good economic times, minorities lag massively behind.

http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/economicjustice.html?

This idea of focusing on economic issues and social politics will just follow suit is not based in reality.
 
In my opinion, so many liberals have shown their TRUE asses in the outcome of this election.
I agree that the reactions post-loss have been incredibly illuminating.

People like Obama, Biden, Sanders, etc have been speaking very sensible things about the reasons for the loss, tying the loss into the wider context of massive Democrat losses over the last 6 year, how to move the party forward, etc. Now compare that to Clinton and her camp's deranged ranting about the FBI and Russia, refusal to admit any fault on their part, complete delusion about the incredibly fragile status of the party. Democrats simply cannot get rid of Clinton and her band of loonies fast enough.
 
Sources pls.

Easy: New Deal.

How much did it help African Americans when they were outright thrown under the bus and denied economic benefits.

Black Wall Street

African Americans outright made their own workable economy. Got it outright destroyed by riots and policy.

Central Park

Like BWS, a subsection of NYC, vibrant AA community, destroyed while NYC was growing economically.

The Rise of Unions

The second Jim Crow and other discriminatory laws gained headway, they buckled and threw AAs under. MLK jr fought tooth and nail against AFL-CIO. Only when the Civil Rights Act was a thing did they align.


Native Americans

When the fuck has any economic plan really help them?

It's in the fucking logic. Economic plans that are generic, that refuse to take into account the social impacts that different races, genders, and orientations face, is still pretty much trickle down economics.

But for white working class. Nah, that's being kind.

White middle class
 

Diablos

Member
Biden basically refining what he said on Colbert. He's kind of right. I wish he ran. He would have locked down the working class vote in the rust belt for sure.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Economic issues without a social lens = Minorities get fucked.

It shows that economic prosperity didn't protect black folk from having their entire community razed to the ground.

i think the point was that not focusing on economics at a time when half the country is poor may have very well led to a Trump Presidency which, i think, will not bode well for social justice issues long term.
 
i think the point was that not focusing on economics at a time when half the country is poor may have very well led to a Trump Presidency which, i think, will not bode well for social justice issues long term.

The poor didn't win Trump the Presidency... the Middle class and above did... Clinton won the under 50 000k vote.

and Clinton talked about the economy, what she didn't do was lie and promise to bring back jobs that aren't coming back.
 
i think the point was that not focusing on economics at a time when half the country is poor may have very well led to a Trump Presidency which, i think, will not bode well for social justice issues long term.


People need to say what they really feel.

Making civil rights a focal point scares off white middle class voters.

Been that way since 1964.


And people want the dems to have more white voters apparently, so...
 
The poor didn't win Trump the Presidency... the Middle class and above did... Clinton won the under 50 000k vote.

and Clinton talked about the economy, what she didn't do was lie and promise to bring back jobs that aren't coming back.
Yes, but the problem is she did not win it by the margins Obama did. Trump made significant gains.
 
People need to say what they really feel.

Making civil rights a focal point scares off white middle class voters.

Been that way since 1964.


And people want the dems to have more white voters apparently, so...

I think it's actually fascinating that the last time the Dems won the white vote was in 1964 against Goldwater, and now 52 years later when faced with someone just as bad if not worse it's a collective shrug and another white vote victory for the Republicans.
 
I think Hillary's campaign TRIED to have lots of clear messages, but they tried to focus on so damn much that they ended up not having enough focus on anything, which meant that if you were the average voter who doesn't follow politics for hours every day, you wouldn't know much about Hillary's policy proposals.

This was of course made worse by the media choosing to waste most of their time reporting on campaign drama instead of actual policies.

They were too busy attacking Trump about all the ugly things he said to actually show people that they have actual program.

It's common mistake of the left - in Poland they tried to use in vitro and abortion as major issues against right, when right talked about common people, improving their conditions etc.
 
Not offering an answer to economic problems scares off voters.

Nobody did. Nobody has in this entire Right Wing Resurgence, because nobody has a solution.

Both of them had "answers", neither was a solution, so voters picked... Well really they picked Hillary, but the important few picked Trump.
 
And yet she still won it. She still was the candidate that appealed to more of the poor vote.

This idea that Trump was the voice of the poor isn't factual.

Nobody did. Nobody has in this entire Right Wing Resurgence, because nobody has a solution.

Both of them had "answers", neither was a solution, so voters picked... Well really they picked Hillary, but the important few picked Trump.

You two have been spitting hot truth. I really appreciate your contributions in this thread.
 
Easy: New Deal.

How much did it help African Americans when they were outright thrown under the bus and denied economic benefits.

FDR's support of African Americans was ambiguous as a white man, but obviously the New Deal helped a lot because blacks started switching their allegiance significantly to the Democratic party and were working in unprecedented numbers within the public sector following the alphabet soup of initiatives.

The Rise of Unions

The second Jim Crow and other discriminatory laws gained headway, they buckled and threw AAs under. MLK jr fought tooth and nail against AFL-CIO. Only when the Civil Rights Act was a thing did they align.

Why do you think so many blacks joined unions and pressured whites via the courts particularly once we got into the golden age of capitalism than spanned multiple decades?
 

Boney

Banned
Clinton having an economic plan was completely lost because the campaign had terrible communication and messaging and a bad focus. It's not about lying to people, it's about having it front and center and push it continuously. The narrative of the election was that Trump was having rallies with 1) racist angry folks 2) traditional production working class and he did a good job communicating with them which in place spreads into the community.

Clinton wasn't having the rallies, nor the mainstream media covering her economic platform, not right and center as it should've. It got lost both in the "let's attack strategy" and by being long term solutions which don't inspire confidence on people, especially if she's not directly addressing them over and over again.

Under 50.000 k class is the people that are in constant interaction with public programs and naturally reinforce democratic support. Clinton winning this demographic isn't indicative of her percieved fortitude in invigorating the private sector, but a continued strengthening of the network of public services.

And regarding economics in civil right

Attacked from both left and right, King was forced to rethink his career and the organization he led, the SCLC. "We must admit there was a limitation of our achievement in the South," he told a meeting of the SCLC board in 1967. SCLC would have to call for a "radical redistribution of wealth and power." On several occasions, King told his aides that the U.S. needed "democratic socialism" that would guarantee jobs and income for all.

Democrats and the establishment white washing the later more confrontational period of King's legacy is part of the continued effort to put same interest groups with one another. Democrats play along with Republicans to keep this system going.

Still, the Democrats saw betrayal in King's Poor People's Campaign--while the right wing declared it proved their longtime claim that King was a "Communist." These elements, encouraged by the presidential campaign of segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace, publicly threatened King's life.

Faced with hostility from the Johnson administration, criticism from both Black nationalists and the Black establishment, and a divided staff, King was politically isolated as never before when he was assassinated in Memphis on April 4, 1968--less than three weeks before the Poor People's Campaign was to begin. King had travelled to Memphis to support a strike by Black sanitation workers--he was the only national civil rights leader to do so.

Yet it wasn't long after his death that the media hacks of the ruling class began to convert King into a harmless saint.

To do this, however, they had to bury the real legacy of Martin Luther King--both the leader of the critical early struggles of the civil rights movement who refused to accept pleas for patience and moderation from his liberal Democratic allies, and the more radical Black leader of the late 1960s whose vision of what needed to be changed in society had widened enormously.

I went over it in the other thread, but the material gains need to be provided in a horizontal fashion to support the entire black lower class. Without this, any individual gain in power is easily segregated and later disempowered through economic and policing measures from the establishment. That's why black Wall Street isn't a good example of the radical dissociation of capital gain with social status, since it transcends those individual beneficiaries, making them outliers needed to be controlled and counteracted.

MLK understood this after realizing the shortcomings of pacific manifestation, where the answer wasn't a call to arms to black nationalism, but rather attack root causes that organize society is stratums. MLK was assasineted due to his shift to democratic socialism with the Poor's People's March and appropriated by which machinery as a docile symbol for civil rights.
 
FDR's support of African Americans was ambiguous as a white man, but obviously the New Deal helped a lot because blacks started switching their allegiance significantly to the Democratic party and were working in unprecedented numbers within the public sector following the alphabet soup of initiatives.



Why do you think so many blacks joined unions and pressured whites via the courts particularly once we got into the golden age of capitalism than spanned multiple decades?

But that's the thing, they had to fight tooth and nail just to get economic benefits granted to whites through economic policy.

And Boney, we know damn well about MLK's turn towards economic redistribution. My point this entire damn time has been economics without a social lens fails. And an economic plan front in center that fails to acknowledge the unique issues African Americans face, among others, fails to invigorate that base. Hell, because of Bill Clinton, it can outright scare them.

Hence why MLK worked with black sanitation workers, as well as sanitation workers in general. It's recognizing social impact on economics and honing in on them when need be. Diversifying how you engage different audiences.

Bernie couldn't do that. Hillary didn't do it enough.


Bernie may have had great policies, but Hillary was further along through her INTERACTIONS with black audiences. Actually talking to them, knowing the right people to get to the core constituents. One thing those "elite", "establishment" guys have is the ability to find these constituents, to know who to talk to to really engage certain audiences.

Bernie knew this more for white working class, and it showed.

The two filled holes the other could not.
 

Boney

Banned
There absolutely needs to be a centralized defined platform that tackles the impact of economic deprivation in black communities in a local level and as well in a macro level and provide policy that derives from a general economic policy of wealth redistribution.

The Democratic Party and by proxy, Clinton have helped build and amassed a considerable organization outreach program with well built feedback mechanisms with black community leaders. I agree there's a mischaracterization of the general economic policy as one that sees no diversity or plurality, with a one size fits all narrative accompanying. It's bad optics no doubt and it's counterintuitive to it's goals, but this is more of a problem with pundits not being able to deconstruct appropriate policy instead of the actual politicians claimoring for this. it's a product of a misaligned debate of class vs status.

However, I think Sanders has more of a problem of not having a suitable infrastructure over the specifics of his message. Him being virtually non existant in prime television and not having the support of many black leaders. Supporters for Sanders was more in the intellectual side while detractors were more of political establishment, who have a further outreach than the former. Clinton's support is well earned, since she has been a key player in expanding the party's outreach to black community and to help capture the black vote, but I do not believe this preference on a political figure means they're rejecting the other out right. I think Clinton on top of the infrastructure has this historic advantage that will be hard to replicate from a centrist candidate and support will be even more evenly split.

Most of Sanders gaffes are individual failings amplified by irresponsible reporting like the "ghetto" incident, where the story was about the implication of most black people are poor instead of the racial element proper of a ghetto that differentiates it from segregation that occurs in other countries. But I digress, I'm on mobile and was interrupted million times between the response so an up front apology for the rambling
 

Green Yoshi

Member
I'm wondering if Cory Booker would have beaten Clinton in the primaries.

Under President Carter, a general public employment programme was approved by Congress under the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978., authorising the federal government to create a "reservoir of public employment". But it wasn't put into efffect and vanished as President Reagan got elected.

Guaranteed Work might be the solution to fulfil the right-to-work mandate of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 

KingK

Member
I like Biden well enough, but he probably wouldn't have stood a chance in the primary. And "you can't eat equality" is a shitty line, even if I understand the thrust of his argument. We as the left cannot keep encouraging this dissociation of class and identity.
 


Clearly, she needed to talk about economy more. That was clearly Clinton's biggest problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/u...out-the-issues-blame-the-candidates.html?_r=0

To figure out if this was the case, I used data from Kantar Media/CMAG on all the candidates’ campaign ads aired between June and Election Day. I coded all of the appeals in each ad and weighted the appeals by how many times the ads ran on television. Mrs. Clinton made more ads than Mr. Trump, and she vastly out-advertised him, running nearly three times as many ads as he did. All told, over half a million ads were run in 2016 during this period.

The content of the ads is revealing. Both candidates spent most of their television advertising time attacking the other person’s character. In fact, the losing candidate’s ads did little else. More than three-quarters of the appeals in Mrs. Clinton’s advertisements (and nearly half of Mr. Trump’s) were about traits, characteristics or dispositions. Only 9 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s appeals in her ads were about jobs or the economy. By contrast, 34 percent of Mr. Trump’s appeals focused on the economy, jobs, taxes and trade.
 

KingK

Member
But that's the thing, they had to fight tooth and nail just to get economic benefits granted to whites through economic policy.

And Boney, we know damn well about MLK's turn towards economic redistribution. My point this entire damn time has been economics without a social lens fails. And an economic plan front in center that fails to acknowledge the unique issues African Americans face, among others, fails to invigorate that base. Hell, because of Bill Clinton, it can outright scare them.

Hence why MLK worked with black sanitation workers, as well as sanitation workers in general. It's recognizing social impact on economics and honing in on them when need be. Diversifying how you engage different audiences.

Bernie couldn't do that. Hillary didn't do it enough.


Bernie may have had great policies, but Hillary was further along through her INTERACTIONS with black audiences. Actually talking to them, knowing the right people to get to the core constituents. One thing those "elite", "establishment" guys have is the ability to find these constituents, to know who to talk to to really engage certain audiences.

Bernie knew this more for white working class, and it showed.

The two filled holes the other could not.
This is a pretty good post. I don't have much to add, just wanted to say I agree with your assessment here, and it reflects some of my feelings of both Hillary and Bernie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom