IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I'm inferring something probably not intended.
Haven't read Drum's piece yet, but your post appears to be saying that it is only with the Black vote that a Democratic candidate can win. Do you believe that to be true? Doesn't that statement play into the meme that the Democratic Party is all about "identity politics"?
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Not intended and not true
--

Drew
New I didn't think it was intended, but that's what Scott's Subject Line says.
The statement, "Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin because of black-voter suppression" pretty clearly suggests that had there not been Black voter suppression, Hillary would have won Wisconsin and thus, the Presidency. Whence, Hillary winning Wisconsin depended on the Black vote. Moreover, without that voting block, she lost.

Drum's piece more or less makes the same argument. That Hillary lost WI because not enough Blacks cast a vote. Myself, I don't know if the Democratic Party is dependent on the Black vote nationally. To be sure, Democratic candidates often carry 90% or more of the Black vote (with cause, I hasten to add), but I never really asked myself the question, "Can a Democrat win in a predominately White State without the Black vote?" It would appear that in today's America at least (and this may have always been the case after the VRA, I don't know), a Democratic candidate cannot win without Black votes. YMMV, but I think that is a very damning statement about White America.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Blacks and other minorities, women,the young, liberals, etc., are the heart of the Democratic party.
Of course any voter suppression efforts that disproportionately impact any of those groups are going to have an impact in a close election. That's why they're pushing so hard to suppress the vote of people in groups that traditionally support Democrats.

Why you're seeing this as something somehow nefarious ("it is only with the Black vote that a Democratic candidate can win") on the part of Democrats is beyond me.

Bernie would have trouble in Vermont if any Democratic-leaning voting group there was suppressed, too.

From Berman's piece in MJ that Drum cites:

You can’t say Andrea Anthony didn’t try. A 37-year-old African American woman with an infectious smile, Anthony had voted in every major election since she was 18. On November 8, 2016, she went to the Clinton Rose Senior Center, her polling site on the predominantly black north side of Milwaukee, to cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. “Voting is important to me because I know I have a little, teeny, tiny voice, but that is a way for it to be heard,” she said. “Even though it’s one vote, I feel it needs to count.”

Listen to this story:

Tell us what you think by emailing talk@motherjones.com. And for more articles read aloud: download the Audm iPhone app.
She’d lost her driver’s license a few days earlier, but she came prepared with an expired Wisconsin state ID and proof of residency. A poll worker confirmed she was registered to vote at her current address. But this was Wisconsin’s first major election that required voters—even those who were already registered—to present a current driver’s license, passport, or state or military ID to cast a ballot. Anthony couldn’t, and so she wasn’t able to vote.

The poll worker gave her a provisional ballot instead. It would be counted only if she went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a new ID and then to the city clerk’s office to confirm her vote, all within 72 hours of Election Day. But Anthony couldn’t take time off from her job as an administrative assistant at a housing management company, and she had five kids and two grandkids to look after. For the first time in her life, her vote wasn’t counted.

[...]

On election night, Anthony was shocked to see Trump carry Wisconsin by nearly 23,000 votes. The state, which ranked second in the nation in voter participation in 2008 and 2012, saw its lowest turnout since 2000. More than half the state’s decline in turnout occurred in Milwaukee, which Clinton carried by a 77-18 margin, but where almost 41,000 fewer people voted in 2016 than in 2012. Turnout fell only slightly in white middle-class areas of the city but plunged in black ones. In Anthony’s old district, where aging houses on quiet tree-lined streets are interspersed with boarded-up buildings and vacant lots, turnout dropped by 23 percent from 2012. This is where Clinton lost the state and, with it, the larger narrative about the election.


It's pretty clear that it was voter suppression that flipped the state. That's why they did it - to flip the state.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Re: nefarious.
I said that if it is true that a Democrat can't win without the Black vote, then that was damning of White people. The biggest difference between Republican voters and Democratic voters is empathy. Democrats have it, Republicans don't. If Democrats can't win without Black votes, then there are more empathy-lacking Whites than there are empathetic Whites. This deficit requires an infusion of 90% of the Black vote to overcome.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New When you say it's damning of white people ...
... does that include white people who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Goldwater Girl?
--

Drew
New Obviously not.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New No
Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin because of black-voter suppression.

It is only with the Black vote that a Democratic candidate can win.

The first says that a specific candidate did actually lose because of this factor. The second says that any candidate of a particular party must inevitably lose because of this factor.

True, Democrats generally do better with minorities than Republicans do. So a Democrat who doesn't get the minority vote - whether through personal failings or voter suppression - is likely to have a harder path. But you can say that about virtually any interest group.
--

Drew
New "Hillary" =/= "a[ny] Democratic candidate"
It was true for her, because {the GOP Reality Distortion Field / Clinton Derangement Syndrome / Cowardly "objective" "he-said, she-said" MSM / Putin's Troll Factories} had all together poisoned the ordinary whilte (esp. male) working class, who would otherwise to a much larger degree have voted Democrat, against her. But that won't necessarily succeed with the next Democratic candidate, so "Hillary lost because the Black vote was suppressed" does not at all necessarily mean "a Democratic candidate cannot win without Black votes". Pretty obvious logicsl fallacy there.
--
Christian R. Conrad
Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi

(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
     Drum at MJ - Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin because of black-voter suppression. - (Another Scott) - (15)
         I'm inferring something probably not intended. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
             Not intended and not true -NT - (drook) - (7)
                 I didn't think it was intended, but that's what Scott's Subject Line says. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                     Blacks and other minorities, women,the young, liberals, etc., are the heart of the Democratic party. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         Re: nefarious. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                             When you say it's damning of white people ... - (drook) - (1)
                                 Obviously not. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                     No - (drook)
                     "Hillary" =/= "a[ny] Democratic candidate" - (CRConrad)
         its not the law that is at issue but breakage of same - (boxley)
         interesting factoids - (boxley) - (4)
             Eleven percent of voters. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                 rob? hardly -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                     By their illegal behaviour deprive her of... Yes, Rob is the exact word. HTH. -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                         Yes and no - (drook)

Not that I'd ever eat a fish that was lured to WD-40, but hey...
101 ms