Buckeye State Blog - New Poll Shows African American Community Abandoning Democratic Party - Comments

Smile. I'm the grouch around here.

mvirenicus — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:07:54 -0700

it's probably a moot point... Because we'll never find out.

One thing I know for certain is that the average American has the attention span of a house fly. Public opinion can shift wholesale in a day or two. Yeah, right now I'd have to agree that it's not looking good for the semi-sane half of our nation. I'm not ready to write off the Dems chances yet tho.

I won't even express my opinion about what should happen between Clinton and Obama to get things moving in the right direction. Part of me says that they can continue to bloody each other until the convention and then Obama (hehehe) can take advantage of the American house fly syndrome to still pull off a general win.

Anything goes.

Well, the way things are going

Susan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:42:53 -0700

it's probably a moot point. (which of our candidates offers the greatest potential for change on international issues) Because we'll never find out.

One thing I'm 99% sure of is that I will never in my lifetime get to vote for a president I'm truly excited about.

That's awful about the rhino! Any time the war genie gets out of the bottle, there are always unintended bad consequences. Much better to avoid it altogether, but I'm afraid that goes against human nature.

No I didn't

Brody — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:36:15 -0700

No, I didn't respond to that - because I really don't think the Clinton's care about the Democratic party - you and I may disagree on that fact... but I've been on Hillary's campaign payroll before and It was never about party building (now granted it was NYS, and party building isn't as important) but couple that experience with the bills that Bill pushed that cost a lot of dem's their seat and you can see where I get my opinion from.

Only one thing matters

mvirenicus — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:19:16 -0700

We will never agree at this point on which of our candidates offers the greatest potential for change on international issues.

In the meantime, I will just glow in the humorous fact that the U.S. military claimed to have destroyed over 200 Yugoslav (Serb) tanks during the bombing of that country. Independent sources verified the killed tank count as............. EIGHT!

Oh, and a rhinocerus at the Belgrade zoo that went crazy from the bombing and killed itself by ramming its own head against a wall.

The rest of your comment is wrong, too.

modernesquire — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:07:31 -0700

You still haven't responded to the fact that the rest of your comments that the Clintons didn't care about our party losing the Congress is nonsense.

Two things

Susan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:07:31 -0700

I'm fine with his call for change, I just don't think he has enough international experience under his belt at this point to pull it off. But any Democrat will call for an end to the PNAC policy and then suffer the consequences of disentanglement. McCain won't. So we're screwed.

And secondly, we have radically different views of what happened in Yugoslavia, which I believe Obama would have supported wholeheartedly, based on his choices for foreign policy advisers.

See, we did that without name calling. :)

Pin pricks

mvirenicus — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:57:02 -0700

I hope he doesn't die thinking that

It is for this reason I've chosen to support Obama. I don't give a rip about domestic issues, as explained in a previous post, but his call for change resonates most deeply with me on the international front. I appreciate his desire for diplomatic relations without preconditions and the fact that he is not (currently) in the back pocket of AIPAC.

I view Hillary in the same light as her husband and Joe Lieberman on the international issues. I haven't forgiven Bill the bombing of Yugoslavia for reasons that also proved bogus. More of the same? I think not. Although I would expect to be proven naive even if Obama gains the WH.

so many to answer too - soooo little time :-)

Brody — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:49:05 -0700

Susan - thank you for further explanation. I can't say I agree with everything you wrote, but I can understand it. I think we are looking for two different things in our future leaders - but that's the great thing about this country.

Modernesquire - your right, I should re-read my stuff before I post, and I am aware that it was the '94 midterms when we lost congress (obviously my fingers type less accurate than my brain) - and I do find it funny that you called me misinformed - but I can deal with that because as a Hillary supporter your kind of a joke to me :-)

Now onto the discussion of the military: Every soldier has a different reason for their service - and they are all correct reasons! I have a lot i'd like to say on the subject, but i'm not going to start. Susan your son and all of his fellow service men and women are in my prayers, and my daily work will continue to benefit all veterans in ways I hope they will never need. But the military is seperate from the political leaders who direct it, and we need to differentiate from Bush and the administration and the soldiers who follow orders. I was in a car with a decorated officer during the protests the other day - and I was honestly a little frearful of my safety when several protesters began to attempt to approach the car in a less than cordial manner!

All i'm saying is - we don't have the proper level of respect for those who serve in this country - and we really need to get away from letting our political affiliation dictate our talking points about the men and women who serve this country.

Ouch

Susan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:13:55 -0700

I can't say I disagree with you. I think my son (because he's young) still clings to some belief that we the people are the government and we can turn this thing around. I hope he doesn't die thinking that.

The only reason I've stayed involved in national politics this long is because I feel it would be a betrayal of him NOT to be engaged and try to do something to change the policies he is a pawn to.

But I really don't believe we have the power to change things at that level. Our sphere of influence includes our families and friends and neighbors and we might catch a few interested bystanders along the way. We have to be actively engaged in changing our neighborhoods and our schools and our cities before we can affect our foreign policy; we can't grab the tail of a nominal movement and expect to change the world if we haven't done our homework and built our foundations. And I DON'T see large numbers of people doing the hard, slow work of engaging and making things happen, so I'm not optimistic.

You're right again

mvirenicus — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:51:10 -0700

The military is simply a tool of the government. I no longer have any respect for my government or my "fellow" citizens who long ago abdicated their responsibilities in regard to the government.

I felt a sense of duty to a country that seemed like a cohesive whole. If that was the reality at the time, I don't know. I was young. What I know now is that the country is a diseased, fragmented shambles. That's fine. The people of this country deserve nothing less. Let's just do something about our country's desire to spread the diseases elsewhere. That's my only true political motivation anymore.

Well, I'm not wrong

Susan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:39:29 -0700

about us letting our military down by not having a better handle on what our government is doing in our name.

And I have to struggle to understand the whole duty thing. It's something my son chose, even though he had a million options open to him. Maybe I taught him too well that it's good to serve others, but I'm not sure I'll ever understand why he chose this particular way.

You're wrong again

mvirenicus — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:30:50 -0700

your sense of duty to at least those you serve with is too strong

Most people in the army during my stint in the 80s were there because they had few, if any, other options. I didn't relate to most. As a matter of fact I didn't like too many of my fellow enlistees. Outside of the officer corps I'm sure the same is true today except magnified tenfold. I'd have had no problem being a New Zealander if asked to fight for this country in any conflict beginning with Gulf War 1.

Bet you wouldn't have

Susan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:17:10 -0700

deserted. While you're serving, your sense of duty to at least those you serve with is too strong. It's not about your agreement or disagreement with policy. That's up to the private citizens like us. And we've let our military down badly.

Okay

Susan — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:10:44 -0700

Well, you sort of get the quasi-evangelical thing, and it obviously doesn't apply to all Obama supporters (my husband, for instance, isn't even aware of the movement aspect, he is just sick of the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing and wants anybody different), but this video is disturbing on many levels: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU

Obama himself I liked and thought he had a great future ahead of him at one point--now I'm not so sure. Though because he's young enough, he might be able to overcome the egregious lack of judgment that got him to this point. How could he and his campaign people NOT have seen these problems coming? Were they convinced that the media's intense hatred of Hillary would shield them from any kind of scrutiny? Why didn't he wait until he had some concrete accomplishments he could run on, some establishment of credibility beyond his Chicago past, instead of his impatience and arrogance (and wife) pushing him to run now as the bright shiny new answer to all our hopes and dreams (get it now! Last chance!)? WHAT the hell were they thinking? That they could manipulate all these hopeful young voters and it would be enough to carry the day? That the other half of the party didn't matter? Now the environment is so toxic on both sides that I don't see how any Democrat wins in November. Hillary has been held up by people in her OWN party as the caricature the rightwing has made of her, and there are a lot of folks thinking right now that Obama the great uniter might mean that we have to spend the next four years fighting our neighbors and own family members over who is more racist. Who needs that?

Quite honestly...I don't like politicians. I would probably like both Hillary and Barack better if not for the slimy political operatives around them. But that's not how we do things in this country, and that's what keeps some of the truly best and brightest leaders from even running--the freak show just isn't worth it, no matter how much you love your country.

Get your history correct first

modernesquire — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:42:32 -0700

The Democrats lost control of the Congress in 1994, not 1996. Second, to say that the Clintons didn't care when we lost Congress is blatantly untrue or that they don't care now.

The Clintons worked incredibly hard to erase the the Republican majorities in Congress which grew smaller and smaller until 2006, when we were able to take back control. How many millions of dollars have the Clinton raised for the DCCC the DSCC and the DNC, even after they left the White House?

In 1996, the Clintons personally campaign and fundraised for a freshman Democratic Congressman who lost his seat in 1994. That Congressman is now our Governor. (Perhaps you should read the article I linked, and think before you write again.)

You think the Clintons have no part in the fundraising advantage those organizations have now?

There are plenty of valid reasons to criticize the Clintons, but to say that they didn't care about our party losing control of Congress, didn't care about our party when they were in office, and don't care know is the rantings of a person who has put his own candidate's future ahead of rational thinking. It is categorically false and baseless.

The fact that you don't even know what year the Republicans took over control of the Congress demonstrates how ill-informed you really are.

New Poll Shows African American Community Abandoning Democratic Party

Jerid — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:23:09 -0700

Anyone that's ever worked in politics can tell you at least one truism: the Democratic Party needs the African American community to win elections. Statistically, our party thrives off the black vote; in any given year it breaks for Democrats 85-90% of the time. Generally, African Americans are located in higher percentages close to America's urban centers. One look at the 2004 presidential county breakdown map shows you how important those urban centers, and by association, the black vote, is to our party.

Over the weekend I had a conversation with black bloggers from Jack and Jill Politics, Pam's House Blend, African American Political Pundit, and others about the longterm risks this election could spell for the Democratic Party's working coalition - our big tent. There's a fear out there among some that the racial games that we've seen over this cycle could permanently or temporarily cripple the Democratic majority. Well, today we have hard evidence that crippling blows do indeed lay at our feet.

New polling released today from Ramussen shows a Clinton-McCain matchup with Hillary only retaining 55% of the African American vote. 55%!!!! Of course in this scenario Hillary loses (big in fact, 51%-41%), because we can't win without this demographic. It's impossible. Game over.

The question here is whether this collapse for Hillary amongst the African American community is only short term, sparked over anger from the primary process - or whether these voters will indeed either sit out the presidential, or vote for John McCain. I think it's easy to wave off all this off to anger, and claim those voters will come back home. However, I think a more realistic assessment depends on how this contest continues to play out. If Clinton is the nominee, I think at this point it's hard to deny the fact that there will be a drop off in Democratic performance among the African American community for the Democratic Party in the general election. However, we have the power to mitigate this drop off from the doomsday scenario we're seeing now, with Clinton securing just 55% of their vote. The lasting impact will depend on how Hillary's campaign behaves for the remainder of this cycle, and how quickly she responds to future controversy.

And sure, the primary partisan in me wants to point to a reason for all this. Personally, I think it's hard to ignore the fact that throughout this campaign, one of the Democratic primary challengers has infused race as a bludgeoning tool far more than anyone else. Whether that involves leaking pictures of Obama as a scary black muslim, simpy claiming whites won't vote for blackies, or downplaying victories because other black dudes have won the same states, or having a race baiting biggot flame divisions from her perch on a finance committee, or, or, the list goes on. Whether you buy into all of these incidents as having strong racial overtones or not, this polling shows that blacks more than prefer Obama, they're ticked off at Clinton. As a party, if we want to win in November - regardless of whom we hope is our nominee - we have an obligation to ensure that Clinton cleans up her image in the black community. Because right now, whatever she's doing isn't sitting well with voters.