It will probably get worse if the party drifts further left.
why would that be? if they drift left the party may actually begin to fight for criminal justice reform, affordable housing, and other issues that matter to all voters, but particularly African Americans who have historically been treated poorly by law enforcement (supported, of course, by the right) and have been economically behind whites and even Hispanics.
by the way, Republicans don't get to talk about this subject. They sold African American voters down the river as soon as they could in order to embrace a new emerging voter group in the form of disenfranchised dixiecrats.
I think he means dems moving towards the bernie wing.
This is not surprising. The interests to which HRC, Obama, and much of the Democratic leadership are committed aren't really any better on issues of racial justice than they are on issues of economic justice. Consider how devastating the housing crises was for black homeowners: Where was the Democratic Party when thousands of African American families were losing their homes? Major financial interests were given higher priority than preserving the wealth of these working- and middle-class families. Why was no one held to account for this?
Anyone inclined to default to inane Clinton-Sanders fault lines should note that the priorities identified in this study - from Social Security, to criminal justice reform, to electoral reform - hew closer to those emphasized by the Sanders campaign than Clinton's corporate identitarianism.
From what I intuit, the problem with the sanders campaign for minorities was that:
1. Tone, the sanders feel is decently good at appealing to people who on some mental level were used to being the majority, normal, in power culturally, just accepted, Its hard to verbalize, but I hope you get what I mean(as well as ideologues who want to be true leftist, the kind of person that puts on a G or S avatar to show how
left they are. I was one of those people). It was rather awful, however, at appealing to groups who were culturally a minority, who have dealt with discrimination, people who feel like they're on the bottom culturally. eg in the primary, women who faced gender discrimination were
much more likely to vote for Clinton then those that hadn't.
http://bluenationreview.com/gender-discrimination-a-key-factor-in-support-for-hillary/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/11/in-6-graphs-heres-why-young-women-dont-support-hillary-clinton-as-much-as-older-women-do/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.1a799710c66cI can personally attest to this pattern, and say that as my transition has progressed, the strength of my sanders support waned. I think I only kept supporting him for a while after my transition because I had supported him before and still had the cognitive biases, the privileged, out-of-touch worldview I had didn't go away immediately, the experiences that led to me losing said worldview took time to happen, I still am quite lucky on that scale(I've been hit enough to be able to understand and picture what it feels like for people who have it on a more extreme level, I've had a few instances of sexual harassment(not many, but two or three incidents on the bus are enough to change your perspective; I don't think I would feel too safe in a group of frat guys now; that wouldn't have been the case pre-transition, I've realized that I would be judged much more harshly for the caustic sarcasm and snark I would likely display as a politician, general assertiveness, etc as a woman then as a "man), etc.
If I had transitioned a year earlier, I probably would never have supported bernie(esp considering the resistance my transition would have faced at my middle school). I wouldn't have hated him as bitterly as now at the beginning, more a "whatever" feel.
Sanders and his die-hard supporters don't get the unique struggles of african americans, of latinos, of the lgbtq+ community, etc. When they talk about it, they come off as people who endorse many of the talking points on a partisan line while not understanding them with a proper depth. They seem blind to the issues.
Clinton doesn't come off that way. The Obama wing of "the establishment" doesn't come off that way. They aren't perfect on these issues, but they seem to understand them better then the sanders wing. This idea that Clinton was this corporate bought thing, and the muh evil wallstreet owns the democrats idea is very much a bernie wing one. Clinton did talk about economic issues. In her rally's etc. The media mostly drowned everything out for donalds outrageous scandels and muh emails because that got better ratings and fit established narratives, but if you watched Clinton speak for any length of time, you would hear a lot of economic populism, albeit a form less tailored to the bernie wing of the democrats. The ads were focused on trumps character, which is so terrifying and awful that it is quite understandable to think that focusing on that was the most effective route to take(and the disturbing nature of that sh**t coming from a major presidential candidate likely created an "oh god, we need to kill this with fire" feeling.
In case I didn't make this clear, the economic message of the sanders campaign isn't effective at inspiring voters who have faced discrimination and hardship for their identity.
