MI-NBC News/Marist: Clinton+17, Trump+19

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

   I wonder if some of the disappointment on the part of Sanders people for black support of Clinton is just simply this:  blacks are disproportionately poor, compared with whites and Asians, therefore they should be a potential core constituency for the candidate who is most in favor of changing the current socio-economic system, Sanders.

I read a really interesting article about how because of the broad systemic issues AA and Latinos face, they're less likely to invest in idealism and focus on pragmatism. Why invest in a candidate who you don't think can win, let alone deliver what they promise even if they did?

Then having a bunch of (generally) privileged white people telling you what's good for you, probably doesn't go down all that well. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Damn, among Whites Sanders and Clinton are tied.

But Blacks in their silly, blind loyalty break for Clinton with over 3/4 support ...

Reported for racism.

There's nothing racist about what I said. I just find it strange that Blacks are voting so stubbornly for Hillary, a corporate enabler and millionaire - who has basically nothing in common with the average black middle-class voter or the ones even struggling harder on welfare or minimum wage. It would be better if Black voters took another look at Bernie, who'd actually have better policies for them instead of Hillary - the corporate whore.

Nearly everything you say is racist or misogynistic.

Wrong.

It is. Everytime black people come up, Sanders supporters constantly bring up welfare.

Have you ever realized how condescending it is for non-whites to be told that their interests lie in the candidate promising them the most stuff from the government?

Read again what I wrote: you make it sound as if I was talking exclusively about Blacks on welfare. But I was talking about all Blacks in general and how stubbornly they are voting Hillary. This is abnormal and can be questioned - without it being racist.

The problem is that you're so blinded by your hatred of Hillary that you don't understand WHY people would support her.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

But Blacks in their silly, blind loyalty break for Clinton with over 3/4 support ...

Even if you don't think this is racist, it's incredibly offensive. It's you a white European saying African Americans do not have the agency to make their own choices, which is rooted in racism. You may not have intended it to come out that way but it did and as a moderator you should watch the language you use.

No matter how much you guys want to put me into the "racist/sexist" corner - it doesn't work. It didn't work over the past year and it doesn't work now. Because I simply am not.

I didn't say Blacks "do not have the agency to make their own choices" (that's how you put it).

I said Blacks have an unnecessary Hillary-fetish for some reason and vote for her 85-15, which is unexplainable considering Sanders has roughly the same policies regarding Blacks and other minorities than Hillary. In that sense, Blacks are virtually discriminating Bernie with their silly pro-Hillary voting, which she earns by no means. Much like the stupid superdelegates, who are also lining up behind her for no obvious reason ...

Again... just because you refuse to understand Hillary's appeal, that doesn't mean you need to criticise the voting patterns of a race of people. And "Blacks are virtually discriminating Bernie"? Jesus Christ, man. Poor Bernie for voting how they want.

The debate showed me in clear focus, that Bernie understands a lot less about racial issues than I realised before. Bernie is trying to get people to make a huge leap of faith, I think the commentary about the lack of PoC to invest in Bernie's narrow agenda is increasingly valid.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

But Blacks in their silly, blind loyalty break for Clinton with over 3/4 support ...

Even if you don't think this is racist, it's incredibly offensive. It's you a white European saying African Americans do not have the agency to make their own choices, which is rooted in racism. You may not have intended it to come out that way but it did and as a moderator you should watch the language you use.

No matter how much you guys want to put me into the "racist/sexist" corner - it doesn't work. It didn't work over the past year and it doesn't work now. Because I simply am not.

I didn't say Blacks "do not have the agency to make their own choices" (that's how you put it).

I said Blacks have an unnecessary Hillary-fetish for some reason and vote for her 85-15, which is unexplainable considering Sanders has roughly the same policies regarding Blacks and other minorities than Hillary. In that sense, Blacks are virtually discriminating Bernie with their silly pro-Hillary voting, which she earns by no means. Much like the stupid superdelegates, who are also lining up behind her for no obvious reason ...

Again... just because you refuse to understand Hillary's appeal, that doesn't mean you need to criticise the voting patterns of a race of people. And "Blacks are virtually discriminating Bernie"? Jesus Christ, man. Poor Bernie for voting how they want.

The debate showed me in clear focus, that Bernie understands a lot less about racial issues than I realised before. Bernie is trying to get people to make a huge leap of faith, I think the commentary about the lack of PoC to invest in Bernie's narrow agenda is increasingly valid.

A) Plz tell me in full detail what Hillary's "appeal" is (that warrants her getting 85% of Blacks).

B) Since when are Superdelegates (of which she gets 96%) a "race of people" ?

a) I don't speak for black people, nor would presume to understand what drives them to vote the way they do. Maybe ask why Sanders isn't connecting with them, instead of what seems to you is them not understanding what's good for them? Clinton has a much longer record with the AA community (actually longer than her husband), is closely tied to Obama... etc. That's my guess, but again, I don't presume to speak for all African Americans.

b) You won't find any disagreements with me about super-delegates. They and caucuses should be done away with. But Superdelegates support the candidate they think has the best chance of winning the General. Hillary had most of them in 2008 (although Obama did a lot better than Sanders), then when things changed, two-thirds of them got behind Obama by the end. The Superdelegates know what would happen if they decided the race.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It could also be that these people know politics and realise that the lack of attention and fire on Sanders is likely artificially boosting his GE numbers (that and GE numbers are pointless at this point in the face while emotions are high).

Which is why I'm not taking any GE polls seriously until the nominees are basically decided.

Whether or not you like how they're voting, or understand it. But that's not the point, blind loyalty or not, it's what's happening in the same way that you're blind to her appeal (really to anyone, from what I gather).