Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People keep talking about how poorly Sanders does among non-white voters, but I'd point out that Obama was also doing poorly among non-white voters until after Iowa--when it became apparent that whites were willing to vote for him.
Prior to Iowa, black voters were inclined toward the Democrat they thought could win the general election, not the black candidate--the same as with the previous five blacks who had run for president.
It might work the same way with Sanders. Young voters are not viscerally repelled by the word "socialist," and Sanders has now shown that people will vote for him.
Obama won Iowa hands down and Hillary was third place in 2008 (a huge loss so bad they thought she'd have to drop out until she was saved by a New Hampshire win). This time she barely won.
It's not the same, and Sanders is no Obama. Obama was a historic candidate. Bernie is an old white man even older than Hillary.
Rubio can count on 100% of the Hispanic vote the same way that Obama could always count on 100% of the black vote.
Racism is alive and well in this country and many people vote only this single issue.
This type of statement has always been laughable especially when white people conveniently overlook the white people who openly said they would never vote for a black man and used racial slurs to describe Obama as a candidate and even worse slurs against him and his family when he became President.
Despite blacks voting for white people for decades you only call blacks racist for voting for Obama? Ha
So I guess white people are equally racists for voting for white people??
What some seem to forget or are ignorant of is the fact New York both state and city have most always been considered "alien" territory by much of the United States. Hence that now famous comment about "New York Values".
Besides being seen as a city home to louche behavior along with crime and drugs there is the reputation of bleeding heart liberal-democratic politics including *tax and spend*. New York has the highest tax burden in the USA with both local areas and state as a whole allocating main if not a majority shares of budgets for "welfare" of the poor. The two go together. New York taxes the heck out of the middle-class and wealthy to redistribute to the "poor". Policies that play well to New York residents are an anathema to much of the rest of the USA; especially the large area of the south and mid-west.
Early in his first term Andrew Cuomo was the blue-eyed boy of the democratic party and one of the top names mentioned as possibly running in 2016. Now the party wants pretty much nothing to do with him and have labeled the guy "ABC" (Anyone But Cuomo). His father got pretty much the same treatment and thus had to settle for being a three term NYs governor.
As previously mentioned Hilary Clinton isn't from New York. For that matter neither is Bloomberg originally. Rudy G. was a bas***d who only got major love post 9/11/01 as "America's Mayor" or whatever. That glow only lasted but for so long until more filth about the man himself and his administration came to light.
Robert Kennedy was another carpetbagger dropped into NYS who attempted to run for the WH, and look what that got him.....
Maybe in a generation or so if those wild predictions of how the country is supposedly "changing" will a native New York politician again make any thing sort of a successful run for the WH, but looking around at the current offerings, I don't see it anytime soon.
What some seem to forget or are ignorant of is the fact New York both state and city have most always been considered "alien" territory by much of the United States. Hence that now famous comment about "New York Values".
Besides being seen as a city home to louche behavior along with crime and drugs there is the reputation of bleeding heart liberal-democratic politics including *tax and spend*. New York has the highest tax burden in the USA with both local areas and state as a whole allocating main if not a majority shares of budgets for "welfare" of the poor. The two go together. New York taxes the heck out of the middle-class and wealthy to redistribute to the "poor". Policies that play well to New York residents are an anathema to much of the rest of the USA; especially the large area of the south and mid-west.
On top of all you just said that the major industries in NYC aren't exactly loved by the public. Banking/Wall Street and real estate (NYC is much higher than most of the nation). Trump is a New York real estate developer, a sleazy one who went through multiple wives/girlfriends the way most change their underwear.
NYC has more in common with London than it does much of the United States. Because immigrants do all the working class jobs here, NYC Republican mayors have generally been very pro immigrant and this hurts them among voters who will turn out in Republican primaries.
Rubio can count on 100% of the Hispanic vote the same way that Obama could always count on 100% of the black vote.
Racism is alive and well in this country and many people vote only this single issue.
But I think Trump will be the GOP candidate and I also think that Hillary has the lock on the Democratic nod. In the most right wing, capitalist country on the planet, of, by and for the moneyed class, no socialist will be allowed to have his hat in the ring, so Bernie Sanders has the same chance today of being the candidate that he had a year ago: zero.
Obama did not get 100% of the Black vote during primaries. Rubio is a conservative Hispanic, he will not get 100% of the Hispanic vote. Hispanics are actually pretty diverse politically, economically, and racially. In the last few Presidential elections most Hispanics voted Democrat.
Come to think of it Ben Carson is Black and what percentage of the Black vote did he get? Almost none. Same for the pizza CEO a few years ago who was Black. He got very little support from Black people.
Just because someone is Black or Hispanic does not mean they are well liked by everyone who is Black or Hispanic and to imply that exposes your own ignorance and racism.
Obama did not get 100% of the Black vote during primaries. Rubio is a conservative Hispanic, he will not get 100% of the Hispanic vote.
Okay, I overspoke: call it 80% of the black vote for Obama and 80% of the Hispanic vote for Rubio.
Quote:
Obama has swamped Clinton among black voters in each of the 20 contests that had exit polls and large enough samples of African Americans to be meaningful. Just to put that kind of shutout in perspective, black voters represent the only demographic group that the New York senator has not carried at least once during the Democratic primary campaign. Obama now has such a lock on the loyalties of African Americans -- 84 percent of the black vote in Alabama, 87 percent in Georgia, 84 percent in Maryland, and on and on -- that the black vote is no longer contestable.
There is no reason that Rubio will not do the same with Hispanics. I know Cruz is Latino, but not Latino ENOUGH.
Last edited by Kefir King; 02-04-2016 at 07:17 AM..
Obama did not get 100% of the Black vote during primaries. Rubio is a conservative Hispanic, he will not get 100% of the Hispanic vote.
Okay, I overspoke: call it 80% of the black vote for Obama and 80% of the Hispanic vote for Rubio.
...Washington Post
As I pointed out before, notice that this did not happen with any of the previous six black candidates for the Democratic nomination. Obama was the only one who garnered any attention from black voters--and that only after he got serious attention from white voters.
I suspect that in 1960, JFK got hearty support from Irish and Catholics.
Quote:
In 1960, the Democratic vote among Protestants held up, even though Kennedy was a Catholic. What put Kennedy over the top against Richard Nixon was his soaring support among his fellow Catholics -- nearly 80 percent.
Trump finished second place in Iowa, and though this does not finish him it takes a lot away from his campaign.
The last New Yorker who ran for Republican candidate was Giuliani and his campaign got nowhere as well. Is it possible that much of the nation doesn't like NYC, ESPECIALLY those who would turn out in Republican primaries? Honestly I think Trump is done.
So far it looks like Hillary barely beat Sanders. She can win because though she repped NY she isn't from NY and had never lived here till she was Senator. And her last gig was Secretary of State.
I think it's impossible for a New York Republican to appeal to the national Republican base, even if they do say anti immigrant/offensive/racist things. They can't just appeal to the Christian conservatives who Cruz won over.
Umm, a New Yorker will be the Democratic nominee.
Trump may or may not get the GOP but there's a good chance Bloomberg runs as an independent too
This is NYC's year, which makes this thread bizarre
Trump may or may not get the GOP but there's a good chance Bloomberg runs as an independent too
This is NYC's year, which makes this thread bizarre
Hillary Clinton much like Robert Kennedy is *NOT* a native New York politician. But a carpetbagger who set up shop here because the Democratic party saw an easy senate seat for her to slip into. If Obama hadn't eaten her lunch in 2008 she would have moved house to Washington D.C. and or the Beltway long ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
